Try the tripleA thread.
Do you think Italy has been succesfully modeled in the Game?
-
The addition of Italy was the change I was mostly looking forward to, when waiting for AA50 to be released.
Now we’ve all played a few games.
Do think Italy was succesfully modeled into AA50?
-
In my ltd experience, one 5 player game, I certainly believe Italy was well modeled.
The games conclusion was foretold when the Italians were finally thrown out of Syria and Egypt rather unceremonsiously, I might add.
Once Italy lost control of North Africa and the UK entered the Med it was all she wrote as far as we all could see about the eventual end-game: the Fall of the Axis.
The game ended shortly afterwards by consent.
I played Germany and Italy and it was a great time to try to synthesize their moves and strategy.
There came a time when Italy was on the verge of breaking Egypt and India and the rest of Africa beckoned, but it was not to be!
It was so tantalizing, that I look forward to trying it again; hopefully over the Christmas season.
-
ITALY was a success! The pieces are fine… it adds a great new historical element to the game and even that extra player!
I wish they came with more… I would like to see a variation of AAE with ITALY included as an extra player also.
-
Italy is fine, and having three nations per side is really good too.
my only complain about Italy is that they could have given her own Navy and Air-force instead of just Germans one with different color.(… but they screwed up Japan in 1941 :roll: )
I wish they came with more… I would like to see a variation of AAE with ITALY included as an extra player also.
that would be great
-
yeah, italy was introduced quite well. they’re small, which they were, but have the possibility to expand and become much larger. i think they’re an interesting nation to play
-
I think they’re a little light.
I would have given them a starting income of 12 or 14 instead of 10, but with the NOs its not so bad. I think you could say the same for a lot of the other players as well though. The issue is not so much that Italy was modeled poorly, but that Germany was not given enough in compensation. Again, I mean without the NOs in play. With NOs the Axis seem to have a much easier time of it, which makes me think that they really shouldn’t be optional. I get the feeling that this game was play balanced with NOs in place, and so we should probably be playing it with NOs in place.
-
Italy needs 12 IPC. Making sicily and or Corsica/ Sardinia take up the slack would make it more realistic. Also you need to make a rule that Italy can only first be invaded via Sicily from Libya.
-
yeah, italy was introduced quite well. they’re small, which they were, but have the possibility to expand and become much larger. i think they’re an interesting nation to play
Yea, for something as difficult as this, they were introduced quite well. I think they can turn a whole game around, depending on whos who.
-
The National Objectives help a lot. Italy was never meant to be a “real” player. To me, Axis and Allies is still a 5 player game, except the Japanese player (who should play Italy) gets some action on the side.
I mean Italy could have some more IPCs, but though so could Russia and so on. Also the Mediterranean is already crowded as it is. Adding new 1 IPC territories like Silicy, Corsica, Malta would only make matters worse.
-
@TG:
To me, Axis and Allies is still a 5 player game, except the Japanese player (who should play Italy) gets some action on the side.
Moses, why do you feel that the japanese player should control italy in a 5 player game? the german and japanese player are generally talking-over strategy through-out the game, so i really don’t think it makes that much difference :-P
-
I think Italy has been done well - it’s a very hard country to bring into a game as frankly, they sucked compared to the Germans or Soviets.
From a wargame perspective, Italy is usually a liability than an opportunity - so it’s difficult to make it an ‘equal’ partner in a six player game of Axis and Allies.
My own view is that Larry has done a great job making them ‘fun’ to play… is their role in the game historic? No, I think they are somewhat overpowered compared to the other nations - but then, no one would want to play Italy under those circumstances, and you might as well include them with the Axis powers.
Given that Axis and Allies is first a game rather than a simulation, I think the inclusion of Italy has worked really well - and I am a sceptic who has been won over.
When I mod, I like to try and introduce the history at the higher levels - I took part in a simple wargame, as in the mechanics were about the same level as Axis and Allies - but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings… I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.
There is so much that can be done with Axis and Allies - it’s a reall cool base game in that respect, and Italy throws a whole new load of possibilities into the mix.
-
I really like Italy. I played italy in revised and AAE with house rules. When played right, Italy can really help the Germans. Iuse them to open up weak spots in the Russian front, and have German Tanks pour into Moscow.
