Neutral Italy

[Young Grasshopper]

@wittmann:

If you get a bid of 9, then I say do both.
Sub helps and so does an Inf (Art better) in Alex.
Can always retreat for. Tobruk if it goes badly. I would use the Tac in Tobruk, not Taranto.

OH, OK… forgot people use bids, so probably wouldn’t be wise to do both attacks without one.

[ghr2]

@Young:

@ghr2:

@Young:

I love the thought process here, make one simple little rule for big changes… but I agree with all the above comments, Taranto is the only thing the Allies got going for them these days.

And Torburk!�  Don’t forget!

So the standard is now Taranto and Torburk UK1?

With no bid, its 1 or the other.

[AK_Grown]

@Young:

@wittmann:

If you get a bid of 9, then I say do both.
Sub helps and so does an Inf (Art better) in Alex.
Can always retreat for. Tobruk if it goes badly. I would use the Tac in Tobruk, not Taranto.

OH, OK… forgot people use bids, so probably wouldn’t be wise to do both attacks without one.

It’s worked out in a live game before. I was UK at the time, saw that SeaLion was a go and decided to go balls-to-the-walls offense.  It actually worked really well, as Germany took the bait and cleaned up the Med for Italy, while Russia just built a giant army.  I think when we finally called it a game, Germany had moved 2 whole territories into Russia while US/UK were about to invade France.

It was probably the dice.

[Noll]

I totally dislike the Medi and North Africa fight in G40.
It’s too straightforward, there’s no battles, no attrition, it’s either Allies dominate (more than often) or Italy dominates.

I mean: if Italy dominates it becomes a production monster, if Allies dominate Italy is completely neutered.
There’s no middleground!

I believe the reason is the geography of the G40 map. Having Southern Italy hittable from Gibraltar and Egypt hittable from Southern Italy makes everything a 1-move action. Even if you stay at port you’re still in danger. There’s no positioning etc…

I really like how they made Italy in the custom map “New World Order”. It’s very hard there for either Italy or UK to get an advantage in the seas prior to US intervention, and that’s historical. Before 1942 neither side had really major victories, the war was a war of convoy sinking and attrition. Italians advancing and retreating in North Africa. And when USA started attacking the medi Italy basically surrendered easily the islands and then the southern territories. Yet there was a very very long war (also a civil war) between the southern allied occupied territories and the northern “puppet states under germany” territories.

If you check the war prior to the US joining it, Italy even had a momentum in 1942. It was a year in wich due to the attack on Alexandria’s battleship and other lucky engagement Italy had almost a year of naval dominance (and thus was able to efficently support their troops in Africa).

What I mean? I’d like to see something like that in a ww2 game: Italy and UK struggles eachother for medi dominance. There’s no winner, just attrition and small gains. The only way for one side to gain terrain is if there’s another player investing huge resources in aiding them, either being Germany for Italy or US for UK.

[Witt]

Nice post Noll.
Will have to try and look at the NWO map. Every time I have, I get a headache the map is so full and tight.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Noll:

I totally dislike the Medi and North Africa fight in G40.
It’s too straightforward, there’s no battles, no attrition, it’s either Allies dominate (more than often) or Italy dominates.

I mean: if Italy dominates it becomes a production monster, if Allies dominate Italy is completely neutered.
There’s no middleground!

I believe the reason is the geography of the G40 map. Having Southern Italy hittable from Gibraltar and Egypt hittable from Southern Italy makes everything a 1-move action. Even if you stay at port you’re still in danger. There’s no positioning etc…

I really like how they made Italy in the custom map “New World Order”. It’s very hard there for either Italy or UK to get an advantage in the seas prior to US intervention, and that’s historical. Before 1942 neither side had really major victories, the war was a war of convoy sinking and attrition. Italians advancing and retreating in North Africa. And when USA started attacking the medi Italy basically surrendered easily the islands and then the southern territories. Yet there was a very very long war (also a civil war) between the southern allied occupied territories and the northern “puppet states under germany” territories.

If you check the war prior to the US joining it, Italy even had a momentum in 1942. It was a year in wich due to the attack on Alexandria’s battleship and other lucky engagement Italy had almost a year of naval dominance (and thus was able to efficently support their troops in Africa).

What I mean? I’d like to see something like that in a ww2 game: Italy and UK struggles eachother for medi dominance. There’s no winner, just attrition and small gains. The only way for one side to gain terrain is if there’s another player investing huge resources in aiding them, either being Germany for Italy or US for UK.

I think they should have separate the Med.sea a little more as well as the channel!
Give it a few more sz, like upper and lower medi. Or north and south channel, it would have been more of a challenge then.

Or in other terms for G40: split sz 110 into 110 /1 and 110/2 and 95 into 95/1 and 95/2.

