@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.
Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?
-
@vondox I don’t think there’s anything to fix really, or that there’s an issue. I think it’s just the way the game is set up, and from there it’s just a matter of deciding what the best strategy is for you moving forward within the parameters of the game!
I will say though, GW1936 is not A&AG40. I think an argument can be made that Italy has a much larger chance of running wild in A&A than they do in GW. They just don’t have the power to do that in GW, nor the means via bonuses or anything else to reach that point!
Trying to go toe-to-toe with the UK in Africa seems like a large mistake to me. I think the best Italian use is projection of power, and not really power in practice. Once you give up that projection by actual conflict, the jig is largely up, as Italy will have a hard time replacing losses quickly enough to stave off the Allies!
-
@chris_henry lol I totally agree with you and I fee you summed up why I feel Italy should stay neutral but while staying neutral keep the threat alive even if the threat is small!
-
@bretters What attracted me to this game and still does is a more realistic representation of WW2. The special rules for Germany and other nations tries to capture the essence of the historical realities that were present. But Italy seems to run against the grain of that effort. The game is one by achieving victory points. Italy can score the maximum amount of VP’s by simply doing nothing the entire game and achieving it’s VP goals. While the Brits and the US are handcuffed through the entire game. There should be some ‘event’ or ‘trigger’ that allows the brits and the US to declare war. For example should the Italians reach x2 the number of IPP’s in units in N. Africa the British can attack them or if the Italians give any IPP’s to Germany or lend-lease that would be a trigger for the US. Lastly, just from a game play perspective it would suck to play Italy if the best strategy would be to just sit there and do nothing and as a result, win the game? How fun is that? Another solution would be to penalize all the ALLIES -10 IPPs for 1 round, maybe 2 rounds before that is lifted…
-
@vondox are you kidding me?winning the SCW is quite difficult for the nationalists and the more bship in the med point for Italy can likely only be achieved if Italy is spending their whole income on building battleships for the whole game , rather than doing something useful with their income (aka lend leasing it to Germany )
Another one … it’s up to your play group if you will judge the winner of the game based on the victory points system or not, our group has mostly favored not counting victory points and a faction or side will concede the game in defeat prior to the end date.
-
@bretters said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
@chris_henry lol I totally agree with you and I fee you summed up why I feel Italy should stay neutral but while staying neutral keep the threat alive even if the threat is small!
Haha for sure! After the last few messages, we might be more in line than we thought. I think my biggest issue is Italy trading away all their money and so not making themselves stronger. That’s where I think the Allies can then redistribute resources to other theaters and it might hurt the Axis more. But if Italy is spending on itself, even if staying neutral, that still forces the Allies to have to respond. They might not have to respond quite as powerfully, but any resources to be used elsewhere is a lot smaller at that point!
-
@vondox I’d agree with @bretters first and foremost, than one of Italy’s VP’s is not so easily achieved, for the reasons he stated. Yes, it’s possible to achieve it while neutral, but probably unlikely.
To historical realism, while I get your point, also realize the starting point of 1936. There was no guarantees at the time that Italy would join a future war. Italy wasn’t thrilled about fighting France and England, and were in fact on some what friendly terms to that point. England and France also were trying very hard to ensure Italian neutrality. So if we go off of the time frame, it’s not so unrealistic that Italy would stay neutral.
But I do get the point that it can make Italy boring. That’s somewhat a given if they stay neutral for sure. It’s probably hard to house rule something like that. I wouldn’t necessarily say it would “break the game”, but I think they designed it this way for a reason. I think in a perfect world it would be fun to have to “guarantee” Italian entry into the war, but that’s just not the case here!
I think your idea of penalizing the Allies is as close as you might get to finding a house rule that might work, though I think you need to make it a steep penalty. -10 IPP is what they suffer for attacking minor power neutrals. Attacking Italy would have to hurt more than that. You’d have to make it where the Allies are really desperate to want to do the thing that they are willing to pay the steep cost of doing so.
-
@chris_henry OR you can use my rules haha :laughing: .
Changes to Italy
Italian VPs:
3 | Neo-Roman empire: get 1 VP up to a maximum of 3 VPs for each of these territory groups Italy holds at the end of the Game: Yugoslavia and Thessaly, Western and Eastern Egypt, Gibraltar, Transjordan and Syria, Spain (NS allies to Italy in this Scenario.
1 | Fascist Victory: NS wins the Spanish civil war.Italian Navy:
Add 1 naval transport at SZ 81.Italian volunteers:
While Italy is neutral during the Spanish Civil War, Add +1 to NS recruitment rolls.
While at war, Italy get recruitment rolls for each home country territory they get. -
Definitely agree about the possibility of Italy staying neutral in real life, how the French and British didn’t want to go to war with Italy and how it makes sense in game to allow for it.
i assume its okay if Italy is somewhat boring if you are the German player and are benefiting from a “boring” Italy. but a boring Italy is better than a dead/surrendered one! Despite the benefits of neutrality I expect a person who is playing Italy and only Italy to play them aggressively.
I also agree that it was designed this way for a reason and that Italy is not meant to be forced into a losing war in this game, which i why I do not believe the rules regarding Italy should be changed or house ruled.
-
@david-06 completely unnecessary to make these changes
Suggested Topics
