@barnee I tried! But the person I am playing against has been playing for many years and this is only my second year of playing so I am not always correct with the rules. I plan on attacking when we get back to it!
-
I have noticed that Italy nearly always becomes a monster by turn 4-5 when commanded by a decent player. It seems that the British navy in the Med gets swept aside as the Uk player is focused on defending London and the US is having to commit heavily in the Pacific. The IPC income is close to 50 by the time it obtains its national objective, which are relatively easy to achieve. Its only a matter of time before it is harassing the Ussr through Persia and supporting the Germans in eastern europe. This depends greatly on how Japan is getting on but with the J4 india crush well established its almost certain that Italy is forgot about by the US and Turns into a superpower.
Anybody experienced this, comments would be greatly welcome.
-
In fairness BulwFi,
I think it’s safer to say… communism was saved by the exertion of Democracy.
As for Italy being a monster… The UK has to sacrifice early to limit Italian transport capacity. And fight several small battles, as oppossed to single, large battles. Time is everything against Italy. Buy as much as you can as the Allies.
-
In fairness BulwFi,
I think it’s safer to say… communism was saved by the exertion of Democracy.
Gargantua the total war dead by the western democracys totals around UK and Commonwealth-2,593,300(approx) 567,000 US-418,500(approx) France-(approx)
USSR war dead-24 Million (approx)
I know that the lend lease programe by the western democracys helped the USSR but it was a fraction of the USSR’s own production.
There really is no basis for your argument.
With regard to the Italy post, I agree that the UK has no option but to conceed its navy in the Med to the Italians. I feel that Italy has time to create a position of strength in the Med and Africa before the US enters the war. The Position of Italy depends on how well Japan is doing in the Pacific, and in my expierence Japan always does well in the opening rounds forcing the US to invest heavly in the pacific, therefore Italy has a much easier time.
-
Great! Just what we need is another commie lover on the Forum.
Italy’s success depends largely on whether or not Germany pulls off a Sealion. The British Med fleet will get sunk by the Italian fleet and airforce, but it will also cost the Italians most of their fleet as well. Plus, I have seen a number of games where the Brits manage to keep a fair amount of planes down there, on Egypt, Malta or Gibraltar, and those planes end up trashing what fleet the Italians have left. Every time the Italians put a ship in the water, the Brits fly over and sink it. Plus, if UK can manage to keep just 1 warship somewhere in the Med, Italy gets no NOs.
In my last game (by the way, I still put an airbase on Gibraltar and Malta), the French put their last destroyer next to Malta and it was protected by 3 British fighters on Malta. Italy couldn’t get any guys off of Europe because every ship was sunk by British aircraft. It wasn’t until Germany took out London that the Italians were able to do anything.
Now, if Germany does take London early, and USA is busy with Japan in the Pacific, then yes, Italy can get pretty big. However, if London is still in the game, I’ve found UK usually keeps Italy pretty much in check.
-
Im by no means Communist, I am just pointing out that the USSR recieved and delivered the most damage in WW2.
http://rt.com/news/wwii-soviet-union-role-history/
Maybe this will help educate some people and also help us appreciate what the Red army achieved. Try looking at history from a different point of view.
An airbase in Malta and 3 fighters turn 1-2? London will surely fall?? Which makes Italys job all the easier, no?
I feel that Italys rise is amost certain in most games, and if not checked they can become a real force. -
Even though it was a facist nation’s decision to attack a communist nation. Â And that when stalin called for a Great Patriotic War agsinst the invaders. He purposfully set aside the communist ideals in order to appeal to a larger number of population to get them to fight for their nation, not the party. Â
The most accurate statement would be: “Democracy and Communism were both saved by the over exertion of Facism.”
