ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => Game Design => Topic started by: derdiktator on May 08, 2006, 11:13:09 AM
-
As things stand now, I am indeed having my doubts about the viability of Allied victory in the game - so perhaps I eat my words at least a bit on this score. :| I think this is particularly so with the changes in the Pacific rules this last game (changed early Jap builds and unforted islands only basing one plane).
If the Allies are to meet or beat the precipitous drop in Axis VP levels that occurs throughout 1944, then an Italian or Jap collapse is mandated by late 1943 or early 1944 at the latest. Currently, I simply do not see that happening with decent Axis play.
If there is one thing I would put my finger on in the game that is not right, it is that the Italians are just too, too tough. Usually with little more than say a half-dozen German fighters and a few ground pieces, they typically hold off virtually the entire might of the British Empire for two years or so (1940-1941). Add to this that nobody, but nobody has so much as managed to hold, let alone even invade an Italian mainland province in - what? - say at least the last 20 games or so? I frankly cannot remember the last time Italy was successfully invaded. The only time I can remember Italy falling was sometime in one or two of the first four or five games we played when playtesting way back when. Let's also not forget that most if not all the Italian fleet pretty much survives to the game's end.
Perhaps, and I mean just by the merest margin of perhaps, that without any Axis triggers and with very exacting excellent Allied play (and which I haven't seen exactly much of in recent games), I might be wrong and Italy can be taken out, but recent history certainly backs me on this.
As always, my $0.02 worth,
dd
-
See - Italy is the cornerstone of the Axis.
Just kidding.
Well- AT this point - I entirely agree that Italy must be taken out of the war in order to keep pace with the VP drop. This actually makes them a priorty when it comes to invading France or Italy. I think this works perfectly
Are they too tough?
Sure - if the Brits are weakened from U-Boats and do not have sufficient air coverage.
Pretty much - every game the Allies have played - there has been some sort of problem with priorities or miscommunication (or really just a lack of experience).
I would like to continue to play the game as is and see if it can be worked out. I really enjoy the process and the challange. (Even if it means losing 4 games in a row!)
John
-
Even if it means losing 4 games in a row!
could this be possible? :o
-
I think the observation about Italy was a little premature - I think the Italian mainland has been invaded and Italy has fallen in 4 out of the last 6 games I have been involved in/witnessed/heard about. Do you still hold this position?
Mark
-
...Italy has fallen in 4 out of the last 6 games. ...Do you still hold this position?
I would have to have seen those games to judge - blatant mess ups do not count. :)
In the recent 1941 game at John's house (7/11), Sicily was successfully invaded, but that was because the Germans tremendously over-committed against Russia. In retrospect, the Germans had more than ample resources to have held the Allies at bay in the Med, but would have had to give up their romp through the Urals.
The 1941 scenario also seems to leave the British relatively light trammeled compared to what can happen with a full-blown 1939 scenario.
I will admit that if England is left relatively unmolested in 1940 and 1941, then Italy is probably screwed. However, to me Italy still looks like an unduly tough nut given adequate early pressure on England to the extent of a decent sub war and/or adequate support to the Italians in the Med.
I am more than willing to be corrected on this, however I would much prefer someone other than me get beat up as the Italians to resolve the matter. :P
dd
-
There's no problem with Italy UNLESS Germany consistently provides ASSISTANCE. The Afrika Corp and the Italian units lost out not because of their fighting prowess in the desert but in LOGISTICS!!! NO REPLACEMENTS + NO FOOD + NO FUEL + NO BULLETS = SURRENDER!!!! The Royal Navy needs to make the MED a British pond!!!
-
Another observation. I have seen too many aggressive, undermanned Allied amphibious invasion attemps. It is easy to get excited about finally hitting Germany/Italy back, once the US is at war (or even earlier). This results in a counter attack or a stalemate which can set the Allies back. That is a big problem when time is running low....
