Italian Declaration

[Geist]

This may be an easy question, but, I left my rule book at work. Is Italy allowed to declare war on a major power, specifically…Russia?

[knp7765]

Yes.  Italy can declare war on any Allied power in any round.  They can even do so WITHOUT Germany doing the same.  That would be wierd, Italy taking on Russia without Germany.  However, once Italy declares war on Russia, Russia is free to declare war on Germany as well, if they choose to do so.
What an interesting situation, if Italy and Russia were at war but Germany and Russia were still neutral toward each other.  If Russia took Turkey, with that minor IC in the Ukraine, Russia could put transports in the Black Sea and float troops over to Italy through the Dardanelles.  I’m not sure how well Italy would fare against Russia by herself.  If Italy had already conquered most of Africa and gotten the Brits and French out of the Med, and they were getting all their NOs, then maybe it might be a fair fight.  Italy would be making a lot of money, close to equalling and maybe even surpassing Russia.

Sorry, kind of got off track there.  The answer to your question is; Yes, they can.

[Geist]

It does make for an awkward situation, Italy declares on turn three followed by Germany on turn 4. Italy then opens the front so Germans can asssult or land fighters in newly captured (Italian) territory. I’m not sure I like that, thy should probably be saddled by German declarations and not allowed to make any on their own.

[Most Holy]

That seems like a minor problem. The bigger problem is if Germany waits till G4 the Soviets will be well prepared, and I don’t think Italy could sacrifice enough forces from the African front to help earlier than I3.

[gamerman01]

I think he has a good point.  It’s pretty far-fetched that Italy could declare war and attack Russia before the Germans do (although as knp correctly answered, Italy can declare war on anyone just like anyone else.  You want weird?  How about Italy declaring war on USA before anyone else?)

It is a big deal, because Italy can do a can-opener to start the invasion of Russia that could allow G to potentially hit vulnerable targets, or at a minimum penetrate 2 territories deep on the first turn, past infantry blocks.

Usually all Italian tanks and any mech are sorely needed elsewhere, so I haven’t seen this Italian tactic used much yet, but it’s a possibility.

Geist maybe you could post this at Larry’s Alpha+2 discussion site so he can consider it before finalizing the game?

[GoSanchez6]

I believe Italy doesn’t have the resources to go after Russia early in the game. Once they get a grasp on Africa then take a shot at Russia. Thats only if the USA isn’t bearing down your throat in the Med.

[Kobu]

@gamerman01:

Geist maybe you could post this at Larry’s Alpha+2 discussion site so he can consider it before finalizing the game?

:?

Larry’s not going to be surprised by this revelation. He designed it this way.

[Krieghund]

Why don’t you try it and let us know how it works out?

[gamerman01]

@Kobu:

@gamerman01:

Geist maybe you could post this at Larry’s Alpha+2 discussion site so he can consider it before finalizing the game?

:?

Larry’s not going to be surprised by this revelation. He designed it this way.

:lol: You don’t know Larry very well, do you.

He also designed unlimited scrambling, and changed it to a limit of 3.  (Major change)
He also designed scrambling from islands only (and Japan is OK but England not), and now you can scramble from anywhere that touches a sea zone (Major change).
He also routinely asks for comments, and listens to a LOT of them - as in, changes stuff.
Oh, here’s another one.  Turn order has been dramatically changed.  Setup has been dramatically changed.  P40 has been dramatically changed. (huge aircraft reduction)
I think Larry would agree with Charles Barkley, that he’s not an expert - only God is an expert.  So yes, Larry is surprised by revelations all the time.

Geist I think you’re onto something, and I’m gonna go post it on his website myself, where he’ll see it.

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01:

Geist I think you’re onto something, and I’m gonna go post it on his website myself, where he’ll see it.

Done.  http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167&p=36725#p36725

I added a couple details to your idea.  I’m gonna go edit it and put your username to it, too, so I’m not stealing ideas but sharing them for the improvement of the game.

[Kobu]

@gamerman01:

lol: You don’t know Larry very well, do you.

Of course I do. He’s my uncle. I have lunch with him every Thursday.

No really, he’s not, but what a thing to say. I don’t pretend to know him. I can infer that he understands Italy can declare before Germany because that’s how he wrote the rules. It’s spelled out very clearly.

Anyway, it would not be an improvement at all to disallow Italy from attacking on its turn before Germany declared. It’s perfectly reasonable to think Germany would use Italy as a surprise strike against the US or Soviets. Removing that is just removing strategic options for, as far as I can see, no good reason.

[gamerman01]

I will laugh at you when Larry changes the rules for this.

[Kobu]

Okaaaaaay.

[Geist]

I used it on a G4 attack to land German fighters on terriory the Italians took. It forced Russia into retreating from what would otherwise be a forward defense in the south. You could also use it on a G3 attack. My arguement wasn’t that it was unbalanced, it just seemed a bit more metagame than I would prefer.

[gamerman01]

Exactly.  No one said it was about “balance” so that comment didn’t make sense.
If we have umpteen rules about neutrality to mirror history, then why permit an absurdity like the Italians boldly declaring war and attacking Russia before Germany does?  I still say it’s a great point, Giest.  Time to check the thread at Larry’s site…

[Geist]

Are you really trying to argue that historically Italy attacking Russia is not illogical? The Italian army was in shambles at the start of WW II. They had only a few years earlier sent huge amounts of material to Franco in Spain essentially for free, and that’s aside from the fact that Italy only jumped into the attack on France after it was clear that France would fall. Seriously…nothing wrong with it historically?

