@DoManMacgee A&A North Africa - OT ITA11.pdf Ok, I’m sending the last post about the first game played in the “Operation Torch” scenario (with the usual file that reproduces the situation on the battle table). The Axis players decided to sign a surrender at the beginning of Italy’s eleventh turn. Maybe the abandonment was a bit premature (they could have fought a bit longer until the capitulation of Tunis), but I think it is largely justified by the situation on the table. As I said in the previous post (before the tenth English turn), the UK (after our “war council”) has invested heavily in the fleet and air force to try to regain control of the Mediterranean and with it:
a) interrupt the flow of convoys towards the African continent of the Italian-German troops,
b) reopen the convoys to Malta (the Suez convoys would have been useless given the turns remaining at the end of the game).
As expected (me and the English ally), this attracted the Italian fleet and the Italian-German air force in SZ 6 (Algiers) giving life to an epic battle that contributed (definitely I think) to give a precise course to the continuation of the battle. An English destroyer was left in SZ3 to prevent the powerful German U-Boats from joining the party (and it certainly deserves a medal of valor, like the Italian submarine in SZ8 of the previous post). The survivors of this clash were very few, but this is certainly to be considered an advantage for the Allies.
On land the Axis did not fare better: the English swept away the Italian contingent of El Aghelia in a devastating way and my Americans occupied the Kesserine pass suffering very few losses (also thanks to the support of the French troops). The axis, taking note of the extremely difficult situation (and also considering the lack of supplies in the Tunis/Mareth area and the imminent arrival of the English from the East), decided to acknowledge defeat and put an end to the clash. I repeat: probably it could have tried to fight a little longer, but I think the fate of this battle was already sealed.
General considerations on the game.
After the game, we stopped, while it was still hot, to try to review the course of events. Surely tactical and strategic errors were made by both sides (first of all the incorrect or inappropriate use of mines … to understand their optimal deployment), but it was the first game on this scenario (and in any case the general experience with this game is very limited unlike other editions of A&A, at least mine). I reproached my son (who played with Germany) for being too cautious and not trying to push the Americans (me) when he had the chance (i.e. in the early turns): I think that if the Americans “settle down” it is difficult to avoid the continuous influx of troops and their push towards Tunis. It always remains (but this was a problem for all of us) to understand well which troops are the most effective and in which situations (and I think this is a “crucial point” of the whole game): the Axis has the Germans who have superior units to all the other players, truly devastating (to compensate for the Italians who instead … but it’s all historical, so ok), but the Allies have many resources, many more than the Axis and this risks making the difference in the long term (but this is also historical, so ok). And this was especially evident in the two naval battles that had opposite outcomes: in the first major clash the Italian navy and air force wiped out the English fleet in the central-western Mediterranean, in the second (possible after the English decided to invest everything in ships and planes) the Anglo-Americans prevailed, but this practically ended the battle. A note on the French troops: they risk becoming a really annoying presence for the Axis due to their ability to be self-sufficient (and therefore allowing flanking attacks … for free that help the allies and not a little). What to say in conclusion: I renew my compliments to Matt for the masterpiece he created (and I can’t wait to play Stalingrad), I confirm the impression that Axis and Allies North Africa is a very deep game strategically. This was only the first game (I think of many others) and I hope to be able to become an expert of this game soon, being a great fan of the entire A&A series. Obviously I await your comments (if you want to participate in this discussion). See you next time.
France/Anzac Questions In North Africa
-
Can France move? Shouldn’t they have a supply truck instead of a tank? Are they important, do they change the impact of the game? Shouldn’t there be free forces in Egypt? Is Anzac in the game?
-
- Free french can, but not Vichy units.
- Maybe, but they for some reason don’t need supplies at all, so they don’t really need trucks.
- They might be the critical margin for Allied victory. If they weren’t and the game was already balanced they wouldn’t be here (or more likely the Allies would be weaker).
- Too small to represent I guess?
- I don’t think so.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato I feel Egypt should have 2 French Infantry, and 4 Anzac with a Anzac Jeep or Truck.
-
Maybe you can house rule it with Global 1940 units and painted ANZAC units.
I think it’s fine though since ANZAC units in the West basically fought under the same command as British troops. It was only in the Pacific, where forces were larger, did they have more autonomy (of sorts).
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato Or maybe some of the UK reinforcements are Anzac.
-
Exactly.
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower Anzac are actually represented with one of the optional rules from the back of the rulebook. pp 38 “ANZAC Reinforcements: The United Kingdom player may deploy one UK infantry each turn from the Reinforcements Zone directly to the Indian Ocean convoy sea zone.”
-
The Vichy French units are basically static until turn 7, then they defend against the Allied landings and either switch to Free French or are eliminated. The Free French units then activate at the same time as the USA forces, and the USA player can produce new ones in Oran within limits. No French trucks are needed or provided in the normal piece limit, the French use supply moved by USA trucks or don’t use any at all when their “self-sufficient” characteristic is in effect. The “extra” bag of pieces has some to use for player variants.
I think the ANZAC and Free French forces fighting with the 8th Army are all abstracted out as UK forces which is fine by me. There were certainly political considerations with those forces in real life, but for game purposes they were all under a unified command.
-
Nice. If you really wanted to you could just replace those pieces with ANZAC pieces from Global 1940 and have them operate under British command.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato I definitely would if I had 1940!
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in France/Anzac Questions In North Africa:
Maybe you can house rule it with Global 1940 units and painted ANZAC units.
I think it’s fine though since ANZAC units in the West basically fought under the same command as British troops. It was only in the Pacific, where forces were larger, did they have more autonomy (of sorts).
I am fairly certain that ANZAC forces (those that remain anyway, as most are now gone to the Pacific) are already built into the British “force pool.” Adding more units is an advantage for the UK player that doesn’t make sense. For that matter, the ANZAC optional rule is pretty ahistorical. Let me be clear. There is no historical precedent for there to be any additional ANZAC ground forces (certainly not enough amount to one or more infantry units at this scale) coming to the European Theatre, All but one division, the 9th, will be gone shortly after the game begins, and the 9th will begin redeploying to the Pacific before the game ends. If anything the UK should be losing troops. In game terms probably not actually removing any units because they’re more or less being replaced buy other British and Commonwealth units.
-
Agreed. I didn’t mean giving more units to the Allies though, I meant replacing a British infantry piece with an ANZAC/French infantry piece
Suggested Topics
