Hello all,
It's my first time playing this 'Mediterranean crisis 1940-1942' scenario, so I'm not sure if there is a real issue here or just a misunderstanding on my part.
On my first game as Western, I was able to boot Italy out of Libya during the winter of 40-41, when I didn't have yet the opportunity to declare war on Syria and Iraq (possible only after Apr41 if I believe the Playbook). But as soon as the turn ended after "liberating' Libya, the game ended and I was declared the winner (it was a DUEL game, so BGA moved on to the next game with me as Axis).
So my question is: if Western can win just by booting Italy out of Libya, what's the point of Syria and Iraq in this scenario? Apparently Axis can't control their units or move there until war has been declared on them. So does the Western player declare war on them only to make life more difficult for themselves, and have two fronts to fight on instead of one?
Any insight is appreciated
It's my first time playing this 'Mediterranean crisis 1940-1942' scenario, so I'm not sure if there is a real issue here or just a misunderstanding on my part.
On my first game as Western, I was able to boot Italy out of Libya during the winter of 40-41, when I didn't have yet the opportunity to declare war on Syria and Iraq (possible only after Apr41 if I believe the Playbook). But as soon as the turn ended after "liberating' Libya, the game ended and I was declared the winner (it was a DUEL game, so BGA moved on to the next game with me as Axis).
So my question is: if Western can win just by booting Italy out of Libya, what's the point of Syria and Iraq in this scenario? Apparently Axis can't control their units or move there until war has been declared on them. So does the Western player declare war on them only to make life more difficult for themselves, and have two fronts to fight on instead of one?
Any insight is appreciated