-
I think I am seeing another game balance issue with Italy being a tough nut to crack, what with the addition of airbases and plane range limitations that serve to limit the concentration of planes in the Med to attack or defend fleets.
In particular, there seem to be many fewer planes that the Allies can now bring to bear to gang up on the Italian fleet. This means that surface power is more significant now (i.e., as air power effectiveness diminishes, surface power becomes more significant, relatively speaking).
In a straight-out naval surface battle, naval defense is favored over offense by a factor of three or four to one (in these rules, but certainly not in history - US Bureau of Ordance WWII estimate was 20 minutes for one ship to sink its opposite number at effective range). In the game, on the average, it takes four firing CAs to sink one enemy CA (four dice x (50% chance of a hit / die) = 2 hits). With fewer planes able to get fewer hits against the major surface units on average in a game now, surface fleets are just that much more survivable.
This makes Italy even tougher to crack.
However, I still don't want to play Italy. Even if Italy is a little tougher, it's still no fun being the littlest kid on the block.
dd
-
I guess I'll have to play the Brits from start to finish at some convention just to show you Italy is not a problem! John already saw the "OUCH" I can inflict in the Pacific when I was running the US in the Pacific.
-
Quote from: Yoper
The Germany/Italian player has decided that because of the fragility of Italy he has sent the Italians to the Eastern Front to be used as fodder.
One of my favorite tactics when things look rough for the Italians!
John
This quote and response are from the Detroit-area thread in the AAR section of this forum.
I see this as a real screwy tactic that I would rather not play with.
This kind of "gaming" of the rules is a direct result of the Italian collapse rules.
When we used to play Xeno's Europe at War/Russia at War, I felt that this issue was also a big problem.
I managed to come up with a set of rules that I thought staggered the consequences and made them more appropriate to the actual set of circumstances that had transpired in the game.
The original rule was this:
Italy surrenders when Rome is successfully occupied. All Italian Units in Italy and North Africa are removed from play.
I came up with this rule:
When the Allies occupy Rome, the following conditions are applied:
All Italian air and ground units-
· In North Africa and the Middle East surrender (Units are removed from play).
· In Europe (Excluding Italy)- roll one 8d for each unit to determine its status.
Roll- Status-
1,2 Remain Active
3-8 Surrender (Unit removed from play)
· In Italy- roll one 8d for each unit to determine its status.
Roll- Status-
1-4 Remain Active
5-8 Surrender (Unit removed from play)
All Italian naval units-
· In the Mediterranean- roll one 8d for each unit to determine its status.
Roll- Status-
1-4 Remain Active
5-8 Surrender (Unit removed from play)
· Outside the Mediterranean- roll one 8d for each unit to determine its status.
Roll- Status-
1,2 Remain Active
3-8 Surrender (Unit removed from play)
The Axis have until the end of the second Italian turn after the fall of Rome to liberate the Italian capital. If they do not meet this condition, then all remaining Italian units surrender.
Now I understand that the rules in each of these games is trying to simulate history (just like your Fall of France rules), but I think that the "all or nothing" system of the made die roll is too much.
There should still be a roll for collapse (based on your conditions or ones similar to yours) but then there should be variable conditions as to how big a collapse there is.
There could also be limits as to how many Italian units can be outside the Med theater of operations. This would stop the using of Italian units as fodder.
Craig
-
Hail!
I'm a new member that has been playing with Yoper's group. Let me just say first and foremost that I enjoy play the Struggle for Europe and Asia and look forward to many more campaigns.
I decided to contribute to the Italian discussion. Another tactic that I used in a previous game while playing Germany/Italy and one that the current player is also using, is to send at least one German front unit to each Italian territory so that Germany may claim ownership of those territories if and when Italy surrenders. As the Soviets in the current game I have noticed that all available Italian units have been ordered to the Eastern Front for cannon fodder duty.
