The problem of Italy

[Mark]

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.

[Mark]

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

[Yoper]

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   

[Mark]

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?

[Yoper]

In the end, any idea should be simple.

Craig

[Uncle Joe]

Italy is not so much a problem as it is an opportunity! 

I like the Italian collapse rules - but moving the entire Italian army off to Russia is a problem. . . 

[John D.]

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

[Yoper]

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

[Mark]

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.

[Yoper]

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   

[Mark]

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. . .

[aordolin]

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.

[Basiror]

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,

[John D.]

What if Germany covered the Italian fleet with their fighters on the first round the Italians declared war (after France falls)?

John

[Basiror]

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