French North Africa (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> The War Room



Message

christian brown -> French North Africa (9/6/2007 2:45:16 AM)

I've noticed that few people recreate the "Torch" landings.

Clearly, the negative diplomatic results are contributory (but hey, attacking a Pro-Axis minor doesn't really hurt the WA that much - or does it? I've never noticed much of a shift among non-aligned neutrals by the time thew happens, generally sometime in 1942 or later......)

The forces Germany gains from this are really petty and basically need to be left in place, like in the South of France, no one is going to move that ART and INFs away to the East when the Med has been reopened from the West.

I'm really not sure why this happens so rarely and would like to hear thoughts from the community about why this is so.



BoerWar -> RE: French North Africa (9/6/2007 4:01:55 AM)

Interesting question. As the WA, by the time I have been ready to start conducting landings I've found other targets to be more tempting from a logistical standpoint and from the level of harrassment caused to the German player. Typically, most of my WA land units are either entrenched in the UK or Egypt at the point that I'm ready to begin the offensive. From Egypt, I prefer landings in Greece and S. Italy (even if I don't think I can hold them) as these tend to draw units away from the Eastern front. From the UK, I like to go to Scandinavia or Spain/ Portugal.

These are the usual cases, in other instances the u-boat war has caused so much havoc with my transports that I wasn't able to do any landings until late in the game and then I didn't have time to waste nibbling at the edges.

The benefit I see from doing Torch would be to set up a supply line to N Africa that is less vulnerable to subs. In addition, you can put air pressure on both N. and S. Italy from Tunisia.



Petiloup -> RE: French North Africa (9/6/2007 11:36:56 AM)


Think this is related to the main problem of playing a game.

In reality the Allies will not have risked their armies by rushing an invasion of Europe to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union. We send little icons to get killed by Germany and bitch about an automatic hit but it's just a game. In reality Eisenhower was sending hundreds of thousands of young guys to get killed and he had to live with it.

In 1942 the US army was composed of Green units without any fighting experience, air supremacy was far from being achieved over Europe (read about the raid on Dieppe), landing crafts were being still build, the UBoats were still a real menace, so if you put Operation Torch in France at the same time it would have been a disaster. Even in 1944 Eisenhower was far from convinced D-Day would be a success.

So in 1942 what they could do is make sure Rommel would be contained and hit the soft belly of Europe, Italy.

Also don't forget that in reality FOW is not lifted so easily. So attacking is always taking a big risk which in AWD isn't as you can commit to an attack, look at your ratio and retreat if not favorable. In reality you send your troops, they die and if too many dies then you retreat but it's already a bit late.



Lebatron -> RE: French North Africa (9/11/2007 2:35:20 AM)

I like to do Operation Torch for two basic reasons.
1. To hurt Germany's economy by taking away them 2 resources in N. Africa.
2. It helps the US when they go to FM5.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625