I also agree with Yoper's suggestion to incorporate die rolls to mitigate the entire loss of all Italian forces no matter where they are at the time. Some Italian's were die hard loyal fascists that fought along side the Germans until the bitter end.
In addition, I would like to propose the following idea to replace the die roll for Italian capitulation. Some rather odd strategies have cropped up in our games due to this surrender die roll effect. In place of the die roll, Italy would surrender at the end of the Axis turn if any three of the folowing 4 items are true:
1) The Allies control Rome. (This counts as 2 items)
2) Italy has no in-supply front units in Africa.
3) The Allies control a production territory in Italy other than Rome.
4) The Allies have more land units in Italy (including Sicily) than Italy does. (German units do not count towards this total)
This would at least encourage the Italian player to defend the homeland.
-
Welcome aboard - glad you enjoy the game! :D
We tried a few different options with Italian (and French) surrender rules before settling on the one currently in the rulebook.
Let me make sure we all understand the current surrender rules first (Yoper has gotten me a little gun-shy on the clarity of the rules as written ;D ):
Italy is fragile similar to France. At the end of every Axis turn in which there are no more Italian units in Africa and/or one or more production territories of Greater Italy (Milan/Genoa, Istria, Florence/Rome, Naples, and Sicily) are Allied occupied, the Italian player rolls one die for capitulation. If the die roll is equal or less than the number of enemy occupied Greater Italian territories (and one if Italy no longer has any units in Africa), Italy surrenders.
Example 1: If there are no Italian units in Africa at the end of the Italian turn, the Italian player rolls a die and on a "1" Italy surrenders.
Example 2: If the Allies control 2 Italian territories and there are no Italian units in Africa, on a "3" or less, Italy surrenders.
Additionally, if at the end of any Allied turn that Rome is occupied by 5 or more Allied ground units, Italy immediately surrenders.
So, every turn Italy does not have any units in North Africa, they roll a dies and on a "1" Italy is out of the game. If the Allies also contral, say, Sicily, every turn the Italians rolls a die and on a 1-2, they are out of the game.
So, in your current game, the Italians should be rolling a die every turn now that North Africa is in Allied hands. If the Allies invaded Sicily, they would double the chances for Italian surrender.
-
Now, with that being said - I think I like some of the suggestions you guys are coming up with but some of them may not work:
I like the idea of limiting Italian units outside of the Med. I never put something like that in the rules to try and keep things simple, but it should probably be introduced as an advanced or optional rule. Something like:
No more than 5 Italian units may be outside of the Mediterranean theater (defined as all Arid territories on the map as well as all territories adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea).
Additionally, there should probably be something like: " No German units may enter Italian owned territories until the Italians have lost 10 or more units"
-
But the Axis need to be incented to commit to North Africa and the roll of potential Italian capitulation was built to force that issue. Without it, the Italians can withdraw from North Africa and build "Fortress Italy". In fact, the Italians may abandon N Africa and engage in that strategy from the get go.
I think historically this is not realistic. Mussolini's goal was to be a Mediterranean power - if the Italians were driven from North Africa, his regime would be (and was) under considerable pressure. Historically, Mussolini was overthrown after the Italians were kicked out of Sicily and before the Allies even had a substantial foothold on the boot itself.
Before N Africa was a potential surrender roll, we had many games where the Italians/Germans just put a huge stack in Rome and counterattacked any Allied landing - making Italy almost impregnable.
Having a rule where the Italians don't have to worry about anything even with the loss of N Africa and Sicily will create a lot of problems - believe me.
-
If you want to have a chance that some Italian units remain after Mussolini is overthrown, maybe take a page out of Yoper's suggestion and say:
All Italian units outside of the Med are removed from play. Roll a die for every Italian unit in Italy, on a "1" the unit remains, on a 2-6 it is removed. Or something like that. Again, we could make this an optional or an advanced rule.
Again I think this may add more realism - but after he Il Duce was removed, I don't think there were too many division-sized Italian units left fighting for the Germans. The Germans actually went about disarming most of the Italian army.