-
‘‘If anything the war made the world safe for communism, which was as embattled as democracy inthe 1930’s and close to eclipse by 1942. One of the most significant consequences of the war was the spread of communism in Europe and Asia and its consolidation in the Soviet Union. This outcome reflected the significant role played by the Soviet forces in defeating Germany. There is now widespread recognition that the decisive thearte of operations lay on the eastern front. Without Soviet resistanceit is difficult to see how the democratic world would have defeated the new German empire, except by sitting tight and waiting until Atomic weapons had been developed. The great paradox of the Second World War is that democacy was saved by the exertions of communism.’’
Richard Overy, taken from the book ‘Why the allies won’
-
I was just kidding saying you were a communist, by the way.
I don’t think that democracy was “saved” by communism. Neither do I think that communism was “saved” by democracy. Simply put, neither one on their own could have brought down Germany. Yes, the Soviet Union played a huge part in taking down the Nazi Empire, but do you think they could have done so if the USA hadn’t entered the war? Not to begrudge the UK’s efforts, but let’s face it, England was really beaten down and in no condition to launch operations that would have really taken pressure off of Russia. It wasn’t until the US got in there that Germany really felt the heat. Between the offensives in N Africa, then Italy and finaly France plus the regular bombing offensive, just think of how much resources Germany had to commit to all of that. What might have happened in Russia if all of that men and material were available on the Eastern Front? Maybe Stalingrad would have fallen. Maybe the Germans would have actually reached Moscow.
On the other hand, what if Barbarossa never happened? Could the Western Allies have had as much success if Germany had all those men that were in Russia over in Western Europe or N Africa instead? Perhaps the Germans would have won in N Africa afterall. Heck, perhaps London really would have fallen. Hitler would have been master of all Western Europe.
My point is that both relied on each other to achieve a common goal: the destruction of Facism. Neither one could have done it alone. I would also point out that the Japanese Empire was brought down almost entirely by Western Democratic Allied powers with next to no help from the communist countries.
-
‘‘If anything the war made the world safe for communism, which was as embattled as democracy inthe 1930’s and close to eclipse by 1942. One of the most significant consequences of the war was the spread of communism in Europe and Asia and its consolidation in the Soviet Union. This outcome reflected the significant role played by the Soviet forces in defeating Germany. There is now widespread recognition that the decisive thearte of operations lay on the eastern front. Without Soviet resistanceit is difficult to see how the democratic world would have defeated the new German empire, except by sitting tight and waiting until Atomic weapons had been developed. The great paradox of the Second World War is that democacy was saved by the exertions of communism.’’
Richard Overy, taken from the book ‘Why the allies won’
Im not saying that russia did not play a center role in ww2, just it was not ideals of communism that won the war, yet alone saved democracy.
Democracy wasnt even under that much of a threat (since US was still fine and dandy and Sealion was called off). Its that 1 statement that mis states what happened in the war. (probably to increase the reader’s interests). Just big puff of smoke in reality.
It was Germany who attack russia. Russia did not attack Germany (it might of a few years later anyway though). Hitler bit off alot more than his reich can chew (definately when he delcared war in the US). Germany was embroiled on a war on 2 fronts by the 3 major powers of Russia/UK/US. Facism pissed everybody off. It became self-defeating because it was over aggressive. (According to the style of the quote).
Anyways, communist russia totally imploaded late 80’s early 90’s and Democracy is still around.
-
I’m not getting involved with the “political” discussion above but only wanted to make a point concerning strategy.
IMHO my enemy’s TRANSPORTS are almost always ENEMY NUMBER ONE. It’s priority as such, and the efforts and sacrifices to kill it/them are usually well worth it. This unit is what makes war-fighting possible for overseas expeditions such as with Italy. If you can kill your enemy’s Transports you will leave him neutered as far as overseas expeditions are concerned. If nothing else you will force them to spend large amounts on their protection. Something that Italy usually can’t afford. If you utilize this “Core Strategy” from the beginning and follow through you’ll see the advantages.
“Tall Paul”
-
Yes, Italy does grow easily and often, since UK is obligated to protect against Sealion.
