Though if Japan could take India, they would’ve taken Yunnan already.
It’s virtually the only way to move from Europe to China.
Italy a bad design
-
Build a transport at south africa, move the egypt one to the red sea SZ with the french destroyer.
Shuttle units from South African factory to egypt every turn.
Not a bad plan, but probably needs to be defended well since Germany can quickly get airpower in that area, and the Japs are right around the corner.
If Sea Lion does not need to be repelled, taking the CV, DD from Gibraltar and the CA off South America, the CA off Egypt and the DD you mention is a pretty good fleet. Maybe the French DD can be used as a stationary defense at one of the TRS points.
-
@Blitz:
I’m not sure you get it. The UK needs nothing more than their starting boats in adjacent areas to kill Italian fleet. This did nothing detrimental to India. If anything, it allowed UK to keep suez open and get more men towards India since Africa isn’t being contested. Italy was made irrelevant in round 1. There is no reason for the UK not to do it.
I’m right there with you Blitz and Model. Sigh.
UK buys one Minor IC and 1 transport + whatever else it wants…
The only thing Germany can do to prevent UK from crippling the Italian Navy is to try and hit the Aircraft Carrier off of Gibraltar. To do this the maximum that can reach is 2 subs against 1 destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier and one Tac Bomber. The AC can absorb a hit which will be repaired by the Gibraltar naval base at the beginning of its turn, so that’s no big deal. If that happens the TB can land in Gibraltar. In fact, the UK player would prefer to take one hit on the Carrier so that the plane can land in Gibraltar which has an Air Base. It is highly unlikely that the sub will hit anything. At best it might get the Destroyer.
So Italy has 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser and 1 transport in SZ 95. The UK hits that with 1 destroyer (probably), 1 Aircraft Carrier(repaired and can absorb 2 hits), the TB and either 1 fighter from England (if the TB starts on the carrier) or 2 fighters from England (if the AC took a German hit and the TB landed in Gibraltar, increasing it’s range so it can land in Malta, freeing up a space for another fighter on the carrier.) In short, that Italian fleet SZ95 is TOAST. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Who cares that the UK commitment to the Med is going to get smeared by German planes. The point is that now Italy’s Navy consists of 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, and 1 transport and has an income of, wait for it, 10 IPCs, which isn’t even enough to get a carrier.
Pause.
Now in Egypt, the UK has a convenient little buffer zone with Alexandria, allowing them to fall back and build a minor IC in Egypt. Turn 2 and every turn after there’s three feet on the ground. If the UK player then also drops a transport in South Africa, he can start a two unit per turn shuffle of troops to Egypt, every turn. That’s 5 units per turn! With Italy’s one transport, hell, even if they manage two transports, they just can’t get enough feet on the ground to keep pace with the UK in Egypt. Egypt is the key to Africa (thanks Sahara) and Egypt is never under any serious threat from the Axis, so Africa is never under any serious threat from the Axis. Once the UK has Egypt in it’s stone cold death grip, it can shift it’s attention across the Indian ocean, sending help to India and making Japan’s life a little more difficult.
Is the whole game broken? You’re right, probably too early to know, but it sure seems broken. Kind of how we looked at Pacific 1940 set-up pictures and said “wow, that’s a butt-load of planes.” And looked where that ended up. Any experienced player will recognize a gaping hole when they see one. And the UK attack turn 1 on SZ 95 is a Grand Canyon sized gaping hole.
Great post explaining the situation. I think saying game is broken would be over dramatic and knee jerk, however there is no way the game was intended to give the allies Africa for free. The Italian fleet is there for a reason, at least it’s meant to besides being there to be sunk round 1. Idk how larry missed this turn 1 UK attack. Drugs maybe.
-
Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.
The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.
-
Shouldn’t they have at least left Italy a chance to achieve an ahistorical outcome though? It’s completely impossible outside of hoping for a massive dose of dice luck currently.
-
The purpose of AA is not to force the game to take a historical route, but to start the game with an accurate historical representation of what was at that time. Then change history from that point. Italy taking over Africa is ridiculous. You are not playing Italy then, but some other power in it’s place with the same name.
Italy to me serves as a tool to not allow Germany to be so consolidated unlike the traditional game. Again, it is about getting Germany there to help.
I am in my first game. By the 10th game or so, I will probbably have more to say on this subject and hopefully a KISS suggestion on how to balance the game if it indeed ends up being broken.