-
Now, if you don't like the "all or nothing" Italian surrender rules, instead of making it an Italian surrender, make it a roll for each Italian unit on the board.
What I mean is, if the Italians are kicked out of North Africa, instead of a "1" forcing an Italian surrender, roll a die for each Italian unit - on a "1", remove the unit. You could make it a +1 modifier for Italian units outside of the Med - So Italian units in Russia would surrender (or revert to negligible combat value) on a "1-2".
That way, Italy would gradually fall out of the game instead of all at once.
-
I also like the suggestion the the North African surrender condition should be amended to "supplied" Italian units in North Africa. I have seen some games where the Italian player has paratrooped a unit into N Africa to stay in the game without a roll. The "supplied" amendment would remove this unrealistic tactic from working
-
My point - relating to the original response I got - was about the shifting 15-20 Italian units out of Italy to the Eastern front once the Germans had sufficient forces in the Boot to properly defend it.
I do not like having to put in extra rules that limit the ability of a player to go about prosecuting the war as he sees fit. I would rather not have a rule that stops the Italian player from being an active player in the Middle East, the Eastern Europe, or any other place on the board.
I just think that the manner in which the fall of Italy is dealt with leads to some very wacky developments. These tactics spring from a historical hindsight that all the players have and the fact that said historical fact are built into the rule set.
Unlike the possible triggers of other neutrals in the game (which I like), the stilted handling of France and Italy is less than satisfactory to me.
Another example of a way to allow multiple choices in the game concerning one of these instances is again from the Xeno's Europe at War/Russia at War. When France falls, the German player is given the choice to set up a Vichy government or to decline the establishment of said government. The German player is then forced to go about conquering the rest of France to get the production of those areas, but he is then allowed to do as he pleases in those territories instead of staying out of them.
While I am not advocating this particular system for your game, I am talking to the larger issue of allowing a greater latitude in the manner of how these situation are resolved.
I will think on this some more and come up with some ideas as to how the Fall of Italy and maybe even the Fall of France might be better dealt with. Or at least how it could be allowed more options.
Craig
-
I'm happy to brainstorm alternatives as I am sure others are. Perhaps there should be a limit on German troops allowed to be in Italian territories until Italy surrenders?
-
In the end, any idea should be simple.
Craig
-
Italy is not so much a problem as it is an opportunity! ;D
I like the Italian collapse rules - but moving the entire Italian army off to Russia is a problem. . . ???
-
This issue actually very rarely comes up.
1) If there is a seperate Italian player player - they ususally will not allow many of their units to the Eastern Front.
2) Usually the Allies will begin to be a large threat to Italy. If all of the Italian units are somewhere else for fodder - then the German player will lose units that would normally be in for the whole game, instead of taking Italian units as casualties when the Allies attack Italy. This just about results in the same thing, that is, if things look grim for Italy, the Italian units will be taken as casualties before the Germans no matter what front they are on.
In conclusion - I am not sure that moving units to the eastern front is a big deal. Everything more or less balances out in the end. It may not be that historical but I believe in flexibility...
John
-
You would think that that is how people would play it.
But I can see how people would get the idea that if the Italians are going to disappear because of a roll of 1 out 6, just after they have built it up to a respectable defensive force, why not send that force to the Eastern Front to be chewed up before they magically evaporate.
The German units in Italy in your example are going to be slowly ground away, in comparison to a situation in which you have Italian defenders in the Boot that you are shifting around to make a counterattack with and then all of a sudden they are gone.
Now, with that all said, I would have never thought to have taken the Italians out of the Boot. My mind doesn't usually come up with those out of the box ideas. I would have just left the nice defense force in the boot and continue to build it up.
