No thank you, thanks for the invite though! I’m very busy and your rules seem to take a while to learn (no offence), but I hope you find someone.
Finally, what should i do whit italy
-
i read a lot of posts here about adding italy to A&A games. As, i see no one is really agree about th way to adding it. Theoretically that sound like a great idea. But as in intermediate AA player i have few question about it.
1: which country is italy holded, southern europe and then ?
2: Do we have to change some ipc country value to come to a more balanced game ?
3: IPC total for italy ( whitout diminished geramany to much ) ?
4: how we place italy units at the start of the game ?
5: how we do to differenciate italy unit ???
6: for the control markers ???
7: italy should play first,second ???Thanx for your idea. I will surely test the ones that you will send me and post the feedback here
-
Although it appears to be a good idea introducing Italy into Axis and Allies (Traditional) and Axis and Allies Europe I feel that Italy is represented by Germany’s power anyway. To add Italy would be to tip the balance in the axis favour. If you add Italy you could go to extremes and add Romania, Vichy French forces, Korea, etc.
-
What you talkin’ 'bout!?!
Italy is a great idea. :DA&A Europe
1 Northern Italy, Sothern Italy, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Algeria. Maybe Germany could also divvy up Greece, Austria and Yugoslavia between the 2 axis.
2&3 Make Sicily worth 1, North Italy worth 5, Germany worth 12
Italy IPCs=12-16 Germany IPCs=32-364 Giv them what Germany normally gets in their countries except for a man on Sicily and 4 inf in North Italy
For their navy giv them 1BB, 1 dest., and 1tranny in tyrhenian sea, and MAYBE a sub in the adriatic5&6 Use the japanese peices and control markers (or make your own markers) for the italians. you could buy a set of pieces on ebay or somewhere and paint them some other color such as blue or yellow or purple
7 I think Italy would go 2nd
-
:wink: P.S.
Germany would have complete control of the distribution of any oil money conquered. Also there might be an “Italian patriotic war” which allows Italy to assume any German material on the land or in their port.
:wink: P.P.S.S.
Why don’t you sign up to become a member? -
as you see, i’m a member now :). But i was talking about A&A original… I don’t own A&Aeurope and pacific. i’m what you can call a global man but all ideas of yours sounds great to me :P
-
I have thought about it and after seeing so many post’s about italy I want to add my understanding of where it stood which i’ve posted in the Italy thread(currently 130 posts) in this Forum. in compliment to the allied firepower and production the italians were….
1.the italian tanks were tin cans with very thin armor(1-4") and 20-50 mm main guns so the italians couldn’t match the british and US tanks (average 75 mm main gun and about 5 inch armor)
2. the italian rifle or model 38 carcano were notoriously terrible for blowing up in there owners face. In fact the joke among italian troops was that the rifle “never “killed” anyone on purpose.”
3.as far as I can remember the main italian fighter the Macchi 202-II were only armed with 2 20 mm gun complimented by 2 7.62 mm machine guns… compare to early war models of the british hurricane and spit…
hurr. : 4 20mm
Spit. :8-12 .303 caliber or most of the time 2 20 mm and 4 .303 caliber
not to forget that the british were more maneuverable… maybe not as fast but soon enough there speed caught up to…4. the whole italian battleship fleet was sunk nov. 1940-mar. 1941 leaving it with only destroyers…and not to many of those…
5.Italian war production was ONE % not something to really boast about (USA being 29% and germany’s less than 10%!) From the statistics I have seen on germany’s war production compared to US I would say even less…
maybe you could add it to AaA Europe but even then it would be negligent. the german’s BB in the Tyhrreinian sea, give the italians only a dest and a trn, and if the germans really have what they really had…
-
:evil: LEARN HOW TO PROOF READ PLEASE.
IT’S WITH -
I’m sorry for my bad proofreading(I actually did see everything written I sort of wrote on whim and got off a little.) my basic point is that italy(in regards to germany) in actuallity was a weakling and not much to look at… :wink: so I think not something to fuss over just an opinion…
-
I say only incude italy if you have 6 people who want to play ;p……
-
you reply to a question over 3.5 years ago! Head over to house rules and check out a more current Italy thread.
