Should there be a GAR in Casablanca?

[Schnurri]

I'm thinking we should put a GAR in Casablanca - in several games I've sent a GAR by transport around the North Sea and down to Casablanca. He was discovered 2x but made it all the way 5x - combined with French desertion of the NA ports and aggressive play with the French fleets, it makes it pretty easy to take all the ports and activate the Spanish as Allies. It is their own fault if they desert the ports but makes it too easy with an unoccupied Casablanca. Even when the transport was discovered it was fairly simple to take Casablanca if the other ports are abandoned - but that is the Allied players fault.

[rkr1958]

I'm thinking we should put a GAR in Casablanca - in several games I've sent a GAR by transport around the North Sea and down to Casablanca. He was discovered 2x but made it all the way 5x - combined with French desertion of the NA ports and aggressive play with the French fleets, it makes it pretty easy to take all the ports and activate the Spanish as Allies. It is their own fault if they desert the ports but makes it too easy with an unoccupied Casablanca. Even when the transport was discovered it was fairly simple to take Casablanca if the other ports are abandoned - but that is the Allied players fault.

I assume you're not talking about Vichy France since they do have a garrison there. Is it correct to assume you're talking about Casablanca prior to the fall of France or after the rejection of the French armistice by the axis. In either case, how on earth does the RN & French navies allow the axis to move an invasion transport from northern France, Holland or Germany through the Atlantic to Casablanca?

[JimR]

Sounds to me that if the Axis can do this, it is the Allied player's problem for being negligent.

[Schnurri]

This is prior to Fall of France and you reject the armistice, capture all the North African ports and once Paris falls the Spanish ally with the Axis.

It isn't that difficult to get the transport there unless the Allies are watching for it. In 7 games I made it 5x and was sunk 2x.

[richardsd]

The RN is not that strong at the start of the War, if you go sailing about there is a very good chance you will lose a unit a turn to Uboats.

[metolius]

I think that this is completely reasonable, if the French essentially abandon Africa, and particularly Morocco. That is just the sort of thing that might have gotten the Spanish interested in joining in the spoils of war.

[schwerpunkt]

I guess the issue here is that the French dont start with a GAR in Casablanca so its up to the brits to get someone in there. Personally, I think a GAR should start there - I was one of the ones that did manage to sink the German transport

[rkr1958]

I guess it's possible for a transport to slip by my RN and French Atlantic fleets prior to the fall of France but that would really be daring. I generally use them to escort the central convoys.

[Plaid]

Its quite easy for transport to get into african coast during bad weather season, I guess (like it happened in our current game). And if transport will be protected by uboats, you can lose something like BB in exchange of GAR transport, which is also good for axis.
Also I noted transport when it was near African shores, but didn't sent navy to destroy it, because if my navy leave MED italy will activate instantly. (and in fact i didn't know that spain will join axis if they occupy all this place, thought that Algeria will be axis and nothing more )

I don't think that its any problem with GAR in Casablanca, because even if axis get the city, it change nothing - they need to capture all of french africa.

So I think its not good plan to ship this GARs from africa at start of the game - you get few PP (15-8)x2 and huge risks.

Fact is that now, when I know Spanish activation rule, I am not sure how to stop it with allies. Seems like when axis put enough effort into it, french africa will fall anyway and spain will join axis, then they conquer Gibraltar and with ~unlimited african supply go for Egypt and middle east.

It seems to me that making Spain axis via french conquest is much more easy then direct conquest of Spain (which we seen before gs 2.0 time to time)

[rkr1958]

This seems all the more reason that the allied player needs to be careful not to to lose the French navy and the French airforce. And, not to launch sucicde attacks with French units.

I now evcaute the French airforce to the UK when it gets down to 4-steps or below and use the French navy in the Med to patrol and protect North Africa. I also use the French BB in the Atlantic to join in with the RN to partol the central Atlantic and protect convoys there. I no longer throw the French navy away like I use to but preseve it (along with the French airforce) as a deterrent to the axis rejection of the armistice.