Craig
-
Hey - the Italians didn't magically disappear - they surrendered and tried to switch sides. The Germans disarmed much of what was left of the Italian army and bombed what was left of their fleet to prevent it from joining the Allies. What was left of the Hey – “the Italians didn't magically disappear” - they surrendered and tried to switch sides. The Germans disarmed much of what was left of the Italian army and bombed what was left of their fleet to prevent it from joining the Allies. What was left of the Italian army after the invasion of Sicily was negligible.
I think it is proper to allow German units to be in Italy and a good German player should move German units to Italy to help defend it and to seize the Italian production points when Italy does surrender - because they did historically.
I think we can brainstorm some rules around Italian decreasing effectiveness and surrender as well as German options around Vichy France - I like those ideas.
Maybe an optional/advanced rule along the lines that: "the Germans can not have more units in Italy than Italian units or Mussolini's regime becomes unstable-and they are reduced to 1/2 or 0 production" or something like that.
-
What it really boils down to is the fact that historical hindsight is driving certain parts of the gameplay.
Those parts limit the "what if" factor in the game. Your last answer is fine- I know the history behind what is trying to be simulated- I just don't like that an attackers strategy can be based on a certain percentage that the defender will just up and quit.
I have never seen any WW II game that I have played ever exactly play out as the real war played out.
As such, having outcomes that occur in the game based on the historical events, even though the game played out totally different from the way the real war did, strikes me as a bit false.
I think that you can understand what I am talking about from how I handled my play of the Japanese in the game that I played at Origins. I didn't have a total handle on the rules at that time, but I also didn't understand why the US just gets to come into the war at that time.
Any of these major moments in the game should have reasons for happening based on what is actually going on in the game, not arbitrary set dates based on what historically happened.
What historically happened was always based on what was going on at that time. If some action/event doesn't happen in the course of the game and that action/event is a basis for another action/event to occur, why should the second action/event still come into being simply based on a predetermined timetable?
I know, I know! Keep it simple stupid! :-*
It just is frustrating to want to do things differently and to keep being channeled back into certain historical choices that may have nothing to do with what I have planned for my country.
Craig
-
I hear you - I have never to completely happy with the US and Soviet entry rules - but never was able to come up with something more event driven.
The challenge is, hindsight has given the Axis players a different perspective on the military capabilities of the U.S. and Russia than what the Axis historically had. If their entry becomes event driven, good Axis play will tend to avoid the events that might trigger US and Soviet entry - so an alternative to what we have now may not be easy.
I am seriously open to any ideas though - so lets kick a few around. . .
-
I was thinking about this. Pehaps their should be something to make it less likely for Italy to surrender the more German units that are in Italy. I dont know how this would jive historically but it seems the more German forces in the country would make the Italian Facist government stronger and make it less likely that a coup would occur causing an Italian surrender as the war gos more and more badly for the Italians. Something like for every 5 front line German units of instance the Italians could add 1 to their surrender roles. But to balance things out a little bit make it that the Italians must still have more units in the country than the Germans.. Its an idea while maybe not historically accurate would allow the Axis player to experiement a little.
-
But the Axis need to be incented to commit to North Africa and the roll of potential Italian capitulation was built to force that issue. Without it, the Italians can withdraw from North Africa and build "Fortress Italy". In fact, the Italians may abandon N Africa and engage in that strategy from the get go.
I think historically this is not realistic. Mussolini's goal was to be a Mediterranean power - if the Italians were driven from North Africa, his regime would be (and was) under considerable pressure. Historically, Mussolini was overthrown after the Italians were kicked out of Sicily and before the Allies even had a substantial foothold on the boot itself.
Before N Africa was a potential surrender roll, we had many games where the Italians/Germans just put a huge stack in Rome and counterattacked any Allied landing - making Italy almost impregnable.
Having a rule where the Italians don't have to worry about anything even with the loss of N Africa and Sicily will create a lot of problems - believe me.
I d prefer a per unit die rolling system plus some sort of lend lease from germany to italy, they are sharing the same railmovement contingent either.
In order to keep the axis committed to North Africa you could as well say, Italy loses 1 additional production point for each colony in NA.