-
Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.
The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.
I suppose the problem for me is that I don’t think the German player really has the incentive to help the Italians in Africa, I mean if you are Germany do you really want to be fighting on three fronts? From looking at the map it almost seems that Italy is meant to be the only Axis player in the Med and Africa, Germany has too much on its plate to realistically commit to helping the Italians out too much.
This means that the weight of the Axis campaign in Africa rests almost entirely on the Italian player, and I’m not sure that with a UK attack on the Italian fleet in turn one that Italy will be capable of handling Africa.
Although this might seem historically accurate to a degree is it really desirable in a game like this. From the looks of it the Italian player will be spending most of turn one gritting their teeth in frustration as the British deal them a very heavy naval blow. The UK player might even land in Greece to nab the 4 guys and extra IPCs to cause further annoyance, if all this happens I just don’t think Italy has the IPCs and the units to cope. That is why I think the Gibraltar Naval base might be a bit too much, but who knows, it needs to be tested to destruction…
Maybe the game was designed that way or maybe it was an oversight, but I definitely think its a little too much pain for the Italian player to take before they can even get to move. Just my tuppence worth.
-
Eddie,
You posted right as I was considering - of writing much the same as what you said. Though there is one point I disagree with, not too strongly though :wink:
“to start the game with an accurate historical representation of what was at that time. Then change history from that point. Italy taking over Africa is ridiculous. You are not playing Italy then, but some other power in it’s place with the same name.”
Well, we can’t really put a cap on how much of a deviation is possible from the historical representation at that time. Perhaps in our game of alternate history, we have an Italy with a vast majority of the populace supporting the war effort, perhaps other nearby countries supporting them as well. I think the tech. charts are perfect examples of these alternate WWII settings, to limit ourselves to being too historically accurate is to make the game relatively boring… I’d just watch a couple documentaries or read some history books instead of playing. Having said that, sure, we don’t want a game setting that has no resemblance to the start of WWII. It’s the fine line of the game, sometimes a game session provides players the suspension of disbelief, others, not so much.
-
Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.
The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.
I suppose the problem for me is that I don’t think the German player really has the incentive to help the Italians in Africa, I mean if you are Germany do you really want to be fighting on three fronts? From looking at the map it almost seems that Italy is meant to be the only Axis player in the Med and Africa, Germany has too much on its plate to realistically commit to helping the Italians out too much.
This means that the weight of the Axis campaign in Africa rests almost entirely on the Italian player, and I’m not sure that with a UK attack on the Italian fleet in turn one that Italy will be capable of handling Africa.
Although this might seem historically accurate to a degree is it really desirable in a game like this. From the looks of it the Italian player will be spending most of turn one gritting their teeth in frustration as the British deal them a very heavy naval blow. The UK player might even land in Greece to nab the 4 guys and extra IPCs to cause further annoyance, if all this happens I just don’t think Italy has the IPCs and the units to cope. That is why I think the Gibraltar Naval base might be a bit too much, but who knows, it needs to be tested to destruction…
Maybe the game was designed that way or maybe it was an oversight, but I definitely think its a little too much pain for the Italian player to take before they can even get to move. Just my tuppence worth.
Exactly. Can the Germans move its whole fleet towards med. sea and try to open it and kill UK surface ships so Italy can build some ships? Yes. But would they want to? No. Too much resources being expended and for too long. Just so Italy can have some navy? Please that is ridiculous and thus I feel a change to setup is required for balance. The prior “italy sucked in real life and thus must loose Africa before it takes a turn” is very poor logic. Can we just agree the Gibraltar Naval Yard needs to go?
-
The purpose of AA is not to force the game to take a historical route, but to start the game with an accurate historical representation of what was at that time. Then change history from that point. Italy taking over Africa is ridiculous. You are not playing Italy then, but some other power in it’s place with the same name.
Italy to me serves as a tool to not allow Germany to be so consolidated unlike the traditional game. Again, it is about getting Germany there to help.
I am in my first game. By the 10th game or so, I will probbably have more to say on this subject and hopefully a KISS suggestion on how to balance the game if it indeed ends up being broken.
This is nowhere near as ridiculous an outcome as the Japanese overrunning all of mainland Asia and striking for Moscow. It would have made for a more compelling game evn if Italy had just a 50/50 chance of pulling off a win in Egypt. They still would have to deal with the South African IC as well as the US landing in Africa. It would by no means be a done deal.
