@mike141500
Any nation can remain neutral if it is not attacked or does not attack first. And a declaration of war by another power is not a declaration of war by the power that is attacked. Even though it would attack the agressor, it is not considered to be aggression. If played badly, USSR could be in great troubles declaring war on all Axis powers by itself. But who knows, you might have a lucky day 🍀
Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?
-
@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.
-
@chris_henry
the focus italy needs to have to make itself strong is to buy militia and infantry to protect their capitol at Rome and their major factory in North Italy. If italy goes aggressive and hasn’t built enough defenses it will just lose any gains when the US/UK come back/into the med and conquer Rome! This doesn’t help axis aggression one bit and is a waste of money. As i said: Italy is much more of a liability and much less of an asset. Italy’s strength as well - lies in their navy, not their aggressive potential with amphibious assaults!Can opener effects from an Italy building milita and infantry to protect itself… i think not! you are way to confident in Italy’s aggresive potential while also defending itself. and if you are using Italy in an aggressive fashion and forcing Germany to play defense for Italy on the peninsula I wouldnt consider that a victory or smart decision for the axis either.
Greece and Yugo start the game neutral: If germany doesn’t attack them than the allies have 0 places to attack in the med/southern europe.
The med convoy line is very easy for the UK to protect. A threat to the convoy line that isnt easy to protect from will not be made.
-
@bretters Can opening was meant specifically for anything to be done in Yugoslavia, Greece, or maybe even France. Certainly not any further than that, like to the USSR or anything. My point on Yugo and Greece is just what you said. Yes, they can remain Neutral if Germany doesn’t touch them. My point was merely on potential IPP’s for the Axis that they won’t have, which furthers the IPP swing advantage even more towards the Allies, in my opinion, on top of the other parts I laid out. Same with my point on convoy lines. I’m very aware it’s easy to protect. But the point was that they don’t have to spend any resources of any kind protecting now, let alone risk losing any IPP from raid attempts. With Italy Neutral this threat is literally 0%. Resources spent on convoy protection can now be spent elsewhere instead!
Just to be clear, I have no thoughts of Italy being some powerhouse. Quite the opposite in fact. We seem to be in agreement there. But a Neutral Italy doesn’t hold much Allied resources in the Med, making a lot more available in other active parts on the map!
To me, a non-Neutral Italy, who focuses on a defensive effort to tie up Allied resources in a smart, efficient way is more beneficial than letting the Allies focus everything elsewhere. To you, it seems a Neutral Italy is best and you just deal with extra Allied resources elsewhere as they come and worry about that then. I certainly get why you might want to try that route, I really do! I just think we’re on different pages on what is ultimately helpful to the Axis cause!
Like I said in the other thread, we may just have to agree to disagree on what makes the most sense! haha
-
@chris_henry I am thinking that Chris is right. So far, in the games I have played with my friends the german player runs Italy, we don’t even try to assign it… why? They simply do 2 things. Build troops and some ships when they can. They keep shuttling troops to north africa to force the UK to do the same. If they don’t keep up in the arms race then the UK risks the chance of falling behind and creating an opening for the Italians to finally strike. All in all, I think this is a flaw in the game design. Italy when played well in A&A G40 can be a powerful ally for the Germans. It can create leap frog scenarios in Russia, if the UK drops the ball for even 1 round a good italian player can take some major ground in Africa and also storm into Asia. We have been considering just creating Italy as a ‘major-minor’ nation ( which it basically is ). It can help Spain, win in Abyssinia, build BB’s and on it’s very last turn take 2 nations. 4 victory points and done…
So my question has anyone developed any house rules that they think ‘work’ to fix this issue? So that Italy is an active participant in the game??
-
@vondox I’m sorry that is not the script I have seen Italy play by every game for us.
Also… our group actually didn’t play Italy as unable to be attacked by the allies in the past, we recently discovered our wrongdoings with how Italy is supposed to be played (completely neutral unless italy declare war first on any country)
-
@vondox I see no flaw in design or need to house rule a “fix”
Suggested Topics
