Jump to content

Any house rules limiting Spain diplo?


Recommended Posts

It isnt just because of one game. It seems a number of people here think that the first thing for the axis to do is dump 5 diplo chits into spain. This gives the allies no option but to try to counter, which they cannot really even do because the dont have enough MPPs.

Seems pretty lame - for every game!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If people do that everytime and you follow suite with allies.

That is YOU playing in their hands.

Put those chits somewhere else, I put them in USSR, that was a surprise.

Sweden, Norway, Turkey, 1 chit in Yugoslavia, Iraq for mpps, USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Blashy:

If people do that everytime and you follow suite with allies.

That is YOU playing in their hands.

Put those chits somewhere else, I put them in USSR, that was a surprise.

Sweden, Norway, Turkey, 1 chit in Yugoslavia, Iraq for mpps, USA.

Agreed, if the Axis demand Spain join their cause, make them pay in other arenas of diplmacy. Getting USSR early is my favorite, followed by chits in Norway and Sweden ( to save me wasting my bomber on Kiel). As Axis, I rarely use the Spain gambit thing, only to provide variance to a game do I attempt it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Spain is not the end all. Most times as Axis I don't bother, as Allies I wait for the first bump in Spanish readiness. I've also noticed many other Axis don't bother. I think as Allies a couple chits in Sweden is good, maybe also Russia. If you can bump Russian readiness they're mpp base is elevated until they enter the war, that's a lot of extra mpps, and vice versa. Same for US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t see anything more important than holding Gibraltar for the Allied player. Once Gibraltar is gone it’s difficult for the allies to hold Egypt. This is complicated by the reduction in the Malta effect. Most Axis players can storm through Egypt now. Even if you transfer troops and the air fleet from Britain, the British can find themselves kicked out of the Mediterranean very quickly once Gibraltar is gone.

But then again, even if Spain doesn’t join, it’s still dicey. This is even more likely now the Commonwealth troops have been reduced to minors.

If the British do get kicked out, the only real way of opening a second front against the Axis is to land in Tangiers. This is a lot easier if Spain is Neutral. Perhaps someone can give some tips on how to counter this, but it seems to be the way of most games I’m playing a present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gibraltar and Spain are Axis.

You still have the whole of France with air support from UK.

Most players don't do the African landings as the Allies did, they just prepare for an earlier D-Day.

You can always invade Casablanca or Norway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blashy,

I was referring to Spain taking Gibraltar as part of an Axis strategy after taking France. I suppose an early D-day is the only way to counter that. But while you are building up for D-Day the Germans have IW3 AT2-3 HT3-4 and are pushing into Russia from the south will all the lovely MPP’s from North Africa.

If you are playing a good Axis player it’s difficult to do a successful D-day before Russia is on it’s knees. Plus if you time it wrong and can’t get a Russian offensive at the same time, the Germans are able to trade blows in France while holding the line in Russia. This can lead to a disaster in France for the Allies.

I don’t see any problem with Spanish diplomacy as such, I’ve held off Germany before, but the reduction in the Malta affect and turning the commonwealth troops into German cannon fodder makes it almost impossible to hold Egypt against the Axis. I think this is a little unrealistic and doesn’t reflect the difficulty for the Axis in supplying their troops in North Africa. Malta is still a ‘tough nut to crack’ as one opponent said to me recently, but it valuable contribution is almost non-existent.

The fate of the German merchant ship Hans Arp, with 500 tons of Rommel’s gasoline…sailed for Benghazi...followed by two destroyers with more gasoline…the tankers Giordani and Sirio were each berthing at Tripoli with several thousand tons of Gasoline on the seventeenth and eighteenth. With this target list thoughtfully provided to the enemy code breakers, the enemy submarines could hardly miss…The next day Waldau wrote in his diary: ‘All the tankers have been sunk. How R. (Rommel) is going to keep moving now is a mystery.’

(David Irving, Rommel: The Trail of the Fox 221-222)

The problem for the Axis was that the allies had a naval base placed directly in line from Italy to the battlefront. I think the Malta affect as been reduced to much. It would be the equivalent of an entire British army sitting in German supply lines as Germany invaded France. Although a determined German Player should be able to still take eygpt it should not be the walk over it as present. There should be some sort of script that takes into account the number of Axis units in Egypt. The more there are, the lower the supply. As it stands at present the equation for taking Egypt is 3 Air Fleets, one Army, One Corps, One HQ and what even Italy can throw in to absorb damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, and you should be able to withdraw units from egypt with higher level ports. Reducing the Egyptian ports below 5 only takes 1 LF strike, and all those UK units just sit there waiting to die. I suggest making egypt's ports a higher value at least. Me losing a hq, army, tank group, corps, and my commonwealth units really sucks, especially since you have to rebuild them and wait. I'd rather send them home and reinforce them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always take Brest sometime in 1941.

If I can't, it is because the Axis player has 1-2 AFs around close. That's ok, it is keeping them out of the Russian front.

It is easier than you think to take Brest and Bordeaux and hold them. Although if the German player wants you out he most likely will but that requires to operate troops (mpps) and those troops are no longer on the eastern front.

I see your point about Africa and supply but when I have ALL of my Italian navy intact, I expect that supply gets through via escorts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Malta should have its affect increased by the placement of a fighter and more so by a bomber. Likewise, having a ship such as a Battleship or Cruiser or aircraft Carrier would further increase the likelihood of successful interdictions on axis supply. This would raise two options for the axis

1. Attack Malta with everything he’s got. This would be expensive for the axis and the Allies but worthwhile for the Allies as it buys time.

