Avatar Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Assuming we have a successful axis victory in France by June/July '40, is there anyone else who believes that NA is the key to and allied victory? Zapp made mention to me that Egypt is too easily takeable, but I really disagree. Proper reinforcement with army+ 2-3 air should make Egypt untakeable. An axis failure to take this strategic city will inenvitable lead to an allied counter-attack once Russia is in the war. Italy is incapable of doing anything alone, and Germany is often too tied up to make a huge difference. If the Allies decide to reinforce Egypt, I understand that England may be understrength if Axis decide on Sealion, but that's where risk comes in. I try to reinforce egypt as soon as possible, and it usually works. Anyone else have some input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 The problem the Allies have in keeping Egypt, is that once France has fallen, the UK can do nothing to stop Germany from taking neutrals. The MPPs from those conquests plus the lack of limits on the air units means that Germany can put at least an equal, if not a clear superiority of Air units against anything the UK can put in Egypt. Add to that, the ability for units to land anywhere along the coastline, and you have a situation where the UK doesn't have enough units to defend the Suez and Alexandria. The only thing that saves the UK is an inexperienced German player and/or very bad luck for the Germans. [ December 20, 2003, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted December 21, 2003 Author Share Posted December 21, 2003 You don't need that many units to guard the coastline of Egypt/Suez, and isn't tying up a large part of the Luftwaffe a good thing in general? He'll take losses vs the RAF, he won't perhaps be inclined to invade as many neutrals, and he has a time crunch of Russia coming in. Is it really worth it for the Axis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 You need at least five units to cover Alexandria/Suez. You're not "tying up" the Luft when its picking off your units. You're providing target practice. And while the Luft may take losses against the RAF, Germany is cranking in 300 to 500 MPPs a turn, while UK gets 115 or so. Which side can afford the losses? The neutrals have already mostly fallen by now, though it depends on the skill of the German player. Is it worth it for the Axis? Yes, thats one of the reasons the bids go towards giving Russia more MPPs. With 500 or so MPPs and no limit on units, Russia doesn't have anything capable of stopping Barbarossa. Its just a matter of time before Russia falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Fire Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Many Allied players seem to send the med fleet home early in the game in order to avoid losing those units. Naturally this seals the victory for Axis in Africa, but the ships (especially the carrier) are useful for D-day, and I find they can't last when attacked by Axis air and the Italian navy... However, whenever I let Axis take Iraq I lose, so I'm interested in finding a way to make life difficult for good Axis players (bid 200 at 1:8 say). France usually falls in June/July, so if you can't defend Africa what can you do to stop tbe cookie cutter? Avatar, - when are you sending the army to Egypt? - do you also send an HQ? - do you reinforce North Africa with naval units also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kossuth Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Even if you could defend the egypt, you can do it with reasonable units. Is it WORTH it. I mean you get 15 mmp each turn, those unit you loose could be used elsewhere, ie keep brest after fall of france. If the axis goes quickly after the minors you might have it for a year if you a lucky and those the loss of egypt is equal. Then we have of course egypt as a block for iraq. But that is not the issue in my question. What i say is it worth it to fight for egypt if axis want to take it regarding the mmp of egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 UK cannot afford it. Axis will use 3-4 air fleets in Egypt and eventually UK will break. When they break, game is over because they will lose all their units since there is no escape route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I have to agree with Zapp. Axis got so much time to take Egypt, alied effort is very seldom worth the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kossuth Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Exactly my point. Is egypt worth fighting for for the allies. Maybe a scenario with a raised mmp in egypt. tripple maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 With the popular no DOW and attack rule on the first turn for mayor nations there is nearly nothing you can do...The axis can always send 4 LF+HQ over to egypt => Game Over for GB in Egypt. Exceptions: VERY goog LUCK regarding JT for GB and an inexperinced Axis Player. If you are allowed to attack Italy, you can trash the whole italian navy making it much harder for the Axis player to attack Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 K, when I posted this I was still a newbie, so no, I recommend not defending Egypt at all. Your mpp's are much better spent annoying the axis in on the mainland. HOWEVER, there was a reason, and it still holds. first, the axis NEVER use planes in Africa because the existing 2-3 corps in egypt don't warrant the Luftwaffe coming in. Ok, it costs 40mpp to transfer an HQ + 40 for each LW unit. Let's say he's deploying 4. That's 200mpp just to GET there, AND another 200 to get all that stuff back to the mainland. so 400mpp's the axis has to waste PLUS he can't use those units elsewhere. My original arguement was intended to be if you force the axis to commit more forces than he intended to (even better if you can hide your strength in egypt), he might be caught with his pants down and drawn into a fight for relatively few mpps (mind you, iraq is right there afterwards). so, is it worth HIS time and effort to fight for egypt? maybe you can make him change his mind. IF you're going to defend egypt, here's what I recommend: 3 Corps, defending coastlines (you start with 2 there) 1 Army, Alexandria (preferably free french, and just before Italy comes in too, so you can whisk it quickly to egypt) 2-3 Air, as need be, depending on his involvement 1 Bomber, if you haven't dismantled it yet. BIG optional: Brit HQ. Makes all the difference. I would only recommend sending an HQ in if France went well (July-Aug), and UK losses in France were light. You won't have much in UK, but you can always bring the Air back. If you're gonna lose everything in Egypt from a determined attack, then dismantle the HQ for mpps. Overall, you haven't spent any more than Axis player has trying to take Egypt. Might be worth it. Note: I have not tried this versus any expert player, only average ones. Still, let me know how it works out for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arngrim Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Hmmm, If you dismantle the HQ for MPOP's, is it lost forever as a combat result, or could you buy it back later? The finite number of HQ's is one of SC's shortcomings in my opinion btw. there should be (poor rated) generic HQ's for all countries. Air is strong enough as it is without the ability to forever cripple a major's offensive capability.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 On the topic of the middle east, you can defend it if your opponent does not expect you to, based on your actions in prior games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts