BJR mod - Malta rule

[raffo80]

in case the germans take spain and gibraltar, does it still apply?

historically, malta convoys were coming through gibraltar. There is no rule mentioning what happens when gibraltar is taken by axis.

[rkr1958]

in case the germans take spain and gibraltar, does it still apply?

historically, malta convoys were coming through gibraltar. There is no rule mentioning what happens when gibraltar is taken by axis.

Good point. We developed the Malta supply rule loosely on a similar rule from Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich Game (3rd edition), which limited the number of German factors in North Africa. While the criteria between the two rules are different the intent is the same. Malta is a base that the Allies can use to interdict Axis supply convoys to North Africa. Since supply convoys are not modeled explicitly in both games then their impact on supplying Axis troops in North Africa must be treated abstractly.

I pulled out the rules to my old AH 3rd Reich (3rd edition) to see what happens when Gibraltar falls. Here's the applicable rule,

"21.13 All fortress hexes supply units in the fortress hex, ... EXCEPTIONS: Malta ceases to supply Allied units in Malta if the Allies control neither Gibraltar nor Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol as per 5.58." One thing about interpreting AH game rules was that you almost had to be a lawyer; but I interpret the "nor" as an exclusive "or" meaning that the Allies LOSE the ability to supply units in Malta if they no longer control Gibraltar (even if they control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol) or if they no longer control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol (even if they control Gibraltar). Thus, the loss of Gibraltar in AH's 3rd Reich game would result in the loss of Malta as a supply source meaning that units there would have to leave the next turn or be eliminated. Therefore; Malta would no longer interfere with the Axis supply of North Africa.

Thus, for me it appears that the loss of Gibraltar should render the Malta supply rule no longer in effect. However; we need to discuss this within the BJR team, with inputs from other people most welcomed, to make a ruling/clarification on this. Borger and Jim often bring different and convincing perspective to numerous issues like this that we discussed and play tested in our development of the BJR mod.

Again, all perspectives and discussions on this and other aspects of the BJR mod are welcomed by all.

[raffo80]

in case the germans take spain and gibraltar, does it still apply?

historically, malta convoys were coming through gibraltar. There is no rule mentioning what happens when gibraltar is taken by axis.

Good point. We developed the Malta supply rule loosely on a similar rule from Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich Game (3rd edition), which limited the number of German factors in North Africa. While the criteria between the two rules are different the intent is the same. Malta is a base that the Allies can use to interdict Axis supply convoys to North Africa. Since supply convoys are not modeled explicitly in both games then their impact on supplying Axis troops in North Africa must be treated abstractly.

I pulled out the rules to my old AH 3rd Reich (3rd edition) to see what happens when Gibraltar falls. Here's the applicable rule,

"21.13 All fortress hexes supply units in the fortress hex, ... EXCEPTIONS: Malta ceases to supply Allied units in Malta if the Allies control neither Gibraltar nor Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol as per 5.58." One thing about interpreting AH game rules was that you almost had to be a lawyer; but I interpret the "nor" as an exclusive "or" meaning that the Allies LOSE the ability to supply units in Malta if they no longer control Gibraltar (even if they control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol) or if they no longer control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol (even if they control Gibraltar). Thus, the loss of Gibraltar in AH's 3rd Reich game would result in the loss of Malta as a supply source meaning that units there would have to leave the next turn or be eliminated. Therefore; Malta would no longer interfere with the Axis supply of North Africa.

Thus, for me it appears that the loss of Gibraltar should render the Malta supply rule no longer in effect. However; we need to discuss this within the BJR team, with inputs from other people most welcomed, to make a ruling/clarification on this. Borger and Jim often bring different and convincing perspective to numerous issues like this that we discussed and play tested in our development of the BJR mod.

Again, all perspectives and discussions on this and other aspects of the BJR mod are welcomed by all.

can we have an official response? in a PBEM, axis is about to take gibraltar. and we don't know if rule is active after the fall.

[rkr1958]

in case the germans take spain and gibraltar, does it still apply?

historically, malta convoys were coming through gibraltar. There is no rule mentioning what happens when gibraltar is taken by axis.

Good point. We developed the Malta supply rule loosely on a similar rule from Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich Game (3rd edition), which limited the number of German factors in North Africa. While the criteria between the two rules are different the intent is the same. Malta is a base that the Allies can use to interdict Axis supply convoys to North Africa. Since supply convoys are not modeled explicitly in both games then their impact on supplying Axis troops in North Africa must be treated abstractly.

I pulled out the rules to my old AH 3rd Reich (3rd edition) to see what happens when Gibraltar falls. Here's the applicable rule,

"21.13 All fortress hexes supply units in the fortress hex, ... EXCEPTIONS: Malta ceases to supply Allied units in Malta if the Allies control neither Gibraltar nor Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol as per 5.58." One thing about interpreting AH game rules was that you almost had to be a lawyer; but I interpret the "nor" as an exclusive "or" meaning that the Allies LOSE the ability to supply units in Malta if they no longer control Gibraltar (even if they control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol) or if they no longer control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol (even if they control Gibraltar). Thus, the loss of Gibraltar in AH's 3rd Reich game would result in the loss of Malta as a supply source meaning that units there would have to leave the next turn or be eliminated. Therefore; Malta would no longer interfere with the Axis supply of North Africa.

Thus, for me it appears that the loss of Gibraltar should render the Malta supply rule no longer in effect. However; we need to discuss this within the BJR team, with inputs from other people most welcomed, to make a ruling/clarification on this. Borger and Jim often bring different and convincing perspective to numerous issues like this that we discussed and play tested in our development of the BJR mod.

Again, all perspectives and discussions on this and other aspects of the BJR mod are welcomed by all.

can we have an official response? in a PBEM, axis is about to take gibraltar. and we don't know if rule is active after the fall.

If I have to make a call on the spot then I'd say the Malta Supply Rule in NO longer in effect. That is, it's no longer active.

Of course, the BJR team may eventually decide differently but for this game I recommend to proceed with Malta supply no longer in effect after the fall of Gibraltar.

[Happycat]

Good point. We developed the Malta supply rule loosely on a similar rule from Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich Game (3rd edition), which limited the number of German factors in North Africa. While the criteria between the two rules are different the intent is the same. Malta is a base that the Allies can use to interdict Axis supply convoys to North Africa. Since supply convoys are not modeled explicitly in both games then their impact on supplying Axis troops in North Africa must be treated abstractly.

I pulled out the rules to my old AH 3rd Reich (3rd edition) to see what happens when Gibraltar falls. Here's the applicable rule,

"21.13 All fortress hexes supply units in the fortress hex, ... EXCEPTIONS: Malta ceases to supply Allied units in Malta if the Allies control neither Gibraltar nor Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol as per 5.58." One thing about interpreting AH game rules was that you almost had to be a lawyer; but I interpret the "nor" as an exclusive "or" meaning that the Allies LOSE the ability to supply units in Malta if they no longer control Gibraltar (even if they control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol) or if they no longer control Suez/Alexandria and Sevastopol (even if they control Gibraltar). Thus, the loss of Gibraltar in AH's 3rd Reich game would result in the loss of Malta as a supply source meaning that units there would have to leave the next turn or be eliminated. Therefore; Malta would no longer interfere with the Axis supply of North Africa.

Thus, for me it appears that the loss of Gibraltar should render the Malta supply rule no longer in effect. However; we need to discuss this within the BJR team, with inputs from other people most welcomed, to make a ruling/clarification on this. Borger and Jim often bring different and convincing perspective to numerous issues like this that we discussed and play tested in our development of the BJR mod.

Again, all perspectives and discussions on this and other aspects of the BJR mod are welcomed by all.

can we have an official response? in a PBEM, axis is about to take gibraltar. and we don't know if rule is active after the fall.

If I have to make a call on the spot then I'd say the Malta Supply Rule in NO longer in effect. That is, it's no longer active.

Of course, the BJR team may eventually decide differently but for this game I recommend to proceed with Malta supply no longer in effect after the fall of Gibraltar.

I agree. It makes no sense to continue restricting Axis supply in this case. Malta would be impossible to supply if Gibraltar was captured by the Axis. In fact, I would go one further and say that the Malta rule should be amended, not only to the effect that the Axis supply restriction is lifted, but that the RAF unit in Malta cannot fly offensive missions until Gibraltar is once again in Allied hands. Capturing Tunisia is not good enough to overcome the supply problem for Malta.
In addition, when Gibraltar is occupied by the Axis, any damage to the Malta garrison or fighter unit cannot be repaired.

Sound good?

