@vowly said in Rule Entry for flying over neutrals:
Does this count for non combat moves of only combat moves?
Logic dictates that “Fly over” applies to combat and non-combat movement.
Italian neutrality
-
@david-06 here’s the thing … an early aggressive Italy is more of a liability than an asset. Italy will
Fail To both be aggressive and defend her capitol and major factory. Maybe near the end of the game if Italy spends all $ and builds both a defensive force and an aggressive force …. The easiest way for Italy to get her 4 victory points is to stay neutral . Helping to
Win the Spanish civil war, winning the war in Ethiopia/Abyssinia and annexing Albania , and having more capital ships in the med at end of game than Uk / allies -
@bretters
Here is y thought.
As referenced above, victory points for italy are all about spreading their influence and becommign at great power aginan. ITaly didn’t want to fight a war. Mussolini only joined when it looked like the allies would be a pushover.
Thus, it makes sense that a neutral Italy could achieve all their VPs. This game is not just about the war. Some nations can work better through peace and posturing.Also, other nations can get all of their VPs at peace.
France, UK, US, USSR, I think even Japan. Italy is not an exception. -
@david-06 oops I originally thought that was a question posed to captain napalm but I see now it’s a link to another thread .
-
@trig I like your points, well said. But your nation list at the end as examples …. Japan most definitely cannot and will not get her victory points by staying neutral, France doesn’t have a choice and will be in the war, UK will also always be in the war and the US is best served fighting in the war. Realistically There are no player nations that get to benefit from neutrality besides Italy and yea. I guess the USSR. A perfect game for the Soviets being one they maintain peace with both factions , win and hold Spain, gain control of Iran and Finland and Mongolia .
-
No sense envisioning where to use imagined additional Allied resources. You won’t have any. You won’t have the easy $3 from Italy, in Africa, so Italy will have an extra $3. You can’t abandon Egypt, or Italy can just take it. The Italian threat doesn’t disappear. The Axis aren’t down resources, as the Italian IPPs are lend-leased to Germany. All that it really changes is now you have to fight the Axis forces in France, where they are concentrated strongest, and the Axis doesn’t have to spread themselves out, fighting in Africa, the Med, or Italy, which is where they are always weakest. The Axis income is combined, and their weak link, and soft underbelly, is protected.
I’d have to agree with @bretters here. Sorry @CaptainNapalm, I don’t agree! All Italy would be able to make in this scenario is 10 IPP a turn. Nothing stops the Allies from just matching that output, or putting a little more. Hell, they could even do a bit less if they wanted to knowing they have better odds defending! I think you’d see a lot of extra IPP to be used in other theaters! It doesn’t make sense that the Allies would expend the same amount of Capital to defend against a neutral Italy than they would against one at war.
The point above about Italy’s units not being used is also a good one too.
I think it’s an interesting strategy worth trying, but I just don’t see it working in the longrun!
-
@chris_henry let me clarify, you don’t see Italy staying neutral as a viable strategy ?
-
@bretters Oh, sounds like we’re misinterpreting each other! Or at least me you haha.
I ultimately don’t think it’s a viable strategy. Again, I have not tried this, and so could be wrong, I certainly don’t mean to sound like this is a dumb idea or a waste of time or anything.
I just think that the Allies will have a lot of IPP to be able to utilize in other theaters if they don’t have to fight Italy. Keep a skeleton defensive force in the Med, and match Italy’s IPP output for defenses. After that, all IPP can be focused in Western Europe and/or the Pacific to fight that would have otherwise been used in the Med/North Africa. While it makes a ton of sense for Italy individually, I’m just having a hard time seeing how the extra resources the Allies will be able to have on hand won’t negatively affect the other Axis members. I’d have to see it play out over the course of multiple games with players of somewhat equal experience!
-
@chris_henry Italy takes way more effort to protect than what it’s worth for the axis powers. The resources it “frees up” from the allied powers does not out way this, because it frees up the Italian $10 to be given to Germany. Italy is more than likely a liability, not an asset as a power at war.
As an example: Last game we played the ‘39 scenario. UK had vacated the med and left Africa too lightly defended. Italy jumped into action and ended up claiming much of Africa and hurting UK a good amount , but this was all for nothing as the US came in and knocked out Rome, forcing an Italian surrender! All Italian gains were recaptured by the allies and Italian units wiped from the board as a consequence of the surrender! The game ended when the allies had not recaptured Paris but German had liberated Rome. But this was a game that didn’t consider victory points as Italy still would not have gotten any!
-
@bretters I feel bad we’re having basically the same discussion in two threads haha.
I definitely get Germany gets Italy’s 10 IPP without having to protect them, that is certainly a positive. And it’s certainly a positive that they wouldn’t have to worry about bailing Italy out. But from the Allied perspective, their Med convoy line now basically can’t be touched for convoy raiding, so that’s basically money gained. No territory can be lost, that’s money gained. No wartime bonuses can be lost, that’s money gained. Plus, I think the Allies can recover more than 10 IPP a turn of expenditures that would have gone to the area otherwise to be used elsewhere.
