I think it will be a common idea to put the new player to the game to play Italy, which is really neat because Italy proved the worse military leadership. But i think if the game provides national victory conditions, none of your concern would matter, because Japan is not helping Germany, and Italy would presumably need German support to win her own game.
I would really love the idea that Japan can win her war in the pacific, and Germany loses
or the Soviet Union wins and not UK and USA
IN the REAL war Soviet Union and America won (1st and 2nd place)
UK barely crossed the finish line and lost her empire
I like the aspect of Individual winner for each team allowing for winner in each category.
Example: Soviets win but also Japan.
Thats what i wish for the new game.
Also, if you take a Victory City you gain extra income like a plunder to represent resources (oil) taken from the lands
hmmm… regional victories vs a capitol victory. It would be like taking China’s capitol the US would have to surrender the spoils to (most likely) Japan.
LT
Historically, Italy needed German help in order to continue the war while Italy could provide little or no help to German operations.
However, I think that having a 3 vs 3 game is already an interesting improvement in the way of balancing the game. I do not know if the victory conditions will be for the individual nations in that case Italy should need a simpler victory condition but this could focus allied attention on Italy following a KIF (Kill Italy First) strategy. Churchill said that Italy was the soft belly of the Axis. Historically Italy was the first Axis nation to be defeated.
Italy suffered of poor leadership and little or no organization of war economy. For example in aircraft Industry there was no standardization with each industry producing its own models, with its own engine, weapons, etc. Each industry, leveraging on lobby and political support, managed to sell a batch of units to the Regia Aereonautica (Royal Aircraft), causing a variety of equipment with all the consequent problems in training, supplying and maintenance.
Still Italy entered the war with the fourth fleet of the world, same size of the French fleet, and an Army that seldom suffering of old equipment and lack of supplies, had a discrete manpower. So there is margin for some offensive operation using the Navy and the Army.
From an historical point of view Italy, seldom bound to Germany with the Steel Pact, initially conducted a parallel war with a limited support from Germany only after almost an year it was required a strong Wehrmacht intervention.
I’d like to see Italy able to conduct independent operation, at least in the initial turns. With the immediate objective to increase income damaging UK in Africa. On the long run however Italy should require the German support. If the game is historically inspired it is not possible to have it other ways.
You just invented a new term:
Kill Italy First! (KIF) I think this will be a common practice for the new game, just like in the real war.
congratulations you invented this strategy first!
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 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
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 just hope they thought all this through. You would think with all this hype they put together a group of experts (like us) to play it the way Microsoft did with Halo 2 & Halo 3.
LT
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:
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.
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:
- Changed sea zones in Med. At least North and South Central Med., maybe even more.
- Changed naval setup in Med., so that UK:s navy isn’t obliterated in the first turn.
- More IPCs to Axis. To be balanced, Germany should have around 32 IPCs, Italy 15 IPCs.
- More land areas in Africa, should have the same good effects as in Russia for AARe.
- 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.
So what if they added a UK IC in S. Africa and bumped the IPC value to 3 there? An India IC may be over run by Japan to early in the game.
Also should Italy have a IC on Africa? They will need to add a space for Ethiopia didn’t Italy have involvement during the war there?
LT
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