-
Next time, keep the UK honest by purchasing a transport and have your 2trn & planes ready to take London on G2. If UK protects against a London takeover, Italy will have their fleet. Then use German 2trn to get units to Russia faster. Everything is a trade off though. Nothing easy or for free in A&A. :)
Doesn’t work. The UK bringing up the DD, CV and TAC to help protect the UK only INCREASES their chances of being destroyed on G2 by leftover subs and airforce. The safest place for those naval units to be is to join the French units off S. France in the Med, so they might as well try a Taranto raid. Even if the raid goes badly, the UK can send 2 FIGs from England to land on the undamaged carrier. I think the UK1 Taranto raid is badly broken, and doesn’t give Italy a fair chance to respond on its turn.
If the UK builds all inf every turn, there’s no chance the Germans can take London unless they build ALL transports on G2, AND move every single land unit they’ve got within range to get on the boats for G3. They’ll have no reinforcements for Russia, and the Americans with their 82 IPCs are right behind the the Brits, even if they win. Sealion is only good for Germany if they can pull it off on the cheap (like with 4-5 transports), and they can only manage that if the Brits have stupid builds on their first round (like who ISN’T going to notice that Germany built all transports the last round?).
-
@Blitz:
Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.
The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.
I suppose the problem for me is that I don’t think the German player really has the incentive to help the Italians in Africa, I mean if you are Germany do you really want to be fighting on three fronts? From looking at the map it almost seems that Italy is meant to be the only Axis player in the Med and Africa, Germany has too much on its plate to realistically commit to helping the Italians out too much.
This means that the weight of the Axis campaign in Africa rests almost entirely on the Italian player, and I’m not sure that with a UK attack on the Italian fleet in turn one that Italy will be capable of handling Africa.
Although this might seem historically accurate to a degree is it really desirable in a game like this. From the looks of it the Italian player will be spending most of turn one gritting their teeth in frustration as the British deal them a very heavy naval blow. The UK player might even land in Greece to nab the 4 guys and extra IPCs to cause further annoyance, if all this happens I just don’t think Italy has the IPCs and the units to cope. That is why I think the Gibraltar Naval base might be a bit too much, but who knows, it needs to be tested to destruction…
Maybe the game was designed that way or maybe it was an oversight, but I definitely think its a little too much pain for the Italian player to take before they can even get to move. Just my tuppence worth.
Exactly. Can the Germans move its whole fleet towards med. sea and try to open it and kill UK surface ships so Italy can build some ships? Yes. But would they want to? No. Too much resources being expended and for too long. Just so Italy can have some navy? Please that is ridiculous and thus I feel a change to setup is required for balance. The prior “italy sucked in real life and thus must loose Africa before it takes a turn” is very poor logic. Can we just agree the Gibraltar Naval Yard needs to go?
I’m not sure it’s broken with one global game under my belt. If it truly is broken though - Italy declared war only after it looked like they were missing out on the conquest of France. I’d prefer to make them nuetral until their turn rather then mess with setups. Shrug. :-D
-
Ah yes, AAG40 is hours old. Some games started, FEW game actually finished to completion, and already the ‘I declare it is broken because I am so smart and can predict the future’ claim has started. :roll:
Dude, it totally is broken. Every game I’m seeing out there have the British attempting this attack. (Which is like 3 of them, but still…)
-
Who cares that the UK commitment to the Med is going to get smeared by German planes. The point is that now Italy’s Navy consists of 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, and 1 transport and has an income of, wait for it, 10 IPCs, which isn’t even enough to get a carrier.
I think I have a solution for this; it came up in another thread. Let Italy take France! That would give them all the IPCs they would need to rebuild the Italian navy on I2.
I hadn’t noticed that the border of Northern Italy touches France before… This means that the Germans can soften France up G1 with a strafing move, and then retreat before the territory is taken. Italy steps in I1, gets the cash bonus and the IPCs, and becomes superstar of the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. Sure, they’d be obligated to support Germany in a much more direct and coordinated manner (perhaps Germany could act as can-opener for Italy on the Eastern Front! :lol: ), but this could be better for the team in the long run. Axis IPCs are Axis IPCs, at the end of the day. It only matters where the Axis feels they should be spent. This is one of those rare scenarios wherein the players have a good amount of control about how to distribute IPCs amongst themselves.