To your point on leaving Africa too lightly defended, I guess I’m obviously assuming a competent defense of the area too haha! Just build defenses in North Africa for 2-3 turns, and some miltia/infantry in Trans-Jordan, Gibraltar, with maybe a couple spare ships in the right places. The Italians will have to attack/amphibiously assault defending/maybe even fortified areas. Italy only starts the game with 15 ground/air units that can make offensive attacks somewhere. If Italy trades their money away every turn, that won’t be made any stronger! It won’t take much of a defensive effort to block whatever these 15 units might accomplish, and that would also mean only 4 Italian militia left to defend the entire home country in the event they did try something!
Just since I’m curious, what makes you think the Allies won’t be able to put “added income” in other theaters to good enough use to overcome Germany’s added income? Or, alternatively, why you think the Allies won’t have that “added income” available?
-
again the med convoy line is too easy to protect.
Italy will need to invest into itself a lot, and the whole game to make itself applicable… this is not a good use of resources as they could just give it to Germany who can already defend itself and use that $10 to be even more effective a fighting force.
you seem to think Italy will conquer the world or even the med as soon as it joins the war and that is just too highly optimistic of you.
of course Italian neutrality may give the allies a few more bucks to focus elsewhere but that doesn’t matter.
-
@bretters I think you greatly misunderstand me haha. I in no way, shape, or form think that Italy can do all these things. In fact, I was merely just commenting on the scenario you laid out where you said Italy took over a ton of Africa! That should never happen, so my comment was based on what you said happened in your game!
My main point is that this frees up a lot of money for the Allies to be used elsewhere, more than the 10 IPP Germany might get from Italian lend-lease. And I think that would be detrimental to the Axis in the end. That’s my thoughts.
Seems to me you don’t think the Allies gain an advantage with that, while I do think it is an advantage. If we disagree fundamentally on that, then we might have to just agree to disagree! haha
-
@chris_henry if Italy can not do these things then how do you have confidence that Italy can / will do anything meaningful when at war AND protect itself - taking victory points from the allies and keeping them for themselves ?
I mean yea it is probably agree to disagree on this but seriously … -
@bretters To me, anything meaningful means tying up Allied resources to help the Germans. This doesn’t necessarily mean declaring war right away. But picking a spot and tying up resources is helpful, in my opinion. If I’m the Allies and see all Italy IPP going to Germany, I know there’s now zero threat from Italy (who don’t even have a transport anyways). I can focus my units and money elsewhere now. To me, that is more detrimental to the Axis cause than trying to ensure Allied resources stay in the Med!
But yeah, sounds like we won’t convince each other haha.
-
@chris_henry
In my current playing as Italy I planned to stay neutral for most of the game and maybe declare war in the end game, Italy sent aid to the SCW which was still lost to the Republicans . Italy won the war in Abyssinia on turn 1. I built a transport early and pulled any Italian troops in Africa back to the mainland. A few turns I lend leases my $ to Germany , but then I positioned my navy to threaten a DOW to protect the Japanese fleet and also a smaller part of my navy near / on the med to threaten the UK. During this positioning of naval i decided to build more militia and infantry to protect my homeland to give myself the freedom to declare war for the purpose of using my navy and not worry too much about losing Rome or N Italy right when I got into the war.
It ended up being Jan ‘43 and the Americans had landed in Spain and left 9 transports with just 4 ships to protect them, Italy declared war solely to kill this transport fleet which I did with a 6 ship fleet. Italy is just glad to be alive and weaken the allies in this manner. I also landed in Cyprus so my goal is to hold Abyssinia and Cyprus for victory points -
@chris_henry
Italy should 💯 at the very least build itself a transport. -
@bretters Well that’s a whole different scenario altogether than what was being said before! So the plan isn’t to stay Neutral and send all money to Germany then?
It sounds like what you’re describing in your game aligns more closely to my thinking than before. If Italy is spending it’s own money on itself, even though Neutral, then that forces the Allies to have to stay prepared.
Sounds like the USA made a grave mistake with their transports!
Also, did you mean to say your goal is to hold Albania and Cyprus, instead of Abyssinia? You mentioned you abandoned Africa, so I’m assuming you meant Albania. Just curious what your plan was/is if you did mean Abyssinia though!
-
@chris_henry actually I did leave one inf in Abyssinia and placed a militia there Italy’s last turn , I plan to continue building militia there and potentially upgrading militia there to infantry as well
I actually just kicked out a huge force of British and French troops in Yugoslavia with Germany and Albania is currently not in axis control
-
@bretters Oh got it, just curious!
Sounds like the Balkans are a hot spot right now!
Suggested Topics
