The Italian Co Belligerent Army (ICBA) is formed after any Allied attack on Southern Italy, and is an Allied power. ICBA territories are Southern Italy, plus any Italian territory without German units that the Italian player rolls a 1-3 on. ICBA’s capital is Southern Italy. If this is captured, the ICBA is disbanded, and all ICBA territories become Italian Social Republic territories. The ICBA may not be constituted twice. ICBA units may attack and move on their own turn (between the Far East Command and the Italian Social Republic), and they may capture territory. If an Italian-occupied territory becomes ICBA, then it is restored to the original owner. If that owner’s territory is occupied, then no power owns it, and any power may walk in, after which it is subjected to the usual rules about liberating the territory of a power who has lost their capital. The ICBA may build in any ICs they own, and they may collect their own income.
The Italian Social Republic (ISR) is formed after any Allied attack on Southern Italy, and is an Axis power. ISR territories are Northern Italy, any Italian territories with German troops, plus any Italian territories that the Italian player roll a 4-6 on. The ISR’s capital is Northern Italy. If this is captured, the ISR is disbanded, and all remaining ISR territories become German-owned. The ISR may not be reconstituted twice. ISR units may attack and move on their own turn (between the ICBA and ANZAC). Any territory they capture (other than Southern Italy), becomes German. Italian-occupied territories that become ISR remain ISR, and do not revert to Germany. The ISR may not collect income, and gives all of its money to Germany. However, the German player may purchase up to ten units per turn in Northern Italy, using Italian pieces. If Southern Italy is captured, all ICBA territories become ISR, and the ISR reverts to the normal Italy.
All units in ICBA territories become ICBA, and all units in ISR territories become ISR.
Why?
What ?
Why?
Because something similar to this happened in the real war, so we “gotta” simulate it somehow. The line of “acceptable level of historical accuracy” is different for each person and for some, anything less than complete historical accuracy is unacceptable. Not that I’m saying that AxisAndAllies1940 falls in that category, but stuff like alternate governments for Italy falls in that range of “historical accuracy for historical accuracy’s sake” to me.
All I have to say to those types is: “Sure. So long I get to play the Allies and you the Axis… with historical IPC levels for the US…”
-Midnight_Reaper
Why?
Because something similar to this happened in the real war, so we “gotta” simulate it somehow. The line of “acceptable level of historical accuracy” is different for each person and for some, anything less than complete historical accuracy is unacceptable. Not that I’m saying that AxisAndAllies1940 falls in that category, but stuff like alternate governments for Italy falls in that range of “historical accuracy for historical accuracy’s sake” to me.
All I have to say to those types is: “Sure. So long I get to play the Allies and you the Axis… with historical IPC levels for the US…”
-Midnight_Reaper
40 Historical ha
If Rome falls Italy joins the UK.
@SS:
Why?
Because something similar to this happened in the real war, so we “gotta” simulate it somehow. The line of “acceptable level of historical accuracy” is different for each person and for some, anything less than complete historical accuracy is unacceptable. Not that I’m saying that AxisAndAllies1940 falls in that category, but stuff like alternate governments for Italy falls in that range of “historical accuracy for historical accuracy’s sake” to me.
All I have to say to those types is: “Sure. So long I get to play the Allies and you the Axis… with historical IPC levels for the US…”
-Midnight_Reaper
40 Historical ha
If Rome falls Italy joins the UK.
Am I claiming that A&A Global 1940 is well grounded in the history of the 1940s? Nope. What I am claiming is that there are fans of A&A Global 1940 that work hard to get it there. And there are those who try. Me, I just want a good game and some good times around a loose approximation of the Second World War.
-Midnight_Reaper
@SS:
Why?
Because something similar to this happened in the real war, so we “gotta” simulate it somehow. The line of “acceptable level of historical accuracy” is different for each person and for some, anything less than complete historical accuracy is unacceptable. Not that I’m saying that AxisAndAllies1940 falls in that category, but stuff like alternate governments for Italy falls in that range of “historical accuracy for historical accuracy’s sake” to me.
All I have to say to those types is: “Sure. So long I get to play the Allies and you the Axis… with historical IPC levels for the US…”
-Midnight_Reaper
40 Historical ha
If Rome falls Italy joins the UK.
Am I claiming that A&A Global 1940 is well grounded in the history of the 1940s? Nope. What I am claiming is that there are fans of A&A Global 1940 that work hard to get it there. And there are those who try. Me, I just want a good game and some good times around a loose approximation of the Second World War.
-Midnight_Reaper
Ya
IF you want to go full historical, then all Italian aircraft and navy join the Allies, and Italy has to surrender all Battleships and Aircraft Carriers to the British navy.
Italian Co-Belligerent Army / Italian Social Republic:
ICBA is a pro-Allied Italian government created after Rome is captured. At the same time, the ISR, a remnant and a pro-Axis goverment of Mussolini’s regime is created and seated out of Northern Italy. ICBA eligible territories are all Italian controlled territories, EXCEPT Northern Italy and Italian controlled territories with German units. ICBA territories are treated same as pro-Allied neutrals. All other forces are part of the Italian Social Republic. ISR becomes the new Italy and starts with 0 IPCs. On the each German turn, they CAN give up to 5 IPCs to ISR. For the ICBA, any movement is done after Vichy.