Currently its just too easy to kick italy out of the game. The lend lease would allow for some extra fleet production, which would make sense since italy is enclosed by the french and british navy, so a early war entry not really an option.
If I were an allied player I would crush the italian fleet during their first round at war, with the italian navy gone you can easily knock them out of africa and invade their homeland.
the rest of the royal navy will be ordered to the pacific to threaten the japanese, maybe offer some destroyers as cannonfodder in order to get the japanese player to declare war on the allies :)
The german navy is negligable, some bombers will do the job, maybe an addition aircraft carrier in the north atlantic and some destroyers to hold the convoy routes just blockade the north atlantic to keep the axis from sending subs,
-
What if Germany covered the Italian fleet with their fighters on the first round the Italians declared war (after France falls)?
John
-
this would slow down the german advance to much if those forces are bound,
as germany you could invade greece in spring 1940 and ind summer 19040 invade turkey and move the italian fleet to the black sea, this allows italy to react within reach of their homecountry and put additional pressure on russia.
maybe lower the overall ic of italy and give it full production from the beginning on
-
The original post on this thread was the Italy was "too tough" not "too weak". Anyway, the last game I was a part of (the Feb Hartford game in the After Action Reports section) had Italy and the Italian fleet lasting until Spring 1944 - which I think is pretty good, considering some of the disasters the Axis had in the Med (like the failed invasion of Gibraltar). After dozens of games, I am not really of the opinion that Italy is too weak - if anything, perhaps the opposite.
Access through the Med can be blocked by sacrificing one destroyer if the Italians have to. By protecting the Italian fleet with some airpower flown down to the Med after the Fall of France, the Italian navy can be very threatening to the British.
I think the new optional Italian surrender rules add some additional flavor to the Italian role in the game as well.
With respect to Germany - this quote jumped out at me: "The german navy is negligable, some bombers will do the job, maybe an addition aircraft carrier in the north atlantic and some destroyers to hold the convoy routes just blockade the north atlantic to keep the axis from sending subs"
I think the German navy can be a pretty good threat to keep the British honest. building your fighters in the Ruhr will keep the British bombers away from your fleet - and if the British move too much away from the Atlantic to the Med or Pacific - sortie it.
I'd like to get some feedback from the guys in Detroit on this as it seems like the Germans have been creating a lot of havoc for the Allies in the Atlantic even with destroyer investment. If the British sail all their capital ships to the Med, I would definately commit the German navy to go kill some destroyers and loosen things up for my u-boats to do even more damage.
-
While having a look at the new Optional Italian morale table.. I would suggest to add something like the rolls that are made voor the French fleet when France surrenders, but then not for the Italian Fleet, but for all Italian Ground and Air units in Italy and the rest in Europe. While still removing all units in Africa and the middle East. Maybe like 1 or 2 the unit remains Axis, on 3,4,5 it surrenders and is removed from play and on a 6 it joins the Allies (only if the unit is based in Italy, Sicily or Sardinia, otherwise it is also removed)
-
I just stumbled on this thread while browsing. It looks like the optional Italian surrender rules have solved a lot of the issues in this thread. One tactic was mentioned though that I hadn't considered - the idea of moving the bulk of the Italians to be used on the Eastern Front. Even with the optional surrender rules this is still a possibility if a player knows that he is likey to use up those units in combat before Italy reaches the point where their units outside the Med would surrender.
In real life you couldn't simply transfer the bulk of your armed forces outside your theatre, but this is a political reality outside the scope of the game. I think a rule stating that you cannot have more units outside the Med than you have in Italy would take care of the problem. It is arbitrary - but then so is the rule that requires France to keep their colonial forces in place to prevent the equally unrealistic tactic of emptying their posessions of troops to fight in France.
I do think something like this should be in the rules. I don't think most people would abuse the rules that way, but there's always someone out there who delights in that sort of thing.