Italy as a new Axis player

Maybe it could even be know with another name: KIIA - Kill Italy In Advance. It was not me that created the Strategy, as I said was Churchill!

My concern is that Italy should be a weak player, in oorder for the game to be historical, but doing it too much weak will be more a damage to the Axis than an advantage. On the other hand it can not be too much strong for avoiding historical inaccuracy.

Really, I am eagerly awiting the anniversary edition to see how Italy will be “modelled”. I think that this factor will be one of the primary motivation for success or failure of the game.

Yes good point. My intention is to prove the Italian viability and prove their net worth to the game. I will dedicate some effort at this over the next few months. Italy is a welcome and potent member of the axis team. She was a complete nation in every respect and was close to Japan in terms of capabilities, but Japan had the good strategists and naval commanders. But that has no meaning when we are the directors of the new Roman Empire.

haha sounds about right.FORTH LEGIONS OF ITALIA!

I too think this Italy-stuff is a bad idea, now Germany will never again buy a Carrier or Bomber or anything bigger than a tank.

@Adlertag:

I too think this Italy-stuff is a bad idea, now Germany will never again buy a Carrier or Bomber or anything bigger than a tank.

I usually buy ton of infantry and panzers and also some fighters when possible. When I want to try something new or try to surprise my opponents I can buy an AC or a bomber. I suppose that this will be possible also in Anniversary.

On the contrary I think that Italy will stick with what has at the begin buying only ground units and Germany, may spend the money not spent for going to africa to put up a sea campaing or an uboote offensive. I hope there will be some incitation to buy subs, lower cost or better abilities or even economy raiding function.

I look principally at the presence of Italy as a way to have same numbers of players on each side and having the same numbers of powers to take a turn in round.

@LT04:

I didn’t know that Italy had the navel power they did I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

History plays a big part in the military, as a former 10th Mountain soldier (for the US) I learned how the 10th went to Po Valley and how costly it was to gain ground.  They would have to fight going up hill.  When they got to the top the Italians would retreat to the top of the next hill and it was like that the whole way.

As a soldier in the 3rd INF Division (known as the Marines of Europe by the US)  The Italians but up a heck of a fight on the Amphibious landings.

I had a lot of friends in the US 82nd Airborne that I went to jump school (paratrooper training) with.  The 504th PIR (Parachute Infantry Regament) paid their dues in Anzio.

I hope that this can be refelecte in the new game.

LT

In 1940 Italian fleet was composed of 2 modern BB (Littorio class) with other two sister ships in construction (only one was completed hower the Roma), 4 old BB rebuilt and updated, 7 CA and about 12 CL. Italy owned no AC, only two were launched in 1941 but were never completed.

To take in account scenarios as you say Anniversary edition should consider geographic feature of the territories. For example, as you say, central and south Italy has a lot o low mountains, the Appennini, the were used by the Axis as defensive lines to slow the advance of the Allies. So mountainous territories, like Italy, should provide a defensive bonus. Lybia and Egypt were desert wich are harsh territories for infantry so the more mechanized force could have an advantage. Entrenchment may also be a feature. Hovewer I doubt that such rules will be implemented in Anniversary, they could make the game too much complicate.

Actually I hope the inclusion of Italy will have had the consequences of making some good changes to the game that would otherwise not be done. My guesses are:

1. Changed sea zones in Med. At least North and South Central Med., maybe even more.
2. Changed naval setup in Med., so that UK:s navy isn’t obliterated in the first turn.
3. More IPCs to Axis. To be balanced, Germany should have around 32 IPCs, Italy 15 IPCs.
4. More land areas in Africa, should have the same good effects as in Russia for AARe.
5. UK factory at start in Africa and/or India. The only way to make Africa a more interesting battlefield.

Overall the balance could be good as UK would be forced to put a lot of production in Africa, postponing the invasion of Europe to when it can be coordinated with the US.

Italy should have no IC in Africa. Main theme of the Mediterranean war was about Italian convoy to Libya. UK used Malta as base to attack Italian shipping and was involved in convoy to supply Malta. The main battle of the war were about attack/defence of the convoys.

