@huzzah This is a very old thread but I remember seeing an old A&A game that used the same 1984 map that you can play without TripleA. Just remember it is terrible but there is a surprising amount of youtube videos of people playing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_%26_Allies_(1998_video_game)
Why isn't Italy in this game instead of Japan?
-
Why isn’t italy in this game when italy was more of a world power than japan?
-
Although I’m in fan of adding Italy to the game … I believe that Japan should definitely be in the game BEFORE Italy.
-
uhm, I think most people would agree that Japan was more powerful that Italy. Let’s face it, Italy more or less lost everything it attempted.
-
Really, you have to be Italian to believe they contributed much more than a potent navy (merely to blockade the Mediterranian - kind of), and an army that hung out in Ethiopia for a bit (poor Haile Silasse), and a penchant for retreating before American/British/Canadian troops. Japan was a conquering nation. They had resources, brilliant tacticians, and they were a nation of warriors. Their problem was their arrogance pure and simple. If not for that, then WWII might well play out like the A&A board game - a sea of yellow over Asia with little interaction between the Americans and Nipponese in the Pacific. They would identify when they lost control of their codes, and when they were losing battles. Sadly it appears this hubris is directly related to ferocity.
-
Lets see here i’m like 75% Italian, and i’ll still be honest with you Italy sucked! they relied on germany for everything!
-
I’ll probably get more attacks for this one than not but…
Italy was a significant force in World War II for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a sizable navy that contributed to harassing the British in the Mediterranean and keeping ships out of the Atlantic war enabling German U-Boats to operate with greater freedom. The major problem with the Italian war effort was two-fold: first, Italy was not prepared logistically to enter war in 1939. Second, the Italians lacked the military strength by that time to effectively wage an aggressive war against the British and her commanders (who were quite effective all things considered) were faced with the task of trying to go on the offensive with very few tanks and virtually no air support.
The Italians fought very well in most areas despite the now common belief that Italian war exercises involved practising throwing both hands in the air. But the Italian army had very few offensive weapons at their disposal and Mussolini felt he had to bring the Empire back, but also consider that Hitler promised Mussolini that he wasn’t going to go to war until at least 1944 or so, so Italy thought they had enough time to get the economy kicked into Wartime gear.
To make this short, the Italians did fight very bravely often against logistical odds (they did have an advantage in manpower but this was offset by the disadvantage in airpower, offensive firepower such as tanks and artillery, and logistics such as supply lines and overall supplies) and put up a good showing when fighting on Italian soil.
But Japan was a real deal offensive juggarnaut and more than deserved to be on the map; I think Italy, although capable of maintaining their own war programme early, by the start of A&A had become sort of an auxiliary in Europe to the German army and thus are best represented as pretending that the BB in CMed zone is their naval contribution and that the IC in SEu is the ability of Italy to produce some sort of a military contribution to the mainland defense.
-
It would be interesting to see Italy in the game and I’m 50 percent behind the idea. I even made a house rule and a setup for the Italians if anyone ever wanted to see it. However, Japan, in my opinion, should definitely be in the game before Italy.
-
I couldnt imagine the A&A if italy was in the game instead of japan. Italy really didnt help much in WW2 other than cannon fodder, Japan had power and potential, they just bit off more than they could chew.
I havent tried the original A&A with Italy but i probaly wont because they money they would get for their territorys would be put to much better use to germany, and for realism purposes, italy would have to have some disadvanges such as infantry defend at 1, tanks attack at 2, all warships -1 D, etc.
-
It would be interesting to see Italy in the game and I’m 50 percent behind the idea. I even made a house rule and a setup for the Italians if anyone ever wanted to see it. However, Japan, in my opinion, should definitely be in the game before Italy.
I agree 100% with UKcommander … I too have house rules for adding Italy, but Japan must be in the game BEFORE Italy.
It’s nice to have a 3 vs. 3 game of A&A.