[jjdenver]

I agree. It makes no sense to continue restricting Axis supply in this case. Malta would be impossible to supply if Gibraltar was captured by the Axis. In fact, I would go one further and say that the Malta rule should be amended, not only to the effect that the Axis supply restriction is lifted, but that the RAF unit in Malta cannot fly offensive missions until Gibraltar is once again in Allied hands. Capturing Tunisia is not good enough to overcome the supply problem for Malta.
In addition, when Gibraltar is occupied by the Axis, any damage to the Malta garrison or fighter unit cannot be repaired.
Sound good?

Well I'm in the game being referred to where Gibraltar just fell so maybe my view is biased....but if the decision of the BJR team is to allow unlimited Axis units in Africa I guess that is ok.

However to still force the Brit Fighter to remain in Malta but unable to fly and unable to be repaired and to not allow the Malta garrison to be repaired sounds a little overboard. First if the Fighter is no longer useable it should be able to be shipped out. The Brits can still ship through the Suez canal. Sure the route is longer but it is still quite possible to sail a boat around Africa since about the 15th century or so I guess. The Brits were quite resourceful so I doubt they would stop supply to Malta if Gibraltar fell as long as they held Egypt.

By that reasoning once Gibraltar falls all units in Egypt should not be able to move, be reinforced, or fly?

If there is the extreme decision to not allow the Malta garrison to be reinforced then at least the fighter should be able to be shipped out.

[Happycat]

I agree. It makes no sense to continue restricting Axis supply in this case. Malta would be impossible to supply if Gibraltar was captured by the Axis. In fact, I would go one further and say that the Malta rule should be amended, not only to the effect that the Axis supply restriction is lifted, but that the RAF unit in Malta cannot fly offensive missions until Gibraltar is once again in Allied hands. Capturing Tunisia is not good enough to overcome the supply problem for Malta.
In addition, when Gibraltar is occupied by the Axis, any damage to the Malta garrison or fighter unit cannot be repaired.
Sound good?

Well I'm in the game being referred to where Gibraltar just fell so maybe my view is biased....but if the decision of the BJR team is to allow unlimited Axis units in Africa I guess that is ok.

However to still force the Brit Fighter to remain in Malta but unable to fly and unable to be repaired and to not allow the Malta garrison to be repaired sounds a little overboard. First if the Fighter is no longer useable it should be able to be shipped out. The Brits can still ship through the Suez canal. Sure the route is longer but it is still quite possible to sail a boat around Africa since about the 15th century or so I guess. The Brits were quite resourceful so I doubt they would stop supply to Malta if Gibraltar fell as long as they held Egypt.

By that reasoning once Gibraltar falls all units in Egypt should not be able to move, be reinforced, or fly?

If there is the extreme decision to not allow the Malta garrison to be reinforced then at least the fighter should be able to be shipped out.

First, you misunderstand my reasoning: once Gibraltar falls, resupply of Malta from the west would be impossible. However, it does not follow that "by that reasoning" that "units in Egypt should not be able to move...". Supply through the Red Sea as well as from Kuwait would be possible; just slower. But I question whether it would be easy to then resupply Malta from Egypt. With Axis air power on Crete, Sicily, and in Libya, all I can say is "good luck with that."

Given the loss of Gibraltar, supplying Malta from Egypt would be extremely difficult, and very pointless.

But I think the BJR team agrees with you that the fighter should be allowed to leave Malta in these circumstances.

Sorry it takes so long to get an answer, but you seemed to want our consensus opinion, and we are scattered across time zones ranging from Norway to Arkansas

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I've been away for some time so I haven't discussed this a lot. I think taking Gibraltar should help the Axis supply situation in Africa so the loss of Gibraltar should cancel the Malta supply rule.

This means Malta can't be supplied from Western Mediterranean and therefore can't properly interdict the Axis convoys to Africa. If such a situation occured then I think the British fighter unit would have evacuated Malta or hidden inside the fortress for future use. So I think it would be ok to lift the garrison rule for this fighter if Gibraltar is Axis controlled.

I think, however, that it might be too much micromanagement to deny the garrison or fighter any repairs after Gibraltar falls. I would be ok with letting the airbase repair normally. The Axis benefits from getting full supply to Africa and can harass the fighter unit in Malta if they want to from Sicily. So the Malta fighter might want to drop below 5 steps to avoid being forced into intercepting.

So my proposal is to just say that the Malta supply rule is cancelled as long as Gibraltar is Axis controlled and allowing the British fighter to evacuate Malta.

Notice that Egypt don't turn to neutrality if Gibraltar falls. They only turn to neutrality if Britain fail to have enough surface naval units in the Med.

