If you read the top of page 11 you will see there is a new rule for V3 where you cannot combat move through a canal as you proposed. The example they give is exactly what you were talking about. You can still choose to do it the old way but either way that is one of the things you should have all of the players to agree to before the game begins. We always play it the new way.
Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?
-
@david-06 said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
” Explain. Militia already could move within the home country.”
Was a bit late when I wrote it but that is correct.“If Italy doesn’t declare war, nations can’t attack them (except if you are commie).”
Hence the exception I suggest.On you wish, Rome is literally 33 km from the coast. while there might be some accuracy to block it from SZ151,
Like London Rome is not a coastal city. Making it an inland city gives the option to pass it by historically and offers a turn extra for Italy to protect its capitol and not have enemy naval power bombarding it.“in history, they went past rome and then into the Northern Italy.”
Rome as an inland city would allow for this to happen. It could be surrounded but a strong Northern Italy would prevent that.We playtested this with a house rule version of the map. HBG might opt for an overlay like in Croatia at war. Might fit an Italy at war expansion as Chris proposed. But this is all just ideas for now.
-
@delaja Battleship guns could reach that distance (33 km). Also is the territory only representing Rome, or is it representing the urban areas around it?
-
@david-06 I agree. If you say that 33km is to far, what about the other territories that are far larger? I think that Rome historically, and practically is a coastal city. For instance, the Roman metropolitan area extends to the port of Ostia, which sits at the coast. I don’t like the idea of putting it inland. Also, the Allies landed at Anzio in Jan and were in Rome by June, which is one turn. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The reason the allies never attacked was due to the mountains and heavy defense, two things that are shown in game. Not due to it distance from the coast.
-
@trig Also other downsides of putting Rome inland:
- It does make it easier to surround.
- It makes putting a factory in rome a worse idea
- it makes rome a bad location to put planes.
-
@insanehoshi
These are all three of them incorrect arguments from a game play point of view. As the Italian player you don’t want to invest in factories in Rome or place places there, when the planes can scramble from N Italy. And a factory if anywhere should be built in Africa. Surrounding would become more difficult because Italy would get an extra turn before their capitol might fall. It would be easier to first reinforce N Italy and then Rome. It is definitely more fun to play Italy with Rome inland. -
@trig spending all IPP on battleships to guarantee 1 victory points for Italy vs lend leasing Italy’s IPP for most of the game …. I think the lend lease seems more valuable to help the other axis powers achieve their goals and to earn their victory points. A lot more can happen for Germany with that extra $10 than a couple Italian battleships that just sit there in the med and don’t fight.
-
@david-06 I have seen Italy win the war in Abyssinia on turn one a number of times. Heck I just did it playing as Italy! I say go for turn one and if it doesn’t happen, retreat bring more reinforcements and try again.
-
@chris_henry Italy can’t tie up the allies, instead Italy will tie up German resources to help defend Italy, not good!
-
@bretters They would only be able to send 5 IPPs or one military unit- see rulebook page 34 (for some reason I couldn’t copy and paste it)
-
@david-06 also italy can only send stuff to people at war with a major power
-
@david-06 Italy can send all $10 of their income to Germany , no ifs ands or buts. Once Germany is at war with a major power
-
Hey all,
I and my gaming group think that its best for italy to stay neutral. Because you can get all 4 VP´s and are always a danger for UK. There is really no point for italy to attack. Only in late war and only if UK gives you the opportunity.
This is a bit boring. I hope they will change this in Version 4. I heard that they will also change VC points.
-
If Italy stays Neutral, the best Germany can ever hope to do in the Mediterranean is build a factory in Yugoslavia / Greece , right? Doesn’t that kind of scupper their plans and give the UK too much leeway?
-
@aldrahill I think it’s fine. Germany doesn’t need to be in the med, also the axis can influence turkey
-
@aldrahill also look at German VP they don’t need troops in Africa or Gibraltar…
-
@bretters said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
@chris_henry Italy can’t tie up the allies, instead Italy will tie up German resources to help defend Italy, not good!
Totally agree! I just think this hurts more in the long run for a lot of trickle down reasons, this one you mention included!
-
@chris_henry sorry, what hurts?
-
@bretters I meant Italy staying Neutral hurts more in the long run!
-
@chris_henry no, as I said Italy requires protection from Germany , this is good for the allies and bad for the axis, I believe the axis are better served by having a neutral invulnerable Italy (can’t be attacked) rather than a huge liability to protect! When neutral Italian resources (their income) can be shared with other axis nations, meanwhile protecting themselves without spending any money on themselves or requires extra protection from Germany because they are neutral!
The point I believe we both make, is that it is a valid thing for Italy to be neutral and still collect victory points , and you say why it’s a bad strategy and I say why I think it is a good one! Ha
-
@bretters Got it, sorry! I was definitely misreading your thoughts before haha!
But yeah, seems we have different thoughts on the overall strategy on this as it pertains to the other members of the Axis alliance haha!
My thought is this, which I know I’m belaboring: If Italy trades all 10 IPP to Germany/Japan every turn, they are also not making themselves any stronger. I guess to me, that means the Allies can divert almost all money to other theaters and not have to worry about the Med remotely as much. I just think the extra money here might hurt the Axis in the long run. This seems to be a bigger difference of opinion here, but I have a hard time believing the Allies won’t be able to divert resources elsewhere that they normally would have used in the Med, especially if they see Italy Lend-Leasing all 10 IPP away every turn! The Italians will have to attack defending units if they ever chose too. Just build militia/infantry in some places, with a few more ships if worried about it. But it won’t take more than 2 maybe 3 turns of shoring up defenses before you might even be able to stop using IPP there entirely.
Plus, Italy’s units are now not being used to hurt the Allies directly. Also, and I guess this depends on how the Axis players typically play in different games, the Germans are going to have to be responsible for taking more minor nations alone when they may have had can opener affects from Italy before. I’m thinking of Yugoslavia and Greece specifically here I suppose. Now Germany will have to divert enough resources and lose men taking those nations alone, without any prospect of support from Italy, and thus losing more men that might be needed elsewhere! Not only that, but the Allies will still have a way into Europe via Greece/Yugoslavia that Germany will now have to defend alone, or the alternative is Germany not taking those minor nations and thus not having income from them.
I guess to me, Germany is gaining 10 IPP a turn in Italian Lend-Lease, and won’t need to worry about propping Italy up. But the Allies are going to gain more than 10 IPP in resources to combat this German influx. No Allied territory in the Med will be taken, and no wartime bonuses threatened to alter Allied income at all, not to mention the Med convoy line being impervious to Axis raid attempts.
Suggested Topics