-
Moses, why do you feel that the japanese player should control italy in a 5 player game? the german and japanese player are generally talking-over strategy through-out the game, so i really don’t think it makes that much difference
For the exact same reasons you said. It gets the Japanese and German working together in a coordinated effort. I know Germany and Japan already work on a coordinated strategy on the operational level (ex. lets Rush Russia or Starve UK on the Vane), but with the Japan player controlling Italy, those two players get to fight side by side on a tactical level.
-
fair enough, makes sense to me :-)
-
In the real war if Italy had planned with more care her intervention alongside with Germany, instead of being in competition or trying to emulate, Italy had reached a slightly better result. I am not saying that war could have ended in a different way for Italy, however, a different course could have been seen for her.
Considering the game. I found interesting the introduction of Italy. If controlled by German player it may be used to perform a 1-2 punch against England and Russia, in different order in the two scenarios.
If played by two different players we have the need for discussion and agreement on the strategies. Arguing on the strategies between German and Italy may be a balancing factor in the 1941 scenario, that seems much pro axis. If Germany and Italy do not collaborate efficiently Allies may have slightly more time to recover from the Axis offensives.Italy in WWII was a poor nation. Fleet was powerful but can not afford losses. To repleace a unit Italian shipyards would have taken too much time. Moreover the shipyards were totally engaged in making escort units (DD and frigates) and transport ships to supply African campaign, and have no resource to complete the Capital ships under construction. Two more BB of Littorio class and two Aircraft Carriers (Aquila and Sparviero) were started but only one BB, the Roma, was completed.
Mussolini and Fascist Party pro-capitalist economic policy had never planned to focus Italian Industrial production for war purposes. For example even in the 1942 Italian Industry was never completely mobilized for war production.
Aircraft industries were leaved free to produce different fighters models, and all of them were used by Regia Aereonautica for evaluation. A logistical nightmare for what regards maintenance, training, spare parts and supplies. Lack of central coordination, due to the fact that each company had a “protector” in the Fascist party that allow them to make its specific fighters model and then force the Aereonautica to buy a batch of them, really weakened the Regia Aereonautica.
Italian Army had only manpower to use for countering other nations army. Mussolini, in one of his speech, “threathend” the Allies with his “6 millions of bayonets”… what a pity that the bayonet had become and ineffective weapon long time ago during the Napoleonic wars… but Italian soldiers were asked to conquer the New Roman Empire using them!So Italy at 10 IPC is correct. You have some initial assets, you may barely supply your fronts, and you have at same time to gain territories to increase production if you want to have a weight in the war. All in all Italy had to be an aggressive player IMHO.
-
I think Italy has been done well - it’s a very hard country to bring into a game as frankly, they sucked compared to the Germans or Soviets.
From a wargame perspective, Italy is usually a liability than an opportunity - so it’s difficult to make it an ‘equal’ partner in a six player game of Axis and Allies.
My own view is that Larry has done a great job making them ‘fun’ to play… is their role in the game historic? No, I think they are somewhat overpowered compared to the other nations - but then, no one would want to play Italy under those circumstances, and you might as well include them with the Axis powers.
Given that Axis and Allies is first a game rather than a simulation, I think the inclusion of Italy has worked really well - and I am a sceptic who has been won over.
When I mod, I like to try and introduce the history at the higher levels - I took part in a simple wargame, as in the mechanics were about the same level as Axis and Allies - but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings… I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.
There is so much that can be done with Axis and Allies - it’s a reall cool base game in that respect, and Italy throws a whole new load of possibilities into the mix.
This would be a awlsome idea i think….it would be a huge change of rules but it would be cool if troops that have been in combat would have a advantage over ones that have not.and if there ws a way to have rawl mats in A&A50 that would be sweet,
-
… but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings…
This looked like an amazing simulation. I can’t imagine having conflicting political and military objectives along with poor communication. What wonderful chaos that must have created. Were any of the German Generals shot for not following orders?
I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.
Keep us posted on this one. It has some real interesting potential – I’d like to try and get this working with our local gaming group. We can usually muster 10 people or so once a month and get 2 boards going at once so combining it to one group wouldn’t be too far of a stretch.
What kind of white “control” team do you need to pull this off, and how to you keep the dialectic tension at a high level within the teams?
Suggested Topics