[ftgcritt2]

I have a different question about the Malta supply rule. Why is there a restriction on the number of axis units that can be in NA, but there is no restriction for the Allies? After all, it was MUCH more of a hassle for the allies to send reinforcements sailing all the way around the Reich through uboat infested waters than it was for the Axis powers to send reinforcements over. Even if it was not more dangerous (I don't know how much damage the malta fighters did), the supply lines were much much longer. I've played a couple of games where the allied player has gained a massive local superiority in NA by sending huge amounts of troops (that the axis could never dream of matching with the BJR house rules) through the south africa loop to egypt. This seems awfully ahistoric. If nothing else, we could at least make the transportation loop longer. One turn is incredibly fast.

[Happycat]

I have a different question about the Malta supply rule. Why is there a restriction on the number of axis units that can be in NA, but there is no restriction for the Allies? After all, it was MUCH more of a hassle for the allies to send reinforcements sailing all the way around the Reich through uboat infested waters than it was for the Axis powers to send reinforcements over. Even if it was not more dangerous (I don't know how much damage the malta fighters did), the supply lines were much much longer. I've played a couple of games where the allied player has gained a massive local superiority in NA by sending huge amounts of troops (that the axis could never dream of matching with the BJR house rules) through the south africa loop to egypt. This seems awfully ahistoric. If nothing else, we could at least make the transportation loop longer. One turn is incredibly fast.

One turn is twenty days, which is about right for getting around the Cape. Add to that the two or three turns it takes to get from the UK to the loop, and yet another turn for the loop Red Sea-Med. Of course the Allied player can always unload from the Red Sea, but that is not much better because it takes a couple of turns to move the units across the desert to the front.

Allied transport capacity would be the more likely concern, but since we don't really address that for the Axis in any meaningful way, why should we restrict the Allies?

That's my opinion, but I'm sure we will hear others

[afk_nero]

The supply of Egypt and North Africa was easier for the allies for a few reasons - firstly a large portion of the troops fighting in North Africa came from the colonies not the UK, troops from South Africa and Anzac troops. The allies also had no supply issues as there was direct rail links for oil from Iraq and for food and provisions from Africa (there was a controlled line all the way from South Africa to Cairo) - Not to mention goods arriving from India (although most was diverted to the war against the japanese).

Compare this against the Axis - they had only 1 main method of supply and this was via the med. The italian Navy by no means controlled the oceans and although the Axis did have air supuriority initially it was still contested. So the allies have a protected line of supply and the Axis contested one - never mind the fact that the Axis also had only so many transports and each one sunk was a strain on logistics.

I think the Malta supply rule is fair and logical.

[ftgcritt2]

One turn is twenty days, which is about right for getting around the Cape. Add to that the two or three turns it takes to get from the UK to the loop, and yet another turn for the loop Red Sea-Med. Of course the Allied player can always unload from the Red Sea, but that is not much better because it takes a couple of turns to move the units across the desert to the front.

Allied transport capacity would be the more likely concern, but since we don't really address that for the Axis in any meaningful way, why should we restrict the Allies?

That's my opinion, but I'm sure we will hear others

It takes 2.64 turns for a transport to go from Halifax, Canada to Gibraltar. This corresponds to 52 days and covers a span of roughly 3038 miles. So the average speed for the transport is 58 miles/day.

Using the same calculation, here are the average speeds for a few other possible transport journeys:
Gibraltar to Cardiff, UK: 24 miles/day
Gibraltar to Port Said: 28 miles/day
London to Oslo: 26 miles/day
NYC to Cardiff, UK: 52 miles/day

As you can see, there are some differences based on the latitudes covered and the distortion that comes from putting concave map onto a flat surface, but most speeds will fall somewhere between about 25 miles/day and 55 miles/day. I think that may be slow (since most people can walk that fast), but it is the standard that we have to work with and I dont think it should be changed. But lets compare it to the speed of the African transport loop. The loop covers roughly 10,280 miles, based on calculations from this website: http://www.findlocalweather.com/how_far ... +york.html and using a globe with a mileage key. So 10,280 miles in 20 days comes out to... a whopping 514 miles/day. CLEARLY there is a discrepancy here when transports become up to 20 times faster when they enter the transport loop.

[ftgcritt2]

On second thought maybe you shouldnt extend the loop time too much. In order to put it on par with other movement times, you would have to extend it at least to about 10 turns. That would have units showing up 200 days later. Too much can happen in that amount of time. Instead, maybe you could extend it to 2 or 3 turns and limit its use to say, one unit in the loop at a time. What do you think?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

What you write about is a common problem in every wargame. The movement allowance of naval units is much smaller than how far they really could have moved. One of the few games that simulate naval movement in a pretty good way is World in Flames.