2. Ignore Malta, as they did and put up with the supply problems hoping to still pull it off.

I would imagine most players would go for option 1. But it would make it more interesting as apposed to what happens now, which is just ignore it, as it doesn’t really make any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In point of fact, Rommel got his supplies whenever the higher ups decided it was worth the effort. Malta was pretty much neutralized and it wasn't the force you all seem to think it was.

The problem with the "Malta Effect" is it's automatic. The UK gets a freebie with no effort required, the UK losses trying to secure their own line of supplies and attempting to disrupt the enemies were quite severe. They were pretty much driven out of the Med, remember?

For all the trouble Rommel had getting his supplies, the Brits had even more. Their supply line was 13,000 miles long.

See here. Mostly Air Force stuff, but it does point out some of the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars,

If Malta was neutralized then why did the Axis feel the need in April 1942 to drop 6,728 tons of bombs on it? Quite a sum when you consider the island is only 17 miles by 9. To place this in comparison, 18,000 tons of bombs were dropped on London during the entire blitz. When you add the total tonnage of bombs dropped on Malta during the war, it is actually greater than what was dropped on London.

For an unimportant little island, the British submarines operating from it accounted for:

A million tons of Axis shipping.

3 Cruisers

30 Destroyers (57% of Italian fleet at the start of the war)

This doesn’t include the various surface engagements and operations by aircraft that also resulted in losses.

The aircraft operating from Malta had less success due to the constant air raids (an average of 170 enemy aircraft flew over Malta each day between December 1941 and April 1942). The British always knew that Malta would have difficulty operating aircraft or ships if the axis made a concerted effort. This did not become a reality until the Germans lent support to the Italians.

This brings home the point I was making. As this is a game of investment return. Surely the allied player wishing to invest heavily in Malta (Battleship and air fleet) should see a return. The Axis player who invests heavily in Spain (by either diplomacy or conflict) and then takes Gibraltar gets the result of having a 40% chance of reducing Allied supplies in the Med.

Lars you said the British had a supply line of 13,000 miles, which is true. Yet they managed to supply their troops. The Axis had a much shorter supply line and could not get supplies through. Although there is a certain truth that Rommel did not receive reinforcements / Tanks / Guns etc, the real problem was fuel, which his army needed in large quantities (this need was magnified by the poor infrastructure in North Africa). The Italians sent many tankers most of which didn’t make it. Although it is true that most of the Italian big ships sat at home, they did provide destroyer/patrol boat escorts to most convoys. Despite this, British Submarines and surface raiders still got through (i.e. the Malta effect). Perhaps instead of making the effect free, it should rely entirely on placement of assests?

I see what Blashy means about having his Italian fleet out ready to fight, which is another point. In most games the Italian fleet is out fighting and not providing escort to supply convoys!

I just feel that the Mediterranean theatre is currently missing one of its most important features…supply!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Maverik:

I think Malta should have its affect increased by the placement of a fighter and more so by a bomber.

;) Psst Malta already works that way. Having a bomber there and iincrease its tech levle and you can bom Tobruk to dust make it very hard to suply the German forces in Egypt. Usally when Spain joins the Eypt campaign is already decided one way or the other anyway.

Having Gibraltar gives you nice soft underbelly into Europe forcing the axis to spare some of its scare units to protect Italy etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Maverik:

Lars,

If Malta was neutralized then why did the Axis feel the need in April 1942 to drop 6,728 tons of bombs on it? Quite a sum when you consider the island is only 17 miles by 9. To place this in comparison, 18,000 tons of bombs were dropped on London during the entire blitz. When you add the total tonnage of bombs dropped on Malta during the war, it is actually greater than what was dropped on London.

Umm, what do you think neutralized it?

If you read the link, you'd have seen the real shipping killer was long range heavy bombers operating out of North Africa and Egypt. Malta was a bit too close to Italy to be a safe base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars,

Malta was never neutralized. Axis attacks reduced the aircraft operating there to small numbers (at times zero operational aircraft).

The axis lost some 400 plus aircraft to ani air gunners. The RAF lost over 170 pilots.

Between 1941 and 1942 the 10th submarine Flotila operated some 20 submarines out of and through Malta.

Between 1st January 1941 and 1st May 1942, the fifteen Malta Force Submarines had sunk 75 vessels with a total tonnage of nearly 400,000 tons. Ten submarines had been lost. There can be no doubt that the efforts of these submarines, along with the support afforded by serviceman and civilian alike on the island of Malta, and of the re-supplying convoys and submarines, had slowed down the German advance in Africa, giving the British 8th Army some time to build...There are many 'what-if' questions that can be applied to the Second World War - there is surely no doubt about the answer to this one - If the Malta submarines hadn't slowed down Axis re-supply to Tripoli and Benghazi, there could have been no desert victory. Without that, there would have been no invasion of Southern Europe. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/malta.html

How you can regard this as neutralized is beond me. Granted the scale is much smaller than the Atlantic but the effects were just as great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I know all that already. I was one of the people arguing for a Med convoy route pre-release just for the British submarines..

I meant neutralized in the military sense. As in "no longer such a bother we have to invade the joint".

What annoys me is the UK gets to damage Axis supply for no cost. Look at their losses for once. You don't load supplies on a submarine for Malta because it's such a great freighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...