The threat of Spanish activation seems to add much more historical realism on how I now play the French. I see this as a good thing.

[schwerpunkt]

Its quite easy for transport to get into african coast during bad weather season, I guess (like it happened in our current game). And if transport will be protected by uboats, you can lose something like BB in exchange of GAR transport, which is also good for axis.
Also I noted transport when it was near African shores, but didn't sent navy to destroy it, because if my navy leave MED italy will activate instantly. (and in fact i didn't know that spain will join axis if they occupy all this place, thought that Algeria will be axis and nothing more )

I don't think that its any problem with GAR in Casablanca, because even if axis get the city, it change nothing - they need to capture all of french africa.

So I think its not good plan to ship this GARs from africa at start of the game - you get few PP (15-8)x2 and huge risks.

Fact is that now, when I know Spanish activation rule, I am not sure how to stop it with allies. Seems like when axis put enough effort into it, french africa will fall anyway and spain will join axis, then they conquer Gibraltar and with ~unlimited african supply go for Egypt and middle east.

It seems to me that making Spain axis via french conquest is much more easy then direct conquest of Spain (which we seen before gs 2.0 time to time)

I'm inclined to agree. I think we need to monitor this as a determined axis assault on North Africa is impossible to stop if the axis player also threatens Britain with Sea Lion. Keeping the french NA GARs in place does slow things appreciably so it is probably worth not shipping them out of NA.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are several things the British can do to counter this.

One is to send the French and British subs to Casablanca to block access to the port. German transport can then be attacked. German subs can't attack the Allied subs.

Another is to sail garrisons and/or corps/mech units from Canada to Casablanca.

If Sealion comes in force I guess this means Paris fell early and then the Germans won't be able to attack North Africa in force. The British can send a unit from Egypt or Britain itself towards Casablanca.

If the Germans land in Tunis with several units and move towards Casablanca via Algiers and Oran it means they might get the city eventually. OK, Spain joins the Axis, but then what?

The Allies have gained 2 French BB's, 1 French DD, 1 French sub, maybe 1 French fighter and probably some land units that evacuated. In 1942 and later the Allies might consider landing the invasion in Spain instead of France. It's further from Germany so rail movement might take awhile. If the Allies and in western Morocco they might clear north Africa so they have airbases to support a landing in southern Spain, a landing that will liberate Gibraltar.

If the Axis spend too much effort in the west and Med it means that Russia is allowed to become quite powerful. The war is lost or won in Russia. If you fail to subdue the Russians in 1941-1942 then the Russian steamroller will get to Berlin before 1945.

I actually think it's good that the Axis has a chance to get Spain if the reject the French armistice offer. It means you have SOME reason to reject the offer. Most Axis players who tried to reject the offer paid dearly afterwards. If you reject the offer to go after North Africa, maybe combined with Sealion, then it might finally pay off. That's good because we have a new strategic option for the Axis player.

If rejecting the French Armistice offer was definitely superior to accepting THEN we would have an issue at our hand. So far I don't think we have that.

[gerones]

Apart from to give the axis player more options, I think that one of the good things that have brought this new rule is, as Ronnie has pointed, that now it has changed old allied strategy regarding to french forces. I mean that now allied player thinks twice what to do with his frech units since to "sacrifice" them is not longer an option. So I think that the problem here is that people was used to see french units as "suicide" units and that was not very historical. This new rule will result in more and more allied players keeping their french garrisons in NA (as it happened in the real war) so the only french garrison that would make sense to mobilize will be Damascus garrison. Now even Ajaccio garrison has an important strategic role since in case of a rejected armistice it would have to land there to seize Corsica island.

As a consequence of this, less garrisons transported to mainland France will result in a weaker french defense and this will result in more historical Fall of France dates.

[Plaid]

I think problem is that whether or not axis route France->Spain->Gibraltar->Middle East +Sealion-> 1942 Barbarossa all ready victory blueprint or game still will have its normal challenge.
Because if axis player act in described sequence allies will not be able to do almost anything before USSR and USA join.
This statement demands testing before we decide to fix anything.