Since each turn is 20 days it means naval units could move quite far on the hex grid in one turn. E. g. it's possible to move from New York to London in one game turn. But if you gave naval units e. g. a movement allowance of 80 then they could move from their location to anywhere on the map in one turn. That would disrupt the naval part of the game. The movement range going via the loop from western Africa to the Red Sea is more "accurate" than all other movement ranges. E. g. it's not historical that a BB should need 4-5 turns (80-100 days) to move from New York to London.

Since we're playing a GAME and not simulating the real war 100% correctly then we need naval rules that are fun to use and recreate the naval battles that occured in the real war. I think the naval rules in CeaW works well. E. g. the sub warfare is particularly fun in the BJR-mod. You now have to escort the convoys to avoid having them sunk completely. So the naval rule works well.

The transport loops are used to simulate off-map movement. I propose you count the number of turns it takes to send units from Britain or Canada to Egypt via the loop instead of just looking at the loop itself. You need 5-6 turns to send units to Egypt since most of the movement will happen on the map hexgrid and not via the loop. That means it takes about 100-120 days to send units from Britain to Egypt. That is not too little in my mind.

If we do as you obviously propose, set variable for the loop so it takes 3-4 turns to use the loop then it will take 9-10 turns to send units from Britain to Egypt. That is definitely too long. I think the 5-6 turns we have now is long enough and it means the Allied player needs to plan these moves well. He can't quickly respond to an Axis offensive towards Port Said. En route to the transport loop the Allied transports are vulnerable to sub attacks.

I therefore feel the naval part of the BJR-mod works well and is fun to play. Increasing the movement allowance for naval units is definitely not an option. Then e. g. Axis transports can sail from Wilhelmshaven to the US coast in one turn and then invade then turn after. Since we play with fog of war it means such threats become too big.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

On second thought maybe you shouldnt extend the loop time too much. In order to put it on par with other movement times, you would have to extend it at least to about 10 turns. That would have units showing up 200 days later. Too much can happen in that amount of time. Instead, maybe you could extend it to 2 or 3 turns and limit its use to say, one unit in the loop at a time. What do you think?

I don't think there is any need to limit the capacity on the transport loop. Remember that most of the reinforcements to Egypt would have come from countries like South Africa, India, Australia etc. and not from Canada and Britain. Since these countries aren't on the map Britain can only produce units in Britain and Canada. Thet have to sail via the transport loop to get to Egypt. In the real war these reinforcements would sail cia the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea into the Red Sea.

Changing rules can sometimes be necessary, but I try to live by the rule "if it's not broke then don't fix it". So I wonder what are we supposed to fix by increasing the transport loop time and limiting the number of units using it?

[raffo80]

The problem is that africa with the axis restriction on units and the allies having "free hand" in sending as much as they like in BJR mod isn't a fun theater to play (both as allies or axis). Cause it's too easy for allies to hold Suez. There is no mistery, no surprise on what axis can do in africa...cause by the rules we know in advance the max the axis can have (which is very few and easily matched by UK even in '41).

In real war, there have been advances and retreats and allies managed to beat axis only in late '42. It was one of the most dinamic theater of war together with russia. In BJR mod, the outcome is always the same. Only viable tactic is to entrench near Tobruk and leave when allies come in force.

Italian navy managed to bring 85%-90% of what they were transporting for the whole war. It's not that germans couldn't bring more troops in africa, it's simply that they didn't want to. They were forced to move units there to hold italian regime (which would have fallen with loss of africa in '40). But they did the minimum to keep the war going, as they didn't want to waste troops while fighting russia.

In late '42 they had supply problems, but it was due to the fact that frontline was far from tobruk and that axis had oil problems overall (not only in africa).

Personally, i don't think that lifting the supply restrictions would change the game a lot...cause axis still needs to fight russia. But it would give axis more strategies and would make some games different.

[Amicofritz]

I agree with Gabriele. The problem with an abstract rule like the MSR is FoW. Both sides have info on this abstract limit, which off course was not the case in reality, and gives the Allies an edge. If the Axis decides to go for broke in Africa, is that a problem? As has been said here, the Allies have ample opportunity to reinforce that theatre.
What's more, the MSR has that boring accountant touch, counting supply points etc.