**Procedure: **
After Rome is captured, the following happens:
1. All ICBA forces (land/sea/air) standfast and defend against Axis attacks.
2. ICBA units can only make non-combat moves to another ICBA territory.
3. When an ICBA territory is occupied (except Southern Italy) by the allies, all units disband.
4. All ships become property of ICBA, except SZ97. ICBA ships are neutral and inactive, except they will defend against amphib assault.
5. ISR units may move as normal. ISR forces can be ordered to attack ICBA units.
6. At end of turn ICBA created, ISR player can choose to scuttle any Italian ships.
7. ICBA ships are captured when the adjacent territory(ies) are occupied by Axis.
8. ICBA ships remain neutral and inactive when adjacent to territory(ies) Allied occupied. The Allied player does get the option to scuttle any ships.
9. All ICBA units return to Axis if Rome is liberated. ICBA cannot be re-created.
Am I claiming that A&A Global 1940 is well grounded in the history of the 1940s? Nope. What I am claiming is that there are fans of A&A Global 1940 that work hard to get it there. And there are those who try. Me, I just want a good game and some good times around a loose approximation of the Second World War.
Yes, good points. Although I’m the type of person who tends to cringe at flagrant historical (and to a lesser extent geographical) inaccuracies, and who appreciates seeing basic (and sometimes much more specialized) aspects of WWII modeled in a reasonably credible way in the context of A&A, I fully understand that A&A isn’t meant to be a rigourous simulation of WWII, and that for purposes of practicality it has to make many simplifying assumptions. That’s perfectly fine, in my opinion. To mention an analogy that’s been used previously: A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.
I do enjoy attempts to try to increase the historical accuracy of A&A, and I’d be willing to accept a bit more complexity in order to get there…but my feeling is that there just isn’t enough support for the ICBA / ISR split in A&A Global.
Historically, the reason why Italy’s government split in two is that the Allied campaign bogged down in central Italy, so the Allies wound up occupying southern Italy while the Axis occupied northern Italy, in a stable way, for a long period of time. The reason that happened is that Italy has highly mountainous terrain, and to a certain extent the Americans were (in my opinion) using Italy as a training campaign, as a diversion, and as a phony war – the goal was less to conquer Milan as quickly as possible, and more to get some real combat experience for American troops and to “prove” to the Soviets that the Allies had opened up a second front. The Italian offensive tied down a few German divisions and forced Germany to redeploy reserves that might otherwise have tipped the balance at, e.g., the Battle of Kursk – but, again, the point of the Italian campaign was to tie those divisions down, not to occupy the industrial cities of Milan, Venice, Turin, and Florence.
None of this can be easily simulated in A&A Global. There is no such thing as mountainous terrain, you don’t have to worry about what the Soviets will think about the Allies in a post-war diplomatic environment, and there’s no ‘rail movement’ or ‘strategic movement’ phase that could be used to redeploy German forces from Smolensk to Northern Italy in a reasonable period of time.
Worse, by the time the Allies are occupying Southern Italy, the Italian economy is likely much too small to bother splitting. Like, realistically, what is the maximum extent of the ISR’s economy? Southern France, Northern Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria are worth 11 IPCs, assuming you get lucky rolls and keep all of your territories. You’ll also be lucky to hold onto all of that as the Axis for more than one turn after Rome falls – you might see Northern Italy trade hands the very next turn, and if you don’t, you’re likely to lose Marseilles and/or some of the Balkans. Same problem with the ICBA economy – you’re looking at a maximum of about 10 IPCs, with a more likely average of 6 IPCs. It’s just not worth the bookkeeping of maintaining a whole separate economy (and another turn in the turn order) so that you can dump a couple of infantry onto the board for a couple of turns.
Finally, denying Rome to the Americans as a place to deploy new recruits is sort of unrealistic in that southern Italy was very much a staging ground for the Allies. If you follow the principles behind the ICBA/ISR split, you should probably also have some kind of rules for “free Scandinavia” and “free Holland” and so on. The ultimate result is to say that America can never have its own factory in Europe, because all potential factory sites are occupied by the respective liberated powers. That’s going to throw off game balance something fierce.
I think the idea of a split Italy makes a lot more sense in the context of a theater map that focuses on the Mediterranean, or, at most, on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The Global map is just too large to support a special focus on the details of the Italian government.
If Rome falls would it interest you in giving Italy another Capital to stay in game?
Yeah, that sounds like a much more reasonable solution for a game on the Global scale – if the Allies capture Rome, they can loot some or all of the Italian treasury once, and then Italy continues operations as an Axis power from Northern Italy, or perhaps from another capital site of Italy’s choice. Meanwhile, Allied-occupied Rome is simply an occupied territory that gets controlled by whoever captured it.
@CWO:
A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.
I agree to the Monopoly comment, or maybe better said, without historical events and situations to use in conjunction with play, then A&A is just a glorified version of Risk. But, I want some history and random events that change the play of the game.