I doubt, however that such events may be reproduct within the actual game mechanic. I suppose that Italy will be able to land units in Africa only in the first turns, after the Allies should be able to destroy the Italian Med Fleet or… Italy and Germany join forces to build up a big med fleet do dominate Mediterranean and continue to land units in Africa.

Larrys first edition had Malta, so perhaps its got some interdiction capability to Italian shipping. It cant get a ‘fighter’ but perhaps some new idea to make it work.

I was thinking Germany 40 IPC’s and Italy like 18-29 IPC’s.
I don’t see why Germany should suffer just due to the inclusion of a new Axis faction.

Italy 29 IPC… no way… it cant be more than 18 and thats kinda generous.

30% more territories usually means 30% more units  and that makes sence 600 pieces vs about 385 for revised.

So the Italians should get 18 IPC

North Italy 5-6
South Italy 5
Sicily 2-3
Libya 3
If they have Greece,Rhodes or Albania then give that 2 and reduce Sicily and Libya by one

8-10 Infantry
3 Artillery
2 Tanks
1 fighter
1 Bomber
1 BB
1-2 CA
1-2 DD
1 SS
1-2 AP

I agree IL.

Futhermore there is a thing to consider. Italy and Germany loses the war also because of their poor collaboration, other than all the other reasons: economical, geographical, political etc.
If in Anniversary edition Germany and Italy will not collaborate strictly they will deserve to lose, IMHO.

If German strategy will be conducted in order to minimize annoyance from Italy (i.e. in terms of IPC that can not be gained by German, for example) then Germany will suffer from Italy introduction. And Anniversary edition will be disliked by the hard Axis player.

If Italy will be conducted in order to conduct an independent war it will be a lost war for sure. And also in this case Anniversary edition will be dilike by who are eagerly awaiting for Italy to be a playable power.

In this case Germany and Italy should be conducted a little anti-historically: great collaboration, mutual support and exploiting the strength of each nations while covering the weakness. Italy player should understand the weakness of Italy and should not venture in tasks too much complicated.

In order to be a benefit for the Axis the intoduction of Italy have to be played better than the real Pact of Steel was played!

wooooooooohhhhh!

SORRY TYPED IT WRONG

meant to say 18-20
my apologies

Forgot to mention. I really don’t think the neutrals are gonna get that same silly revised treatment where its an “out of sight out of mind” mentality where they are basically ignored. I think the classic MB edition tactic of invading neutral spain will reappear, except  they have some rules they don’t just roll over and let this happen. 30% more territories will allow alot of neutrals on the map and they cant be ignored.

what do you think?

How do you think it could be applied that they won’t roll over and die as you put it.Maybe an infantry or 2 are placed to defend it if they are ‘invaded’?

A card system which is random?Pay an extra xamount of IPC’s.Or  an uprising occurs at your arrival.Place these* units to combat your forces.?

idk these ideas aren’t very good just random ideas.

I think it will be random, because that the fun way to go about it.  So lets say for each IPC the neutral is worth you roll a d6

1= 1 infantry
2= 1 infantry
3= 2 infantry,1 artillery
4= 2 infantry,1 art, 1 tank
5= 3 infantry,1 art, 1 tank, 1 destroyer
6= 3 infantry,1 art, 1 tank, 1 fighter

Allies are invading Spain, and so German player just places the pieces in spain ( using his own pieces)

cards would cost too much, but i like them better.

So in our example: Allies invade Spain, Its now German controlled, German rolls three sixes…. and Allied invasion force is totally destroyed. I like that because it defeats the strategy guides that tell you “you must invade Spain by turn 3”  based on that bogus analysis.

Id like to see the A bomb back in the game so i can nuke the neutrals one after the other… " nuke then invade"

its the old idea of “sweep and clear”

I like that because it stops a player going after neutrals for cheap IPCs.  This way you need a specific strategic reason and a well executed campaign in order to occupy unless the dice Gods smile at you.

1.  Would the roll be done every time a player invaded even if the first one fail?  That could build a huge army in a hurry - good for the side that controls it now because of the invasion, bad for the invader!

2.  Would that be on top of any army they already have at set up, or would this replace set up?