-
If you want to add a sixth player to the game do not add Italy, add China
-
maybe have a western and an eastern US.
-
I think it foolish to discount Italy because of its poor equipment. Italy had a decent navy and its military equipment otherwise was comparable to that of Japans, crap armor, crap rifles, decent under armed fighters. The problem with Italy was the way their men were led. I think that in some games if you are going to allow China to be a player then Italy should be too.
-
The problem with comparing Italy to Japan is that the average Japanese soldier was suicidal in his bravery and Japan controlled much more territory
China is a better candidate because it is stupid for just the US to play them, just because they supplied China with an Air force. Many of the Chinese tanks were Soviet made and crewed, and who can forget about the Burma Road. All the allied counties had an equal roll in finacing the defence of China. And unlike the Italians who had chain of commands which lead up to German officers, Chinese soldiers had there own Chain of command. It is historically accurate to let Germany play Italy, while it makes no sense for the US to play China.
-
My suggestion to wanna be Italian is play A&A minis.
P.S. If you want to add a 6th player cyan’s idea it does not even require redrawing the map, it is a lot of fun, and gives the axis a chance.
-
China has no story line in the war. They just sit and take loses from the japanese empire like a punching bag. At least italy went and attacked Greece and the British in Africa and had a dream of another roman empire. They also sent troops in the Soviet Union and helped Spain win the war in 36’ China would have probably beaten Italy in a land war but italy had a huge navy and air force… essentially a modern army run by horrible incompetent leadership. They were by far a complete military power compared with China.
-
Good points, but wouldn’t a good way of representing Italy’s poor leadership be to not let them have leadership at all
-
If we want to be historically accurate in all tactics and strategy, what is the point of playing the game? I thought the fun of the game was to pick a point in history and say hey, if different decisions were made, would the outcome have been different?
To me, Italy could have definitely made a difference in the war. Thus an Italy variant seems reasonable. And shouldn’t throw off game balance too much doing it. Plus it makes a 3 on 3 game.
China on the other hand only starts with a handful of units and a couple of territories, so nobody is going to want to play them unless significant changes are made to both the axis and allies units in the interest of balancing the game. Assuming you can get an interesting China setup that is also reasonably balanced, you are then looking at a 4 on 2 game.
Just from game dynamics alone, Italy seems to make much more sense as a variant. IMO.
-
@Imperious:
China has no story line in the war. They just sit and take loses from the japanese empire like a punching bag. At least italy went and attacked Greece and the British in Africa and had a dream of another roman empire. They also sent troops in the Soviet Union and helped Spain win the war in 36’ China would have probably beaten Italy in a land war but italy had a huge navy and air force… essentially a modern army run by horrible incompetent leadership. They were by far a complete military power compared with China.
why couln’t japan concur all of china then. if the chinease were so bad. i don’t think japan had many tanks. i think there sould be a rule that would make tanks harder for japan. like reinsate the whole transport rule. tanks were hard for transport s to carry so why would the game promte the use of tanks. most of the tanks would get killed in amphibous landings anyway.
-
You mean conquer?
The idea was that in taking China was akin to the commitment of the bulk of the Japanese army in attacking a rather large barren wilderness. The economic benefits of such an expedition would not have the return to Japan as a measure of what Japan would have to give up. AS it was they occupied only the good farmlands and coastal territories and didn’t deal with the mountain territories. The problem with this is because no armistice was negotiated the Japanese had to commit the kuangtung army as a garrison.
China did not posses a balanced military. Surely they had some 560 divisions of rather dubious strength but really no armor, no air force to call their own, no navy… not to mention a civil war brewing at the same time all leading up to no unification of national strategy but rather somebody just playing a waiting game… trying to stay alive.
If any additional nation were to be addedother than Italy consider separating the purely British elements with the ‘commonwealth’ creating a separate identity for India, Austrailia and Canada with their own forces and income.
Suggested Topics
