Making Egypt/Middle East more attractive for Axis

[Kragdob]

I know this is another 'effectiveness penalty' but yet I think this might be an interesting option. It does not change anything if you look at current strategy called 'it is not worth going for Egypt' but could add some incentive for Germans to go there and weaken UK for some time.

For starter maybe -5% of effectiveness for UK when Cairo falls and another -5% effectiveness when Suez falls. This is not huge but some incentive for both Players to consider it. On top another -5% could be added for Baghdad and Basra which totaled together could add to-20% if Axis Player executed Middle East strategy.

What do you think?

[zechi]

I see a problem here, because if the Axis will go for Sealion and the Middle East, the British will suffer a morale penalty of -60 % until Soviets and US enter the war. This would ruin the game for the Allied player for about a year of playing time.

I'm also not a big fan of morale penalties, at least if they are permanent. I don't think they are historical. The soldiers of defeated nations like the Polish or Free French did not had any morale issues. In fact they were very eager to liberate their countries and had good morale. They often lacked equipment and manpower, but did not had any morale issues.

Nevertheless, I agree that the Axis should have an interest in invading Egypt. Mussolini was eager to forge a new "Roman Empire" and it was one of his declared goals to take Egypt from the British and expand the colonial empire. There is no way the Italian Government would have decided to evacuate Libya in WW2. It is even unlikely that the Italians would have build a defensive position around Tobruk and not attacked into Egypt.

[Kragdob]

Nevertheless, I agree that the Axis should have an interest in invading Egypt. Mussolini was eager to forge a new "Roman Empire" and it was one of his declared goals to take Egypt from the British and expand the colonial empire. There is no way the Italian Government would have decided to evacuate Libya in WW2. It is even unlikely that the Italians would have build a defensive position around Tobruk and not attacked into Egypt.

So maybe not -5% but +5% for Italians? Conquering Egypt would be a boost Italian to real soldiers and may be an option for Germany to invest some resources to have additional good quality reinforcements?

[Diplomaticus]

Nevertheless, I agree that the Axis should have an interest in invading Egypt. Mussolini was eager to forge a new "Roman Empire" and it was one of his declared goals to take Egypt from the British and expand the colonial empire. There is no way the Italian Government would have decided to evacuate Libya in WW2. It is even unlikely that the Italians would have build a defensive position around Tobruk and not attacked into Egypt.

So maybe not -5% but +5% for Italians? Conquering Egypt would be a boost Italian to real soldiers and may be an option for Germany to invest some resources to have additional good quality reinforcements?

I'm not enough of a student of history to know the details of the strategic thinking behind Axis actions in North Africa. What, precisely, did they hope to gain in attacking Egypt? Once the Italian invasion had flopped, Rommel didn't content himself with throwing the Brits out of Tobruk--he went hell-bent-for-leather at Egypt. Why? Was it, in the grand scheme of things a stupid choice? If so, the game's current situation where so many players eschew the North Africa option properly reflects the game's design: we should not be compelled to repeat history if we see a better way. If, however, there were sound reasons for the Axis offensives in NA; if, in fact, a successful Axis conquest of Egypt & Iraq (unlike in CEAW) actually would have benefited the Axis powers in terms of the overall strategic situation, then we need to change some things. That might involve making some nice, juicy objectives in the Middle East (e.g. maybe the potential threat to India forces the UK to deploy forces off board?)

If our more historically savvy people conclude that really the Axis made a bad choice to ever engage in any major way in North Africa, then we face a dilemma. Do we insert incentives for the Axis to deploy in NA just to improve the dynamism of the game?

[zechi]

I'm not enough of a student of history to know the details of the strategic thinking behind Axis actions in North Africa. What, precisely, did they hope to gain in attacking Egypt?

The Italians hoped to expand its colonial empire. After the defeat of France the British Empire was weakened. In Egypt the Italians outnumbered the British 5:1 and it looked like an easy capture. However, the British defeated the Italian invasion in Operation Compass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass) and managed to destroy most of the Italian invasion Army.

After this early defeat the Italians asked the Germans for help. The initial goal of the German was only to stabilise the front in North Africa (Operation Sonnenblume). Otherwise the British could have overrun the Italians in Lybia. If Lybia would have been lost, Mussolini would have lost support or even forced to resign. This would have been bad for the Germans, as Mussolini has been a close ally and a new government could try to get out of the war. As the Germans not only succeeded to stabilise the front, but also pushed the British out of Lybia, this was a good strategical decision as otherwise Italy could have been out of the war much earlier.

As war continued the Germans invested more and more forces into North Africa. After Rommel managed to retake Tobruk and got into Egypt threatening Alexandria the Germans hoped to capture the Suez channel. The long-term strategy imagined by Hitler and some Generals was that the Afrika Korps would rout the British completely from the Middle East and then the Axis African Army would even be able to attack the Caucasus from the south, linking up with the Armies going for Stalingrad and the Caucasus from the North (Fall Blau). However, this was more or less a fantasy as the resources for such a big push were not really available.

The commitment of more and more forces into North Africa was a mistake as the Allies were stronger in the end. However, the biggest mistake was to try to hold Tunis at all cost. This led to a similar decisive defeat as Stalingrad for the Axis.

Therefore, the initial investment of engaging Britain in Egypt/Lybia was not a mistake. However, the later decision were mistakes.