It’ll take a few games to test it out, but this is definitely a good theoretical fix to your worries about the weak Italian starting position. The only real obstacle to it would be the German player’s wisdom and restraint in keeping the G1 battle for Paris going long enough to significantly weaken the French–but stopping before they accidentally win! (Retreating with a bad case of Battleus Interruptus…)
-
The logic behind Italy losing before it takes a turn resides on how long 1 game turn is suppose to be. Though I agree attempting to put a time scale on each game turn doesn’t make to much sense, (for a whole host of reasons I won’t go into) the fact remains that I have read in many posts, references, and charts of expansions to the AA game that 1 game turn is suppose to be around 3 months. Wether Italy becomes irrelevant to N. Africa in turn 1, 2, or 3, I think can be argued, but making Italy to weak to be victorious in N. Africa by itself makes perfect sense.
Can Italy hold out in N. Africa and get some help from Germany. I don’t know. That is not how my game is turning out, but there are so many options Germany can take it is impossible for me to “logically” argue at this point, they cannot. If all Germany can do is help Italy keep hold of N. Africa with a few of its resources until it pushes deep into Russia, guess what: Eqypt becomes a closer target and one that becomes a viable option for Germany. The front is so long now that a dedicated push against Russia, MIGHT not be the best stragety. There are some great advantages to playing defense half way between Germany and Moscow, waiting for Japan to attack if they are successful in thier front, while making a push against Eqypt whom Italy has kept busy with some German help.
In my second game I will greatly study what Germany can do to assist Italy in a minor way without giving up needed victories eslewhere.
-
Chompers,
I agree with your statement. Japan taking all of Asia then Moscow is much more ridiculous. So we agree, both are ridiculous, just one more than the other.
In the end, I am not arguing that Italy being regulated to such a minor status right off the bat is correct, only that if each game turn is suppose to be 3 0r 4 months, it can still play with a great deal of historical accuracy if Germany was able to get in there and help without losing its advantage in Western and Eastern Europe.
And unless there are players out there without a job who live in there parents basement and have a bunch of friends who are of the same status, no one could have played more than 1 or 2 games, so I just think the whole idea of the game being broken right now is just, silly.
-
I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.
Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.
Heh, that you, Ed? We Axis players are just whining about the indefensibility of Italy. Damn history, we want this game to give the Italians a fair shake!
-
I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.
Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.
Heh, that you, Ed? We Axis players are just whining about the indefensibility of Italy. Damn history, we want this game to give the Italians a fair shake!
We want Brits to get a fair shake, when their entire atlantic fleet can be killed G1, and even the Med fleet can be killed with German planes, remaining Italian navy.
-
And unless there are players out there without a job who live in there parents basement and have a bunch of friends who are of the same status, no one could have played more than 1 or 2 games, so I just think the whole idea of the game being broken right now is just, silly.
You underestimate the dedication of hardcore gamers enjoying a final week before heading back to college. I’m 5 games in having had the game since last Friday :) This isn’t counting a couple test games against my room mate just playing Germany v Russia 1v1’s so I didn’t have to learn the dynamic on the fly mid-game.
-
I hear you loud and clear Sgt Blitz,
1 thing though. As much attention as a weak Italy has garnered, It amazes me that there hasn’t been 10 times more attention put on the fact that China is so weak. The fact is that Japan was incapable of beating China outside the coast lines without the resources of the East Indies and the surrounding islands. Then they had a chance. The US only put 10% of its resources to fighting Japan and they never got close to conquering China. Though with another tactic like playing more defensively in the pacific once the DEI and islands north of Australia were taken, could have perhaps brought victory in China then perhaps a chance to invade Russia, the fact is China being so weak is utterly ridiculous, much more than Italy being ridiculous.
To fix it, I have played around 10 games with China going first and getting to place 1 extra infantry per territory, and forcing the US navy except for its Aircraft carrier to base and stay in Hawaii until at war and Japan gets 1 double impusle attack that can only be used on the islands to simulate their suprise attacks. This really balanced everything, made it more realistic and put the whole pearl harbor thing into play.
-
The problem is not Italy. It’s the awfully bad setup of Pacific that has about 3 times the number of aircrafts that it should have. I doubt Larry will ever propose a brand new setup so it looks like it’s gonna be “don’t play global” or “do it yourself”. Personally, I prefer the second option by far…
Suggested Topics