What UK has to do is to learn to deal with it-
Keep Italy from leaving Egypt as long as possible, by stacking up in Iraq and Sudan/Ethiopia - by utilizing complexes in Central Persia and South Africa. Â That will keep them from exploding too easily.Wait for America to crack Gibraltar and enter the Med.
Once you’ve established naval supremacy in the Med, flood SZ 97 and SZ 93 with subs. Â That will take them down.By the way, the phrase “saved by the exertions of communism” implies Democracy was ever in need of saving.
It was not.
You’re right though, in that the numbers show that Russians are by far the best at achieving victory through the strategy of “I have more Russians than you have bullets.” :lol: -
All those numbers prove, is how stupid communism was.
And how willing it was to throw bodies on the fire, to make communism work. There is something like a 7 to 1 kill ratio of russians to germans on the eastern front.
But when you’re killing YOUR OWN people, Killing people in your subsiduary states (Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Finland etc), Killing people because they are a political threat to your power, and killing people by ordering them to stay in cities under massive bombardment and attack - your going to end up with a few extra casualties.
The final reality is, that if the allies weren’t tying German Aircraft, ships, and resources down, drawing troop and financial focus, as well as supplied the russians with desperately needed resources, food, commando’s, weapons and supplies. The people would have turned in on themselves, and thier leader Stalin.
Using bodycount is NOT a viable way of justifying stupidity as “hard work”.
That said, I have to AGREE with Tall Paul. Transport’s are everything. Sink them as quickly as possible, and you’ll maintain your game balance.
-
-
@Vance:
and Democracy is still around.
more or less.
ya, i was tempted to say ish or kinda when i wrote that
-
@Tall:
I’m not getting involved with the “political” discussion above but only wanted to make a point concerning strategy.
IMHO my enemy’s TRANSPORTS are almost always ENEMY NUMBER ONE. It’s priority as such, and the efforts and sacrifices to kill it/them are usually well worth it. This unit is what makes war-fighting possible for overseas expeditions such as with Italy. If you can kill your enemy’s Transports you will leave him neutered as far as overseas expeditions are concerned. If nothing else you will force them to spend large amounts on their protection. Something that Italy usually can’t afford. If you utilize this “Core Strategy” from the beginning and follow through you’ll see the advantages.
“Tall Paul”
EXACTLY!! This is how UK is able to keep Italy in check. If the UK can keep some planes down there in the Med, just enough to be able to fight off the Italian scramble planes, then Italy will never be able to put any ships, much less transports, in the Med and they will be stuck on Italy. No African territories, No Middle East. Italy will stagnate until US comes in to sop them up.
-
KNP,
I feel that if the UK blunts the Italian player strongly(Kill the Transports) on the 1st/2nd turn(s) then much of the important work is already accomplished.
Whether the UK continues to spend any effort or IPCs later is almost discretionary.
“Tall Paul”
-
An Italy without ships and planes, becomes a poor man’s China.
-
Young Grasshopper,
@Young:
An Italy without ships and planes, becomes a poor man’s China.
Well said, sir.
And do I see a new look for you?
“Tall Paul”
-
@Tall:
Young Grasshopper,
@Young:
An Italy without ships and planes, becomes a poor man’s China.
Well said, sir.
And do I see a new look for you?
“Tall Paul”
Made the decision to change my avatar and signature every new year, and after a few choices and changes, what you see now is my new look for the next 300+ days. Thanks for noticing TP.
-
Im currently playing a game at home here and Italy has lost its Navy and to be honest isnt a threat in the Med any more. How ever it was partly due to the fact that Japan has a had a terrible time of it and the USA is able to commit more to the atlantic. But the fact that the UK and USA have had to put quite a lot of resouces to achieve this, Germany is fast expanding into the USSR. To sum up I think Italy should expand and become a threat so the allies forget about Germany to and extent and therefor make the war against USSR that little bit easier. Italys success depends on Japan.
Suggested Topics