[PionUrpo]

I'm not enough of a student of history to know the details of the strategic thinking behind Axis actions in North Africa. What, precisely, did they hope to gain in attacking Egypt? Once the Italian invasion had flopped, Rommel didn't content himself with throwing the Brits out of Tobruk--he went hell-bent-for-leather at Egypt. Why? Was it, in the grand scheme of things a stupid choice? If so, the game's current situation where so many players eschew the North Africa option properly reflects the game's design: we should not be compelled to repeat history if we see a better way. If, however, there were sound reasons for the Axis offensives in NA; if, in fact, a successful Axis conquest of Egypt & Iraq (unlike in CEAW) actually would have benefited the Axis powers in terms of the overall strategic situation, then we need to change some things. That might involve making some nice, juicy objectives in the Middle East (e.g. maybe the potential threat to India forces the UK to deploy forces off board?)

If our more historically savvy people conclude that really the Axis made a bad choice to ever engage in any major way in North Africa, then we face a dilemma. Do we insert incentives for the Axis to deploy in NA just to improve the dynamism of the game?

In grand scheme of things IF Mussolini had decided to say "we're out of Libya so that our German buddies can do whatever they want" it would've ended with him either deposed or assasinated by other Fascist bigwigs. After all, how would Italians see selling their 'Empire' to German interests? They didn't join the war to be Hitlers lapdogs (although they ended up as such), they joined because they felt there was something to be gained. When they lost their '4th shore' to the British I'd say that affected the Italian populus' will to fight quite a bit, (how much because the lost land and how much because all the lost men, that's harder to say), and they weren't that enthusiastic to begin with. E.g Invasion of Greece and Egypt were feeble to say the least, even the defense of Sicily was quite feeble, apart from the German units, despite it was Italian ancestral land. How would the Italian people take it if they packed and left Libya in 1940 without firing a shot?

I realise that this isn't a political game and that avoiding certain 'stupid' decisions should be possible but if all the stupid decisions can be skipped (esp. without concequense), it's no longer a WW2 game, it's Europe Sep 1939 - May 1945 sandbox game.

I somewhat agree with zechi that even staying on the defensive at Tobruk would be streching the plausibility considering the Italian war aims. However, as the game is now, pushing to Gattara would most likely result in losing the army to landings behind the lines. Trying to represent North African Theater simultaneously with Ostfront, Battle of the Atlantic, Strategic Bombing Campaign and Western Front is quite hard. IMO the North African fighting is the 'worst' right now as in reality it was highly mobile with offensives going several times, and both ways, from El Agheila to Eqypt. I'd be happy with the 1940-41-Evac-Everything -strategy getting a few cons instead of all pro so that there's some fighting in Libya.

(I'm still not opposed to having some effect for Suez/Mideast... although I don't think they were feasible objectives in reality, in-game they'd give some incentive for the effort spent, even if Axis player can get 'all the way' to the oilfields. Actually I somewhat like Kragdob's idea. Italians were very unenthusiastic about the war in the first place (although their problems had ALOT to do with other things). If they by some miracle had gotten to Eqypt I could see their overall willingness to fight, so to speak, go up.)

[Diplomaticus]

Thanks for your responses, guys, that helps to clarify things.

Based on the above, it would seem that a) it's reasonable to impose some kind of 'political' (i.e. morale/effectiveness) consequence for the loss of Libya, and b) it sounds like players are being smarter than the Axis were in history in deciding that it's better in many cases to skip North Africa.

As players of a game, I think we all like there to be at least a decent chance of repeating the kind of excitement created by Operation Torch, the adventures of the Desert Fox, etc. It would be nice to emerge with a truly elegant solution that would help to get us there.

Right now what we're voting on is a purely negative incentive--defend Libya or else face a morale penalty that renders the whole Italian army quite weak. I'd like to see us add some kind of positive incentive--something for Axis to strive for in Africa/Middle East, other than avoiding a penalty.

I'm afraid my many posts on this topic in this and other threads may have annoyed some. Borger, for one, sounded a bit exasperated, and I apologize for my sometimes overly pushy wording. I was arguing against the Italian morale penalty because it's still my sense that the game is very, very tough for the Axis, and I saw us seriously considering a change that would make life still harder for Axis, and my basic reaction was "Oh no!" Again, I apologize if my concern over this led me to express myself poorly.

[JimR]

I think one idea could be considered: if Axis forces capture the Suez Canal prior to the US DoW, Britain's southern convoy should be reduced or eliminated to reflect the diversion of Empire/Commonwealth resources that would be needed to defend the approaches to India.

The southern convoy would be revived on US entry, because after the US DoW the southern convoy's destination becomes the US not Britain (to reflect American production).

This would be a small change and it might not amount to much. Still, it would be a way to reflect the importance that Britain put on Egypt and the Suez Canal as forward bases for the defense of the Middle East and India.

[rkr1958]

b) it sounds like players are being smarter than the Axis were in history in deciding that it's better in many cases to skip North Africa.

Based the reference, quote and figure below, the Fascists Italians had political plans for Libya and those included incorporation of Libya and Tunisia into "Greater Italy". Shouldn't there be some incentive for the axis player to try to meet this historical plans and / or consequences if they don't even try?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Libya

After the enlargement of Italian Libya with the Aouzou Strip, fascist Italy aimed at further extension to the south.

Indeed Italian plans, in the case of a war against France and Great Britain, projected the extension of Libya as far south as Lake Chad and the establishment of a broad land bridge between Libya and Italian East Africa.[21]

Reference: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... Italia.jpg

[Morris]

I think one idea could be considered: if Axis forces capture the Suez Canal prior to the US DoW, Britain's southern convoy should be reduced or eliminated to reflect the diversion of Empire/Commonwealth resources that would be needed to defend the approaches to India.

The southern convoy would be revived on US entry, because after the US DoW the southern convoy's destination becomes the US not Britain (to reflect American production).

This would be a small change and it might not amount to much. Still, it would be a way to reflect the importance that Britain put on Egypt and the Suez Canal as forward bases for the defense of the Middle East and India.

Good idea. But Actually the southern convoy will go across the Cape of good hope . It will only take more time .