well if Italy does have a 16 - 24 IPC starting point the allies will be able to park in the med. and cut off the Axis advance early in the game. Germany may choose to move a mass of troops into Rome to prevent an allied landing but I think that could really hurt the axis not being able to put boats in the water.
In revised you would never have though of sending a US fleet to the Med. This is going to be interesting to see how little changes like this change the framework of ally / Axis strategies.
LT
I think that Italy can really help the Axis powers in the Anniversary Edition (even though it didn’t help in WW2), but when would Italy play in the order of turns?
In the Pact_of_Steel triplea game Italy goes first then Russia. The rest is the same as A&A revised.
LT
I think that Italy can really help the Axis powers in the Anniversary Edition (even though it didn’t help in WW2), but when would Italy play in the order of turns?
Italy helps/hurts, in that previously only the allies can get paid twice for swaping EE (w/o large japan forces) when Germany benefits once. However, in such a case, the allies can now swap a territory 3 times vs only twice before.
Also, Germany had all its units attack together.
If Italy is seperate, the Euro axis attack twice, but lose the “mass” advantage Italy IPC added to Germany.
I think its still alternating turns with axis followed by allies for sure in 1941, but reversed in 1942. I think Italy plays before UK deliberately to get rid of Uk crashing its fleet into Japanese as a gambit. That was totally impossible for UK to even consider in 1942. So Italy going before UK would present the threats that UK needs to respond to rather than get a free shot at Japan because the odds roller says do it.
Wow excellent points everyone,and couldn’t agree more IL about your dice=#of units for Neautral/Enemy territory.I f thats what you are saying,correct?
yea but it was just an idea of an easy way to do it. That way if you know whats in Spain or wherever , you can prepare and thats not fun at all. I prefer the random thing, anything that runs against preparation would make it more fun.
You guys forget the possibilities for “can opener” it gives to the axis.
If Germany open a hole in Russian defenses and Italians have a force of tanks in waiting, you get the perfect blitzkreig.
This means Russians need to be extremely cautious as soon Axis are able to mass within 2 territories of moscow ( Karelia, Belorussia ).
That frontline will be hard to defend now.
yes but Italy will have limited punch ability. But thats a good point.
The other thing is the Axis have balanced resolve to counter allied 1-2 punch because their will be no turn sequence that allows for 2 allied turns in a row, which is a kick in the arse for Axis.
@Corbeau:
You guys forget the possibilities for “can opener” it gives to the axis.
If Germany open a hole in Russian defenses and Italians have a force of tanks in waiting, you get the perfect blitzkreig.
Italy is going to be hard pressed to conquer Africa, and save its own bacon rather than massing tanks for taking Moscow.
The idea of a 1-2 punch is fine. But Italy wont be half (or even 1/3) the offensive power Germany will be. Italy wont have enough IPC to buy masses of tanks (which isnt a good idea for them anyway).
Frankly, I like the idea of Italy as a distinct player. But even though Larry caved-in to us and made an Italy ruleset, I’m guessing the “better” (i.e. more competitive) version of the game will have Germany in control of Italy like in AAR.
But it is finally nice to have the option to play it either way.
With the one - two punch Germany will have to attack and Italy will have to occupy with INF. Maybe Japan with some FTR’s.
LT
One thing that I am curious to see is if there is any provision for the Italian player to switch sides and join the Allies during the game. That is basically what happened in 1943, and you had the US supplying the Italian Co-Belligerent Forces with military equipment, as the main Italian production centers were in North Italy. Be interesting to see. Also, I assume that the 1941 setup will reflect the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, with a small air unit component, maybe a destroyer and sub in Massawa, and some infantry units. I cannot see any basis for an Italian Industrial complex in Africa, but figure that you will have a British one, with the option of building a US one as well. The US was heavily involved in supporting the British forces in North Africa by mid 1941, following passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March of 1941.
/timerover51
The '41 scenario was added I think to increase the options for Italy and Japan. Barbarossa will be interesting of course to play, but it will not change gameplay dramatically as I suspect any killer blow to Russia will probably have to wait to '42 and even '43 as in A&A Revised. But Italy in '41 can choose to boost its land help to the Germans, or to invade Gibraltar and move vs. West Africa or to focus on taking Egypt. Japan, of course, has massive amount of options as in A&A Pacific.
Italy switching sides will be represented by the Italian IC being taken over by the Allies, and being a really dangerous threat to Germany. The victory will also be represented in Italian IPCs being lost to the invading player. That is, when it switches sides, it is conquered as an Axis/fascist power and is included like the Free French in the Allies. The big question is if Italy will be divided into different territories. My guess in a post on another thread is that Sicily will be included as an important air base either for Italy vs. Malta or for the Allies vs. Italy proper. I don’t think Italy will be divided. That way the '43 landings of Sicily can take place even though southern Italy can’t be taken separately. It won’t be totally historically correct but good enough for a simulation!
In Pact_of_Steel the Sicily land zone is the island but it also has the very tip of the boot of Italy. You didn’t need transports to get from Sicilt to mainland Italy. Also there is only one SZ in that area like in Revised. I hope it isn’t like that in the Anniversary edition. That puts to much pressure on Italy to have to hold every territory they have b/c any allied navy could land in one or more land zones wile just sitting in the only SZ.
To make myself clearer… Say these are the following Italian land zones (LZ) Algeria, Libia, Sicily, Rome, W Balkins, Greese. If there is only one SZ in this area the allies could punch a hole in any one of those LZ’s simply by sitting and waiting.
For most countries this wouldn’t be an issue but for Italy with 18-24 IPC that’s a big deal. Yeah, yeah, yeah Italy is the weakest Axis state but adding a few SZ’s to the med. wouldn’t hurt any thing IMHO.
LT
Italy wont have 24 IPC. Not even close.
And Germany will have to make the Med a priority if Italy is going to survive.
I wonder how Germany will be able to focus on Russia like before or if they will have to baby-sit Italy?
LT
In pact of steel what are all the IPC values by nation?
Italy 16, Germany 38, Japan 30, Russia 24, UK 33, US 42
Italy 16, Germany 38, Japan 30, Russia 24, UK 33, US 42
those are good numbers for the new game i predict:
Germans 33-40 ( depending on scenario
Italy 15-16
Japan 22-30 ( depending on scenario)
Russia 32-24 (depending on scenario)
UK 28-30
USA 45
china 8-9 ( they buy differently- probably 2 IPC infantry)
Perhaps for Neutral nations… when you invade, multiply the amount of enemy alliance IPC values in adjacent territories by 2, and that many infantry defend. For example, in revised, if Germany controlled Western Europe and UK invaded Spain, it would have 12 German infantry spring up on defense (representing political pressure being applied to Spain because of its adjacency to German territory, followed by an attack from Germany’s enemy). On the flipside, Germany invading Spain would have no defensive forces pop up (clearly this means that there must be adjusted IPC values to make this rule work, but of course invading Spain even if Spain gave no resistance would be very risky as it gives Britain more ways to strike mainland europe, and you probably wont be reinforcing it with the 12 infantry that would have helped you otherwise).
2 variants of this idea:
-Instead of multiplying by 2, take the amount of enemy alliance IPC values in adjacent territories and simply add the neutral nation’s IPC value to find infantry amount.
-Instead of multiplying by 2, multiply by the value of the territory (which would obviously mean that neutrals would need to be either low in value, or not surrounded by massively valued territories).
