Mainly because Italy needs some real assets to make it a power. If you only give it Algeria, Libya and S. Europe they only get 8 IPC a round…that’s not even fun to play!
Yeah that would be a problem.
We could let Germany have lend-lease with Italy.
Or we could make Italy big.
So its Playability vs. Realism until a better solution.
Yes currently its at 10… should we then increase S. Europe by 2-4 thus italy is at 12-14?
of course the allies would also get 2-4 more . Thats the direction to go and balance out. No matter what germany must stand at 40IPC.
another idea: we could make Southern Italy worth 10? a minimal of map changes must take place thus now it stands with germany getting 10 more and italy at 10
http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm
here is some information from the harrison book concerning Italy and here economic capabilities in 1942.
yep
so the table has 1942 values of
USA 1235
UK 353
France 116
Utaly 145
USSR 274
Germany 417
Austria 27
Japan 197
so it translates to
USA 1235
UK 353
USSR 274
Germany 560
Japan 197
so forget the USA, the ratios are
UK 1.8
USSR 1.4
Germany 2.8
Japan 1
very different to Axis and Allies
Thats just one index of economic factors but an important one.
Why’s the US so high? Just shear manufacturing power, or what?
look at the link. USA grows each year. The “Arsenal of Democracy” in full effect. BTW we put you on the credits for helping us design this.
and no… your avatar will not appear in the ruleset. :-D :-D :-D
AS you can see in 1942 Japan is at 197 and Italy is at 145… Japan had a 33% larger wartime economy than Italy. Japan is at 25 thus Italy could be at say 15 or 16 range… I really like that range because they can make most units or buy 5 infantry! What you think?
as you know the allies now will get 15 for lend lease to balance ( free money).
This really could work well because it would involve buying a greater assortment of units also due to the limits we placed on infantry builds under phase one.
Another reason Italy player represents Balkans too.
The book “Third Axis, Fourth Ally” puts the case that Romania is an important Axis. And the book thinks more so than Italy.
http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=1111
I know that everyone talked about this more than a couple months ago, but if anyone is interested I have a triplea map that has been setup almost exactly like discussed in this topic. We did add a German transport to the sea zone with the italian ships; it seemed the only likely way for Germany to get troops into Africa.
luc
this is the text file for triplea, if you change it to an .xml file extension it will be recognizable through triplea
[attachment deleted by admin]
Lucky day:
How exactly is the map set up… can you jpeg it and post the map?
@Imperious:
Lucky day:
How exactly is the map set up… can you jpeg it and post the map?
IL, we tried to keep it simple, didn’t want to have to print a new board at the time, but use the revised board as much as possible. What we came up with, was pretty close to what is discussed in this thread.
Italy takes control of Southern Europe, Balkans and Libya, as well as the fleet off the coast of Italy. All units there remain the same, but become Italian, with the one exception of adding a German transport, or rather keeping the German transport in the Med.
Country values–Germany became 20, SE became 8 and Balkans became 4. This gives Italy 13 and keeps Germany the same.
(we decided that SBR was limited to 10 in Germany)
We played Italy right after Germany, but thought they could also go first, or even after Great Britain.
-this setup we felt wasn’t absolutely ideal, but it was easy to play on the AAR board (no zone or territory changes, only units really) and added a 6th player. We have had both sides win, sometimes Italy was the most important, (amphious assaulting into Caucaus and 1-2-3 punching Moscow) and sometimes they truly were the soft underbelly of Europe.
Here’s a jpg of Europe with this setup
luc
[attachment deleted by admin]
Cool. My cousin and I played 4 games of the “pact of steel” setup in tripleA and found through switching sides that defeating the axis was extremely difficult (Axis 4, Allies 0). Italy was simply too powerful & added too many units to the German defense of Europe each turn. It looks like this version with a “weaker” version of Italy may help balance this a bit better.
One thing we both liked about having Italy as a power was that Germany could be a bit more offensively minded without worrying as much about getting stomped by the allies.
I look forward to giving this a try. Thanks!
Yeah you wanna make Italy a meaningful playing but new units are gonna kill balance.
LuckyDay, how did you balance the extra 10 IPC Axis is gaining?
LUcky Day you sure you dont want to use our AARHE map for this ? As you know our approach is similiar and our map is a million times better.
I could support your efforts to bring the level of asethetics into a higher realm. I could even remake the Icons for the units. At least they wont look so horrible.
Cool. My cousin and I played 4 games of the “pact of steel” setup in tripleA and found through switching sides that defeating the axis was extremely difficult (Axis 4, Allies 0). Italy was simply too powerful & added too many units to the German defense of Europe each turn. It looks like this version with a “weaker” version of Italy may help balance this a bit better.
One thing we both liked about having Italy as a power was that Germany could be a bit more offensively minded without worrying as much about getting stomped by the allies.
I look forward to giving this a try. Thanks!
Yes, this can be a problem. That Italian forces are used for a stronghold of German defense in Europe. Simultaneous play does nearly eliminate this problem, and I don’t think adding a Transport will be forcing the balance… to much… Adding Italy does make the Axis stronger at first, but it could work against them later on.
LuckyDay, how did you balance the extra 10 IPC Axis is gaining?
We felt that since the Allies were still up by 13 IPCs that the production advantage was still there’s, and a concerted push by the Allies one way or another would give them the momentum that they wanted while the Axis were still pushing in all directions.
So far when we’ve played we have had games go for both sides so we are still trying to work out where it is out of balance, but our leaning is that the Allies are stronger right now still. We’ve played it FTF, but put together the triplea model because we had a couple new players and wanted them to practice as well as everyone play-testing.
luc
@Imperious:
LUcky Day you sure you dont want to use our AARHE map for this ? As you know our approach is similiar and our map is a million times better.
I could support your efforts to bring the level of asethetics into a higher realm. I could even remake the Icons for the units. At least they wont look so horrible.
Imperious Leader, I very much like the AARHE map and setup, I haven’t played it yet because we haven’t printed out it out yet, though I’ve gone through all the info a good bit. We would like to use a map that is set for 6 players as that is what we have many times, and the more we’ve played the more that we’ve talked about getting a bigger map with the approriate detail. Just haven’t gotten the group into agreement over the large map yet.
yea but were talking about a computer map… why does it matter what size it is ?.. you can replace the one in the program and make the AARHE map any size you want… or i can do it for you.
 We’ve played it FTF, but put together the triplea model because we had a couple new players and wanted them to practice as well as everyone play-testing.
sorry for the confusion IL, thus far we’ve used this map setup for practice in prep for playing in the group FTF with a revised board and extra pieces from various A/A boards. I did not realize that you were talking about better pieces and maps for the computer game. I thought you were talking about physical pieces.
luc
