Why would Germany go after North Africa

[pfnognoff]

Region pop-up shows no resources or population there to be gained from it, not even Cairo. What is the point of sending my troops there? I've read the strategy tips section of the manual and it suggests taking North Africa, but why? What am I missing?

[Adam Parker]

Historically - the Suez Canal and the gateway to India (joining up with Japan in their efforts through Burma). Also but less stressed were the Persian oil fields.

Africa Korps forces were theoretically to join up with the Causasus Front after the taking of Stalingrad in securing this under-developed oil rich area. But many scholars doubt Germany's ability to firstly tap in this resource, refine it and ship it to Europe. Gibraltar and Malta were therefore just as important as any trans-Caucasus supply route in terms of shipping.

So just a means to various ends once the "bail out Italy" theme reared its head. Very interesting book called "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy" published a year or two ago.

Adam.

[paullus99]

There are resources in Northwestern Africa to protect - plus threatening the resources in the Persian Gulf....mainly, I do it to put a thorn in the WA side. I've found that you don't send more than you can afford to lose, since as soon as you lose sea superiority in the Med, those troops are toast.

[aletoledo]

I really devoted a lot in one game to africa and the only thing that was worth while was saudi arabia for its resources.

[Becket]

The resources in the Western Med can also make the difference between automatic victory and...no automatic victory. It would suck to come up 1 resource shy of 70, no? [:D]

[pfnognoff]

Thanks guys for reassuring me it is worth it! I was actually confused a bit by the strategy guide [:)] It says Norway isn't worth the trouble to take, but North Africa is for the resources... As I was hoovering the mouse Norway reported resources and Africa didn't except Morocco and Algeria. I still don't dare thinking about Persia or Iraq against human opposition though.

Great game [:)]

[jchastain]

I haven't played enough yet to consider myself an expert but I still don't think it is worth it to go after North Africa. Sweden is more valuable and much easier to reach. Grabbing Spain and then Gibralter is more valuable, easier, and causes the allies more headaches. I generally find myself grabbing what's close by in 1940 and then positioning for an attack on Russia in Spring 1941, and North Africa just doesn't fit well into that plan.

[dobeln]

Imho, Norway should be "pimped up" just a tad. Especially, it should have allowed some sort of naval advantage, such as being a safe harbor for shipping subs to Brest, or somesuch. Oh well...

[dobeln]

Well, the main reason to go after Egypt is to secure the Suez canal, and to thereby screw up WA anti-Italian strategy. Especially coupled with a Gibraltar gambit, this can be rather effective.

[atlasapl]

Another reason to go after north Africa is the potential to put pressure on Britain by trying to push toward India, India is key to Britain/USA fighting against Japan and if Germany can push toward India from one direction and Japan from the other, who knows.

If India fell to one of the axis powers, Japan could then go into Russia from the East/South East, while Germany goes in from the west, while Britain is still active in India/Asia it would be a risk for Japan to try and go into Russia.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

Region pop-up shows no resources or population there to be gained from it, not even Cairo. What is the point of sending my troops there? I've read the strategy tips section of the manual and it suggests taking North Africa, but why? What am I missing?

Historically, Italians (in game terms "Germans") were already there in Spring 1940 and they waited until Autumn to launch a limited invasion of Egypt. When British counteroffensive kicked Italians from Egypt and destroyed whole 10th Italian army in Cyrenaica, armoured reinforcements both Italian and German have been sent to protect Tripolitania.

The loss of Tripolitania would have enabled British to plan the invasion of Sicily and Italian mainland.

So, the deployment of DAK and Rommel was strategically a defensive move on behalf of Germans. It was the personna of Rommel who realised that the only way to fulfill his mission (defense of Lybia) was not to sit passively and wait for British build up, but to actively engage the British and eliminate the threat to Italian colony.


Drax

[VI66_slith]

Another reason to go after north Africa is the potential to put pressure on Britain by trying to push toward India, India is key to Britain/USA fighting against Japan and if Germany can push toward India from one direction and Japan from the other, who knows.

If India fell to one of the axis powers, Japan could then go into Russia from the East/South East, while Germany goes in from the west, while Britain is still active in India/Asia it would be a risk for Japan to try and go into Russia.

It is imperative that sober thought be a requisite prior to the strategy mentioned above. Germany will simply not have the resources necessary for an advance against India until Russia is vanquished. Russia will not be an easy pill for Germany to swallow.

Vin

[atlasapl]

ORIGINAL: VI66

Another reason to go after north Africa is the potential to put pressure on Britain by trying to push toward India, India is key to Britain/USA fighting against Japan and if Germany can push toward India from one direction and Japan from the other, who knows.

If India fell to one of the axis powers, Japan could then go into Russia from the East/South East, while Germany goes in from the west, while Britain is still active in India/Asia it would be a risk for Japan to try and go into Russia.

It is imperative that sober thought be a requisite prior to the strategy mentioned above. Germany will simply not have the resources necessary for an advance against India until Russia is vanquished. Russia will not be an easy pill for Germany to swallow.

Vin

I am sure you understood the statement potential to put pressure on Britain by trying to push toward India in my previous post, I am not a complete idiot I do understand the magnitude of the task.

If Germany held North Africa and put pressure on the Suez/Persia area’s, even if they did not have the resources or the inclination to go for India, it would still put a great deal of pressure on Britain if mainland Britain was under threat from German held France and, Japan was to push for India from the East.

[VI66_slith]

I am sure you understood the statement potential to put pressure on Britain by trying to push toward India in my previous post, I am not a complete idiot I do understand the magnitude of the task.

I understand. I was not implying anything of the sort.

Vin