What should The Germans do in North Africa & Greece? if anything?

[Marshall Thomas]

When playing as The Germans, is sending troops to North Africa (as Germany did historically) worth it? Especially if you're starting to prepare for Barbarosa?

When playing as The Germans, is sending troops to fight Greece (as Germany did historically) worth it?

In both cases, what are some good tips for dealing with supply problems? My biggest problem is that I can't send convoys from north German ports because The British own the Gibralta strait. With my towns (in North Africa and Albania) only having between 5 and 10 supply, I can't move far from them. Thanks in advance for any help

by the way: I think that the whole supply system for WW2:ToW is the best I've ever seen in any game I've ever played. It creates realistic, complicated situations -without having too many complicated rules. Well done!

[Marshall Thomas]

delete

[Razz1]

I do.
I also take control Italy and do not DOW (declaration of War) Greece as the peanlty is too high.

The Italians always need help.

You get an option to send a armor corps. I usually have one unit down there by then, if not I send one down.

The movement through Africa is real slow so I send a armor or motor. I also send 1 or 2 Italian armor.

Before Barbarossa I have Germany DOW Yugo and Greece. I divide the spoils between Italy Romania and me.

Send a Convoy using a Italian port. Your supplies will go over land load on ship and deliver to Africa Unless they get intercepted in the Medetrainan.

Also you will need to take Malta.

[Marshall Thomas]

After I sent almost all of my armor (and a lot of infantry as well) to North Africa and sent convoys from from Italian ports to Tobruk (later Alexandria), I quickly pushed back the British. I've already taken Alexandria and Cairo; and I'm about to take Jeruselem, although I don't know if there's any real point in doing so. After I take Jeruselem, my large North African army will be in position to conquer Iraq (who Germany starts the campaign at war with); though again, I don't know if it's worth it. Is it worth it?

It's now May, 1941. I'm wondering what to do about Barbarrosa. The Soviets have a huge army; lots of them corp units.

On the other hand, my army is much smaller and most of it (and almost all it's armor) is by The Nile/Suez canal. I know that I can use sea transportation and strategic movement to get it back to East Germany; but I can't do it overnight. Also, because of all the wars I've been fighting with Yugoslavia, Greece and The British in North Africa -several of my units have been weakened and I'll have to spend lots of production points to make them able to fight The Soviets.

Considering that it's mid-May 1941, I'd have to attack Russia by July at the latest if I attack in 1941. Under these circumstances, is attacking Russia in April of 1942 a better idea? Thanks in advance

[htuna]

I think in my first game (which I'm still on Russia attacks me in the winter of 42)

[Maximeba]

Marshall,
If you are playing against another opponent, Africa is a lost cause. Cairo is a main source of supply for the British. This means Britain never has to send supplies and troop can be constructed in any British control city in Africa.
As soon as the allies take Tobruk, they should have the British subs in raider mode in the central Med. And watch unsupplied Axis troops be vanquished by Monty.

[Marshall Thomas]

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

Marshall,
If you are playing against another opponent, Africa is a lost cause. Cairo is a main source of supply for the British. This means Britain never has to send supplies and troop can be constructed in any British control city in Africa.
As soon as the allies take Tobruk, they should have the British subs in raider mode in the central Med. And watch unsupplied Axis troops be vanquished by Monty.

For some reason, my convoys from Italian and Greek ports to Tripoli were not attacked. I didn't have any ships in the Med. because my ships can't pass the British-owned Gibraltar straits. At first I had serious supply problems in both Greece and Africa. All of my Greek problems went away when I made an amphibious landing with a single infantry corp unit one hex away from Athens. On the same turn they landed, they destroyed the Greek unit in Athens; on the next turn, my unit moved into the now empty city of Athens and Greece surrendered.

For Africa, I'd use strategic movement (trains?) to move units from Germany to Italian ports; then I'd sea transport them to Tripoli. Then I'd use strategic movement to move them from Tripoli to Bengazi. I don't know why The British didn't attack either my troops in transports on their way to Tripoli; or why they didn't raid my desperately needed convoys comming from Italy and Greece to North African ports. Once I had almost all of my armour (and lots of infantry) in Africa (and in supply of a 30 supply city), victory against The British was very fast. With so much of my army and airforce in North Africa, I'd would have been in a very bad situation if The Soviets had attacked or even if The British would have invaded across The Channel.