-
Yes, Italy helped in the Med, but other than that it was not particularly pretty. If they did help the German U-boats it was a wasted effort, because Hitler thought the navy was a waste of time and that the airforce was the way to take out the allies.
kyrial said
The major problem with the Italian war effort was two-fold: first, Italy was not prepared logistically to enter war in 1939. Second, the Italians lacked the military strength by that time to effectively wage an aggressive war against the British and her commanders (who were quite effective all things considered) were faced with the task of trying to go on the offensive with very few tanks and virtually no air support.You are absolutely right. Italy was not a strong player in WW2 because they lacked the economy and infrastructure to wage war. However, that is part of being a powerful nation. Kind of like the Russo - Japanses War in 1905. The Russians had vast superiority in a number of ways but they were not ready for war and Japan was, so Russia lost. The US was not ready at the beginning of WW2 either, but 18 months after pearl harbor they were invading Sicily. Why? Because their economy and manufacturing base was huge and just needed to get moving. If Italy had the economic strength of Japan the allies would have been in for a long hard war. If the US tried to invade Okinawa 18 months after Pearl Harbor it would have been a joke. They wouldn’t have been able to get within 1,000 miles of Okinawa before the Japanese destroyed the invading force.
-
without japan, the game would be lopsided. speaking from a strictly gaming point of view. without Japan, all the allied forces could be concentrated in one general area surrounding europe. giving the allies an unfathomable advantage by being able to instantly support each other, while still attacking on multiple fronts. “fortress europe” would be strangled to death by the contstricting allies
-
yea, playin w/o japan is a bad idea. as is playing w/o america.
take out japan, and us has no threat at all. no need for a pacific fleet, and can concentrate solely on europe and if they choose, africa.
take out US and it’s the opposite. japan has no enemy, and no reason for a pacific fleet. thus they can send thier pacific fleet and empty their island posessions to the indian ocean for india or africa, and push for russia.
i’d like to see some of the setup’s for and italian included game
-
despite the now common belief that Italian war exercises involved practising throwing both hands in the air.
I thought that was the French? :-?
-
I thought that was the French?
Heh, I know the French take a beating as well as the Italians :)
What’s really funny is that during the last… three weeks I believe it was… of the German invasion in 1940, the French actually inflicted more casualties on the Germans than they suffered themselves which led to all sorts of accusations against the Petain govt that they were all too willing to surrender and that they should have instead tried to fight it out. I don’t say that to start a long drawn out argument about the French army effectiveness in WWII, but really after the initial shock of the invasion where the Germans basically split the allies in half, the French fought rather well but not well enough to offset the enourmous losses of the first weeks of fighting.
When Mussolini tried to cash in by invading in the south (always a good idea, mountain fighting when the enemy holds all the high points… :roll: ) and the casualties were something like Italy: 4000 - France: 15 in two weeks of fighting. And those are thought to be real #'s, not something made up afterwards :oops:
-
@Grigoriy:
despite the now common belief that Italian war exercises involved practising throwing both hands in the air.
I thought that was the French? :-?
oh that’s not even funny anymore.
“Napoleon built the arc de triumphe, and the only armies to march triumphantly through it were the Germans and the Americans”. -
Hey, I was being serious. :P
-
I was thinking the same thing as GI. :P
-
UKcommander and MistaBiggs could you both please post your house rules for adding Italy. Thanks
-
the last area to fall in france was actually the border with Germany. the Maginot line ahd not been extended through a thick coastal forest on the belife that the forest would be enough. also, it hadnt been extended south to cover the border with italy. the German army basically squeezed single file through the woods after the maginot line kicked the snot out of them. even when the germans came at it from the rear later on, it was still an impressive defense.
-
Yes, the Maginot line was impressive, unfortunately, it failed. Also, the forest might have been enough, had there not been “roads” going through it that allowed the panzers through. And the Germans did not really take any casualties from the Maginot line until after France was basically conquered anyway, by which time it was largely irrelevant.
Suggested Topics