[ghr2]

I think one of the big issues is how easy air can reach different parts of the med in global.

[Azathoth]

It would definitely give a big boost to the axis, who don’t really need one. But I thought of it as just an intersting experiment to mess around with, giving the Italian player more fun instead of having his fleet get squashed before his first move evey game.

The option could be used to as a help to a less experienced axis player, or the allies could be given something to offset it somehow. Like maybe an airbase in egypt, then the UK med fleet could consolidate there under their own air cover, which would probably create an interesting stand off until one side or the other invested enough resources to break it.

[theROCmonster]

@ghr2:

I think one of the big issues is how easy air can reach different parts of the med in global.

100% agree.

[cyanight]

This is a very interesting discussion.  Correct me if I’m wrong on history but didn’t Italy start WW2?  They took Ethiopia first and gave Hitler the idea and courage to move into the Rheinland first. From what I was watching in a documentary Hitler was shy to begin war but after seeing Mussolini get away with it he figured he could as well and that’s what happened when he moved into the Rheinland.  The allies did nothing to resist.

[ghr2]

@cyanight:

This is a very interesting discussion.  Correct me if I’m wrong on history but didn’t Italy start WW2?  They took Ethiopia first and gave Hitler the idea and courage to move into the Rheinland first. From what I was watching in a documentary Hitler was shy to begin war but after seeing Mussolini get away with it he figured he could as well and that’s what happened when he moved into the Rheinland.  The allies did nothing to resist.

I think historians debate the causes all of the time.  One can argue Japan started the war back in 31-33 when it invaded Manchuria.

[cyanight]

Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

[IKE]

@cyanight:

Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

I thought the World Wars was very well done. I liked how it was more of a movie then a documentary.  My favorite is WWII in Colour though.  I also have World at War but it’s something like 30 hours long and I’m still at the beginning.

Have not heard of Fury, i’ll have to check that out.

[Black_Elk]

The World at War is the best. Every time I hear this song playing I get all misty eyed and Nostalgic for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fmhnjPIU0

Century of Warfare was great too.
And Victory at Sea.

I caught the World Wars on the history channel. It was cool to see the early careers of various WW2 actors during the Great War 1914-18. But the production values were definitely more modern less classic hehe.

Fury looks pretty rad.

To the original subject of this thread. I think you could potentially support a Neutral Italy, if you are willing to support a stronger Russia. As I’ve been suggesting elsewhere all night ;)

[Azathoth]

Apocalypse: The Second World War, is a great series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-jS37cBtM Six one hour parts with a lot of footage I had never seen before.

Then there is The Last Secrets of The Axis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv-1i7Sx8L8 My favorite one shot documentary, deals a lot with german and Japanese cooperation.

Finally here is the trailer for fury  :-)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg I’ll be going to see it.

Black Elk I really like those Russian NOs. While they seem like something I would like to use in every Global game I play from here on out, I could definitely see using them, with perhaps  an airbase in Egypt or some such thing, to help the allies offset a turn 1 neutral Italy, as an experimental game just for fun. I know for sure I have a friend – whos Italian navy I sank on UKs first move, with the Taranto maneuver which I learned from this site – who would certainly agree to it. Every time we get together to do another turn he complains at some point about how Italy is useless now and how Africa is his favorite front but now it is unimportant and Italy never got a chance to fight for it etc.

[ghr2]

@IKE:

@cyanight:

Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

I thought the World Wars was very well done. I liked how it was more of a movie then a documentary.  My favorite is WWII in Colour though.  I also have World at War but it’s something like 30 hours long and I’m still at the beginning.

Have not heard of Fury, i’ll have to check that out.

I heard it was inaccurate with dates n such.

[cyanight]

I actually like how HBG made the Mediterranean Sea.  One of the problems with A&A Global is Crete and Cyprus are in the same sea zone.  As you can see below that sea zone is split and Crete is the intersection of 4 sea zones making it very strategic like it was in the war.  Also notice how Sicily and Sardinia also touch multiple sea zones.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Good post cyanight.
That would also make it enjoyable to play ,with room to expand some strategies.

[IKE]

It looks like Bulgaria is also connected to Turkey, unlike G40.

[Noll]

@cyanight:

Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

Ethiopia was more for national prestige after the pre-ww1 fiasco.

At that times, especially after ww1 conclusion (Italy paid a very big price and in the end annihilated the entire austrian army), Italy felt he had to expand and that he coulndt trust The entente/allies.
If you think Italy starter The WAR remember that before allying with germany, Italy was the only power that reacted to hitler’s expansion goals. Mussolini stopper Hitler from annexing Austria prior to their alliance.
France and UK were not caring at all.