Now my questions is:
- is there any good reason to stay and take Jeruselum and/or Iraq? Iraq doesn't seem to have that many good production cities or resourses that make it worth conquering. If I knew for sure that The Soviets wouldn't attack anytime soon, then I guess I might as well conquer Iraq; I'm already in position and it wouldn't take long at all. But every turn my huge North African Army spends in Iraq, it could be moving back to eastern Germany in preparation for an attack from (or on) Russia. Also I'm playing on "hard" difficulty and I've spent most of my weekly production points on bringing under-strenghed units back to full. I've lost very few units in my wars so far, but I've also hardly bought any new units at all -since I was re-strenghening understrenghed units and investing in technology. The Soviet Army is huge and it's full of corp units. Thanks in advance for any advice.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Thomas

Now my questions is:
- is there any good reason to stay and take Jeruselum and/or Iraq? Iraq doesn't seem to have that many good production cities or resourses that make it worth conquering. If I knew for sure that The Soviets wouldn't attack anytime soon, then I guess I might as well conquer Iraq; I'm already in position and it wouldn't take long at all. But every turn my huge North African Army spends in Iraq, it could be moving back to eastern Germany in preparation for an attack from (or on) Russia. Also I'm playing on "hard" difficulty and I've spent most of my weekly production points on bringing under-strenghed units back to full. I've lost very few units in my wars so far, but I've also hardly bought any new units at all -since I was re-strenghening understrenghed units and investing in technology. The Soviet Army is huge and it's full of corp units. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Irak was strategically important because there was oil, I do not know if it is represented in the game. The british did occupy Irak in WW2 because the government was a little too much proaxis to their taste, they could not take any chance.

[Razz1]

If you moved all your Armor to Africa.... you will have to attack and take Turkey.

It's too expensive to send them back to Europe.

[Maximeba]

For some reason, my convoys from Italian and Greek ports to Tripoli were not attacked. I didn't have any ships in the Med. because my ships can't pass the British-owned Gibraltar straits. At first I had serious supply problems in both Greece and Africa. All of my Greek problems went away when I made an amphibious landing with a single infantry corp unit one hex away from Athens. On the same turn they landed, they destroyed the Greek unit in Athens; on the next turn, my unit moved into the now empty city of Athens and Greece surrendered.

Marshall,
Ships may move from port to port that are in the same sea zone without fear of interdiction. Second you have all sorts of ships in the Med. it's called the Italian navy. Thirdly on supply, a unit must be able to trace overland back to a main source of supply. If a unit can not do this, supply would have to come thru a port such as Athens. If you have no port available you would have to build a mulberry to keep units in supply.

For Africa, I'd use strategic movement (trains?) to move units from Germany to Italian ports; then I'd sea transport them to Tripoli. Then I'd use strategic movement to move them from Tripoli to Bengazi. I don't know why The British didn't attack either my troops in transports on their way to Tripoli; or why they didn't raid my desperately needed convoys comming from Italy and Greece to North African ports. Once I had almost all of my armour (and lots of infantry) in Africa (and in supply of a 30 supply city), victory against The British was very fast. With so much of my army and airforce in North Africa, I'd would have been in a very bad situation if The Soviets had attacked or even if The British would have invaded across The Channel.

Marshall,
I'm assuming you are playing AI, believe me if you were playing against someone you would not take Africa. Saying this, AI sometimes does strange things and I don't know why the British would not attack. Also I believe you are correct, the British should use thier subs in raider mode in the Central Med. I do this every time against the Italian very successfully.

[Texashorns]

Other strategic options:

When you take Yugoslavia, make sure germany gets port on Adriatic. You can then use German transports to move supply and troops.

I take Greece with combination of Italians and Germans. Usually not a tough nut to crack. It gives you more ports on the Med. You can use tac bombers to bomb the eastern med. and take control of it from the british.

I have used diplomacy to get Persia to become axis minor ally. Then using Persians, take out Iraq. I'm not sure how this effects Britain, but it can't hurt. What it does do is help Germans take southern Russia (Maikop) with Persian assistance and without allied interference.

All these are against the AI. I'm sure playing vs human opponent would yield different results.