What the game needs (and it would have been fun) is probably a MED convoy system, but I guess that's a major change in the code.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree with Gabriele. The problem with an abstract rule like the MSR is FoW. Both sides have info on this abstract limit, which off course was not the case in reality, and gives the Allies an edge. If the Axis decides to go for broke in Africa, is that a problem? As has been said here, the Allies have ample opportunity to reinforce that theatre.
What's more, the MSR has that boring accountant touch, counting supply points etc.

What the game needs (and it would have been fun) is probably a MED convoy system, but I guess that's a major change in the code.

Britain does NOT have a good chance to reinforce Egypt before Barbarossa. They have to defend against Sealion meaning their surface naval ships are near British ports. This means the convoys will be constantly harassed by subs. If the Germans buy strategic bombers instead of launching a Sealion then the British will be pretty much down on production for a long time. If you add to that the time to move reinforcements from Canada / Britain to Egypt then you will realize that the Axis will get an unfair advantage in 1940-1941 in the Med.

Remember that we've playtested the BJR-mod a LOT of time with and without the Malta house rule. If you don't have anything that would limit the Axis use of units from Africa then they would crush the British in Egypt EVERY time. The Axis will have 3-4 tac bombers, 3-4 fighters, 2-3 armor units ready to strike towards Port Said and beyond and still have time to send these units to Russia in time for Barbarossa. The British simply can't stop such a force and would lose every time. If Germany had sacrificed Barbarossa to win in Egypt then it might have been ok, but since Germany can do both with ease then something is not right.

I don't buy that the Axis player will never do anything in Libya due the Malta supply rule. Look at Joe's German troops in the AAR's who are crushing Ronnie's British units in Egypt and are heading towards Baghdad. We've seen other games recently where the Axis have launched an offensive towards Egypt under the Malta supply rule and made some success. So the Axis player can definitely make this offensive if he wants to. He increases the chances of success if he takes Crete first and places bombers there.

Britain is on its own for more than one year with very little production. You simply can't reinforce Egypt to a level where you can be sure to hold it. And you certainly can't afford to repair heavy losses. So a smart British player will retreat from Egypt if the Axis move there in force.

I base the Malta supply rule on reading a lot about WW2 history and seeing how other WW2 games have simulated the warfare in Africa. E. g. the great game Masterfront from Columbia Games have been a good inspiration. Most of the good games have some kind of limitation to the Axis presence in Africa and it's often linked to Malta. Probably to give the Axis player a reason to consider Operation Hercules (an airborne invasion of Malta) to lift the restrictions.

I think that without any restrictions to the Axis presence in Africa then the British won't stand a chance. It's not the land units that are so dangerous, but the Luftwaffe. Germany can send the entire Luftwaffe to Libya for some turns to really crush the British from afar before releasing their land units cleaning up the remnants. 2-3 turns of tac bomber attacks will drop the efficiency levels of the British units so far down so they can't inflict much damage when attacked by land units later.

I've yet to see any British player having many air and land units in Egypt in 1941. They simply can't afford it, especially if the Axis player threatens to launch a Sealion.

I agree that it's not optimal having to count supply points as the Axis player, but after playing a few times you know exactly which units you're allowed to have and just send them. E. g. I like to have a force like this: 1 German armor, 3 German infantry, 1 German fighter, 1 Italian motorized, 1 Italian fighter, 1 Italian tac bomber (or German fighter), lots of Italian infantry. In addition I place German tac bombers and fighters on Crete if I want to storm into Egypt. It's not easy for the British to stop such a force and this force is limited by the Malta supply rule.

But at least it's possible for the British to do something about this invasion force. Without any restrictions then the Allies won't stand a chance against an experienced Axis player. That is our experience from a lot of testing. Do we really want a game that's broken in Africa so the Axis quite often can get to the Iraqi oilfields? I think the Axis player should only get that far with a very clever strategy and exploiting some mistakes by the Allied player. If the game is balanced in a way so even average Joe (not Joerock ) can achieve the same then the balance is not good. This was the dream of Hitler and not even Rommel was able to achieve victory in Africa. So it should NOT be easy for the Axis to do that. The purpose of the BJR-mod is to try to recreate the historical balance that existed in the real war, but with chances to do things differently. I don't say the mod is perfectly balanced. There are still room for improvement.

We have on our agenda changing a class file to keep track of supply points spent in Libya, but since the programming capacity is limited I'm not sure if or when it will be implemented. There are other things that are more important to program that are higher on the list.