The question can also be asked…what does it break if a rule was implemented? Italy will still do can opener attacks, just not at the outset of the war, and the game is a tiny bit more realistic. What exactly are the drawbacks to a rule like this? Italy begins at war with the UK and France, their attack opportunities would likely be limited to opening up a Barbarosa or possibly if they took Gibraltar a spoiler attack on the US fleet on the East coast. Almost equally unlikely. This smacks of a forum arguement, pointless arguement for the sake of arguement.

[Imperious Leader]

Historically it’s fantasy land.

Even Italy would not try this. They didn’t even want any war before 1943.

Italy was on the verge of losing the African front for want of simple supplies. They would never consider attacking Soviets in any scenario. IN the game its probably a good idea to start the attack with Italy the turn before they expect,so as to put them offguard knowing Germany is going in next turn.

[gamerman01]

I didn’t read it all, but I do agree with some of your points, for what it’s worth.
Before AA50 we didn’t even have Italy, so all Italian and other European forces attacked altogether as one, while the UK, USA, and USSR can never attack together at all.

Point taken.

[knp7765]

There shouldn’t be any rule that says one nation can’t attack someone before another nation does, at least in the case of the Axis powers.  I think that sort of thing would start to ruin the game.  If Italy want’s to attack Russia before Germany, then that should be just fine.  Maybe it isn’t historically accurate, but you know what?  Sealion never actually happened either yet I bet it does in the majority of games played.

[Geist]

@mantlefan:

So it’s “Fantasyland” that in reality (we are talking how Barbarossa ACTUALLY happened), German, Italian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and even Spanish troops attacked WITH the German forces, simultaneously?

Look at what happened in REALITY! Germany and Italy (and others) attacked the Soviet Union SIMULTANEOUSLY, and made gains before the Soviets had any meaningful response. Hmm, if the Germans attack first in the game, the Soviets can respond before the Italians take their turn in the game. If the Italians attack first in the game, both Germany and Italy attack before Russia has any significant chance to respond, just like what actually happened. Hmm, so disallowing the game to play out as history did is more historical? :roll:

I’m not saying Italy should be FORCED to attack on their turn in the game before Germany, I’m saying there is not any valid reason (at least that overrides more important considerations such as historicity and balance) to restrict Italy from attacking before Germany. Essentially it becomes a question of whether or not the axis wants to pursue a ‘surprise’ assault on the USSR or not.

So the statement, IL, that the Italians didn’t WANT war until 1943 means that they DIDN’T attack SIMULTANEOUSLY with the Germans in 1941?  :roll: Japan didn’t WANT to invade USSR in the real war after 1939, does that mean we should prevent them from ever invading the USSR?

In a game where each power’s actions are separated into turns, having consecutive axis turns attacking USSR makes MUCH more sense than having them interrupted with Russian intervention that the USSR was incapable of when these forces attacked at the same time! For those who look at the process of turns as a chronological development, When Italy attacks USSR first in the game, only (effectively insignificant) French actions separate the actions of Italy and Germany. If Germany attacks first in the game, the actions of USSR, Japan, USA, China, UK, and ANZAC separate the actions of Italy and Germany. Which makes more sense when depicting an attack that the Axis was obviously quite capable (because they did) of executing simultaneously?

Don’t forget that even though the German buildup had been obvious to anyone who cared to look, the Soviets were still caught by surprise. Considering planes can’t land in territories taken on the same turn, the advantage Germany gains by being able to land planes in the gains Italy had made reflecting this seemingly nonsensical but nonetheless true element of the Soviet preparations (or lack thereof) for Barbarossa.

There is no problem historically (in fact it better reflects the advantage the axis had in light of the soviet flat-footedness)
There is no problem balance-wise (if the soviets are bad enough to have it be a BAD thing for the USSR that Gerry sends in tanks and mechs without infantry ahead of the Italian can opener, they would have been dominated anyways)

I think player freedom to play out the war as they want (within historical reasonability) should be a major goal, whether the Axis decides to use the Italian attack to better press their Barbarossa advantage is up to the player, but to FORBID them from doing something that has no balance or historical issues makes sense only on the grounds of a misunderstanding of the actual historical considerations.

Ok, it is a forum arguement, pointless and circular. It’s ok to simulate the historic surprise the Axis had, but, not the fact that Italy was a junior partner to Germany. All the while you ignore that Italy did not attack at the same time as Germany and was barely factored into Barbarossa until Germany started need more troops. Wouldn’t simultaneously be on the same turn? If turns represent a chronological order then turn 3 is actually before turn 4 (I can’t believe no one has pointed that out to you before).

It’s funny that a comparison is drawn to Japan attacking the USSR, when in fact the game penalizes that very move albeit not overly harshly. We can penalize and reward historical accuracy with NO’s and restrictions to war declarations for everyone but Italy? I have little time or inclination to argue this further, I think it’s fair to say we disagree. To me this is metagaming and I’d prefer to see the rules not allow it.