Italy a bad design

This is an issue I wish the game by vanilla would just let you turn over control of territory to your allies as this happened a lot between Germany and Italy. I have allowed enemies forces to capture a territory just so I can turn it over to another.

@Ichabod:

@PainState:

A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.

Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.

There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.

Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.

Hi PainState,

From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.

There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

This strat has many angles to look at (a lot of if’s). Much would depend on the order and success of the German G1 attacks, and the UK counter punches. If UK lost any planes on G1 (or UK1) they aren’t looking to stack Paris (would be too weak). Keep in mind that as the allies you don’t know if this is on the table or not, but we’ve seen it once or twice so would be aware of the possibility.

I have to say that Whitshadw’s Atlantic attacks against the UK are more risky then I would normally do, maybe he wants UK to scramble to lose a couple planes so they can’t stack Paris (I personally don’t like risking German air power). With that said, he would also be in control of which battles are fought first, keeping his intent to weaken France for the Italians under wrap (a strat that could also be aborted, if it doesn’t feel right the Germans take Paris G1). I would also point out that the Germans would most defiantly be attacking at least one (maybe both) French coastal IC territories on G1. Germany needs the income, and you don’t want those French units to screw you (so please stop arguing that point). If (big IF) the allies don’t stack Paris, Italy would still get the 19 IPC bankroll for taking it It1 (would obviously be much less on G2 or It2). Another thing to point out is that normally the Paris assault takes two rounds, so it is very possible that the Germans won’t be able to strafe it for the Italians because the French folded to easy. It is also possible that the French fight hard, and the Germans have no choice but to leave it for Italy (it happens once in a blue moon).

From UK’s perspective:
It has been established that the UK could still attack Italian sz 97, and 96, but can’t use all her air power if she wants to land all available planes in Paris. Most planes can’t make the sea battles, and land in Paris (1-2 fewer UK planes change the odds rather dramatically in Paris). This would make the Italian sea battles more risky, but UK also knows that the Italians need those planes to sack Paris so would they scramble? At this point Italy may not know it is the UK’s intent to stack Paris, so it works both ways. If Italy can’t take Paris on It2, they would surly want to soften it up for a G2 attack

More to think about,
Did the UK 91 cruiser survive G1 to hit sz 96 w/air (didn’t see that as part of the German Atlantic campaign). If the UK loses a couple planes in either the G1 (scramble), or UK1 battles I don’t think the RAF lands in Paris (too weak) leaving it for the Italians. Either way the UK would probably still hit the bulk of the Ita navy though, so Italy would still be left in a pickle IMO, with a lot on their plate when their turn comes up (unless UK forgoes a naval attack and retreats to the Red Sea?). If the UK stacks Paris with air, and has a couple ships left in the Italian harbor after Taranto, Italy would need to chose attack ships (Brits & French), or attack Paris (for the Germans). I know the Italians can surround Egypt (with German air support), and have a chance to push through, but I also know the UK can bulk up to defend it by pulling units from India and S Africa, build an IC turn 1, or trade it. And yes the US can make a major impact in the Med, and very well may be parked off Gib on US3 (axis generally attack before or on turn 3), some variables there too. There are some games where UK attacks in the Pac and the US can’t leave DC until turn 4 (so they may go Pac where they can move). Also when the US is at Gib, they could also be going north to Norway, but the possibility of US in the Med will generally stall Italy.

Anyway, I don’t think this was ever meant to be a sure fire way for the axis to win a game. It is another possible strat to throw the other side off their game, or do something they may not be real comfortable with (like risking the RAF in Paris). You guys could play 10 games via AAA, but he wouldn’t attempt this in every game (maybe 2-3 times if things fell right). Under the right circumstances it could work out giving Italy some extra income (we have seen it). A strong Italy can be an aid to the Germans defensively, and could help to distract the allies. I know that giving Paris to Italy could also stall a Barbarossa for lack of units at the front. Depends on what round you plan on sacking Moscow. Maybe you just want them to collapse back to Moscow to make them irrelevant for some time, build up and then sack em using their own IC’s to produce units, or by building a minor in say western Ukraine or Ros for a few more good men.

Just thinking out loud that if the UK lost every ship and plane on the Atlantic side by round 2 either through attacks, or counter attacks, that has to be a major set back for the allies. Even if Italy doesn’t get Paris (Germany takes it round G2) and is partially neutered in the process the UK is nothing w/o the RAF, plus their is less allied air going to Moscow. Yea India and US could send some help, but Japan will be licking its chops.

If you try it out, you’ll see that the U.K. can’t sufficiently reinforce France, even with the additional 6 French troops, from having Germany crush it on round 2.  Even if every available plane is landed there, and the strafe leaves 2 tanks plus the fighter, it’s impossible to hold.  So all that landing planes accomplishes is wiping out the British airforce (and keeping France from falling to Italy).  The payoff isn’t worth it.

The biggest downsides I can imagine are that (1) it is much more difficult to hold off serious landings at Normandy by the US and/or UK.  Italy then has to protect Western Europe and the Med–although with Germany taking S France, they can dump ships in the Med as well if it comes to that (subs backed up by planes would be cheap).  And (2) delaying the war on the Pacific side until round 3 (which would make this work much better at times, depending on the US builds) means that UK Pacific can shuttle some troops over.

The really nice thing about this strategy is that it’s more efficient to have Italy be the 1 force in the Med, and not have to worry about building enough ships off the S France factory right away to protect them from UK planes.

I think it’s going to be the standard opening in our play group for the foreseeable future.

The counter someone mentioned above about making sure to buy troops in S Africa–either mechs, or infantry/artillery to go with transports, in combination with some shuttling from India, is probably the safe response.

Grover and I just started another game, with me being the Axis, and I’ve got to say I’m enjoying the big Italian boost.

@Cow:

and let me guess axis won right? exactly italy makes 40 that is game.

Yep.  Italy really carried the game. They also got heavy bombers and they just started unloading on the UK London side. The UK spent most of the game fixing stuff that that Italy had bombed the turn before. Then they crossed over and did it to India and that allowed Japan an easy time taking it.

I think that UK has the advantages in the Mediterranean, and that Italy won’t have Egypt when the US comes in.

However, I have seen it all when it comes to rolls in the Med. I’ve seen all Italian naval units lost, save 1 transport, for 1 British destroyer lost.
I have also seen the reverse. So if Italy gets good rolls they can be a superpower. But if not, they’re in trouble.

\ S /
                                                                                          ~~~~~
Hey guys, look at that steaming pile of BULL–---->        ~~~~~~
                                                                                      -––—––

Be careul not to step in that.