The problem of Italy

[derdiktator]

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

[John D.]

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

[Raybshot]

Even if it means losing 4 games in a row!

could this be possible? 

[Mark]

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

[derdiktator]

...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. 

dd

[RandR]

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!!!

[John D.]

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....

[derdiktator]

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

[RandR]

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.

[Yoper]

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

[Erc]

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.

[Mark]

Welcome aboard - glad you enjoy the game!

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  ):

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.

[Mark]

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"

[Mark]

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.

[Mark]

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.