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? rolleyes
It is fantasy-land. For one after each player takes a turn the time is moved forward. If Italy moves and attacks the Soviets on her turn, before Germany this means they attacked on the TURN BEFORE. Italy had no desire to do this. IN the sequence of the GAME if they were to attack WITHIN THE SAME TURN ( e.g. turn or round meaning a cycle where each nation plays its own turn from the first player to the last) AS THE TURN THAT GERMANY ATTACKS, they would be attacking as you say “simultaneously”.
Obviously this is much easier in an all axis all allies turn sequence practiced not more than 30%-50% of a decade ago. :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.
I’m not saying that its not a good idea or should not be allowed. I am saying its not historical. It should be a good move in some situations.
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? rolleyes 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?
NO not at all. It means that IL Duce was not ready for war till that year is a matter of record. The actual forces employed by Italy and the axis minor allies did not or where not in action at the start of the campaign. I few of them did send some troops. The vast majority of the forces of these Serbians, muslin’s,Croats, spainish, etc arrived in the spring of 1942.
also, there is nothing wrong with them invading, except it’s not an argument you want to advance based on what is historical, because its not
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?
Consecutive turns would be a combined German-Italio turn in the proper sequence, at least in terms of time. If Italy attacks before Germany, it would not be then “simultaneous”, if they attack in the turn order after Germany plays for the purpose of how time is measured in the game, it would be as close to at the same time as you can get.
Again, if Italy played before Germany IN THE TURN SEQUENCE, it could be argued that allowing Italy to fight before Germany might be “historical”. Otherwise is hysterical.
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.
Historically,
Constituted on 10 July 1941, the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR) arrived in southern Russia between July and August 1941
They had about 62,000 men ( about one corps worth, which is about 1/3 of a AA army piece)
but Germany attacked on June 22nd. ON July 10th they were deployed and saw first combat in mid August 1941.
In the Spring of 1942, another 200,000 man army was sent. This was meant by the real Italian army.
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)
It’s not at all historical, but its fine to do this ‘can opener’ tactic. It does not reflect anything except what you want to believe, which is just to get around the issue that its not historical, but AA is not historical anyway so its fine.
I think player freedom to play out the war as they want (within historical reasonableness) 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.
Again its not realistic because really Italy is attacking BEFORE GERMANY in terms of the turn sequence. But its fine to allow it. Forbidding players from doing it is wrong because it cuts off the option.
Id say it has a 30%-50% chance of being a good move.
