Thoughts on the close the Med strategy

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:55 pm

In some 10 games I've tried to take Spain, Gibralter, Suez, Iraq and Iran I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to stop the Axis from a successful completion of this strategy but that it can be slowed and made more expensive by the Allies to the detriment of the end game.

Of these 10 attempts I've always managed to get all the goals except one game where Schwerpunkt drove me out of Iran. Since then I've always deployed two German FJR to land in Tabriz and Bandar Pahlavi. Once esconced there it is very difficult for the Russians to dislodge these troops. Normally I rail them away except for a skeleton crew to use the quality units to defend in the end game.

In employing this strategy it is very simple to carry out if the French have evacuated the NA ports. But, even when they remain I have always managed to capture them and activate Spain as an ally.

Against the Russians I have tried a purely defensive strategy 5 times and launching a 42 Barbarossa 5 times. The defensive strategy has worked 2x and failed 3x. The offensive strategy has been very successful. I am usually able to get to Rostov, Kursk and Smolensk by launching in May with high tech units supplied by oil from Iran and Iraq. In several games I have gone all the way to Omsk. In others I am gradually driven westward but hold out easily til 45. The key is when the Brits and Amis run out of fuel so that they are unable to launch a massive Overlord to distract quality troops from the eastern Front.

Does anyone else have comparable or different experiences?

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:57 pm

I should also add that there is a high rate of allied players dropping out shortly after the capture of Iran. Not sure why this is. Didn't count those games.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:25 pm

Sounds Like GARs need to be added to Tabriz and Bandar Pahlavi to give the russians a chance to reinforce those cities, given that holding one of them is critical to the russian-allied future. My success against you was primarily because I was able to bring significant forces through those two cities. If my forces had needed to dig paras out of those two cities, the delay would have been very significant in recapturing the Persian oilfields (which are the only ones that the allies get back).

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:55 pm

Maybe only 1 in Bandar Pahlavi. They only need one to hold. That would give a fighting chance for both sides. 2 GARs would make it near impossible as the Axis has to go for Tehran anyway. It takes a pretty major Axis commitment to take and hold Iran in the first place which negates their Barbarossa to a degree so we don't want to make it impossible, IMHO. It is actually pretty difficult to get to FJR within range and up to sufficient pts to launch.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:42 am

We removed the Persian garrisons earlier because it became common practise for the Allies to move them across the border to Russia and use them as cannon fodder.

Is this a problem because the Axis player knows that if he doesn't attack Russia in 1941 then he can take out Persia whenever he wants to? Then maybe we need to address that instead.

Persia is supposed to activate when Axis units are in Iraq. Maybe we should add some code that will spawn Persian garrisons in all their cities when this happens. That means Persian will not get extra garrisons when they activate because USSR is DoW'ed. In that circumstance Persia will only have a garrisoni n Tehran and Ahwaz. If the Axis enter Iraq then Persia will get a garrison in Rasht, Tabriz and Esfahan as well (Persian mobilization).

Maybe this is a good solution? I can implement that change without having to change the scenarios. I just need to change game.class.

Germany needs to take out the Persian oilfields and that seems to be possible even if Persia spawns extra units by having Axis units in Iraq.

Can you please vote yes/no for this change?

1. Persia will spawn a garrison in each Persian city when they activate because an Axis unit entered Iraq.

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:29 am

vote yes on change

afk_nero · Post by **afk_nero** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:28 am

I am happy with the change - so yes

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:26 pm

agree...

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:52 pm

The fact is that I have serious doubts about the real germans and italians being able to launch an "Axis Torch" operation. This is only a game and it is possible to do it but it would have been very difficult in WW2 to achieve such a result. Sardinia and Sicily could be good platforms for an axis landing operations in Tunis but what to say about Argel and Oran? Supply problems would be horrendous for the axis to make such a campaign.

Anyway, we must remember that this is a game so this campaign is possible to do. So if we want to make this campaign a little bit harder for the axis I would put a french garrison in Mareth fortress and other one in Casablanca. Then it is up to the allied player to send these units to France.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:39 am

my vote is yes

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:48 pm

I agree with Leridano that it would be difficult for a combined German Italian North African campaign to be successful - particularly for the Italians to play such an important role at the beginning of their activation. That said, it is no more unrealistic than a German Sea Lion in 1940 and probably less so. In both cases these strategies are initially successful for the Allies but unless played really well lead to destruction in the long run against the Russians. I think having these alternative realities possible makes the game much more interesting and unpredictable - the goal I think is to make them difficult but not impossible.

ncali · Post by **ncali** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:20 pm

I don't really have an opinion on this.

But one thing that occurred to me is that perhaps paratroops should have some supply costs for the Axis if operating in North Africa.

Additionally, perhaps the cost of a paratroop jump should increase depending on the Axis supply level. In other words, a jump from England to France would be "cheaper" for the Allies (at supply level 5) than a jump in the Middle East for the Axis (at supply level 3).

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:58 am

ncali wrote: But one thing that occurred to me is that perhaps paratroops should have some supply costs for the Axis if operating in North Africa.

Additionally, perhaps the cost of a paratroop jump should increase depending on the Axis supply level. In other words, a jump from England to France would be "cheaper" for the Allies (at supply level 5) than a jump in the Middle East for the Axis (at supply level 3).

I dont see a need or benefit to adding such a rule. Supply levels already have some impact in that it takes more time to get the paras to 70% efficiency so that they can jump. Paradrops in North Africa are very rare.

AlAzraq · Post by **AlAzraq** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:01 am

Yes - it is very tough to get a para unit up to 70% to drop into Persia. With the new rules these cities will be occupied so it is even less of an issue.

Blunder · Post by **Blunder** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:52 am

Currently being at the receiving end of FJs having taken Persian cities from the air
I am strongly in favour of the proposed change (spawning Persian garrisons when
Axis enters Iraq).

ncali · Post by **ncali** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:25 pm

schwerpunkt wrote:I dont see a need or benefit to adding such a rule. Supply levels already have some impact in that it takes more time to get the paras to 70% efficiency so that they can jump. Paradrops in North Africa are very rare.

My thought is that it would not just be additional time to prepare (as now), but there would be additional fuel and PP cost in assembling the transports to make the jump. This would also be the case in other far-flung battles.