Improving Italy as a playable Power

I’m toying with ideas for faster games using older versions and more mobile units. The Italians factor into both of my current ideas. The problem is the Girl Scouts of America were a more effective fighting force than anything Mussolini fielded. So much needs modified to make them fun to play in most situations.

The idea of having a successful amateur army was a long dead concept by the time Il Duce took control. Yet there he was trying it. The game tends to reflect that. The problems which arise from having an amateur army are magnified when laid next to a professional army, I.E. Germany. The game reflects that as well. It just does so within the existing mechanics. You can’t always put someone completely inept in charge of Italy for the sake of accuracy.

With all that said I like what you’re trying to do but have little in the way of input. I’m in no intellectual Mecca and playing the latest versions of A&A around here is impossible. I tried to get a weekly board game group started at the local library. The fliers stayed up for a month. Zero phone calls.

Hey Folks,

a simple way to strengthen Italy without adding too much power to the axis as a whole, might be to remove 1 or 2 Japanese fighters from Tokyo and add them as Italian ones to Southern Italy. (Just an idea that came to my mind.)

Greetings

Just a suggestion but as I have seen discussed in other subject lines, what if Italy received more of a naval presence…a sub and destroyer at the mouth of the Med. perhaps.  To balance it, give the Soviets a small naval presence in the Pacific.  A sub, destroyer, mayber even a cruiser right above sea zone 6.  This would give the allies a little more in the pacific and rather deminesh a players resources, just add a little to the opponent.  Italy’s navy getting destroyed in the Toranto raid is what makes Italy such a bear to play.  Like IWillNeverGrowUp said, I have seen Italy go nuts before with the right player and the allies looking else where.

Then concentrate all Italian ships in one SZ (maybe SZ 97).
Adding more naval strength to Italy will make the Regina Marina invincible.

@Dafyd:

Just a suggestion but as I have seen discussed in other subject lines, what if Italy received more of a naval presence…a sub and destroyer at the mouth of the Med. perhaps.  To balance it, give the Soviets a small naval presence in the Pacific.  A sub, destroyer, mayber even a cruiser right above sea zone 6.  This would give the allies a little more in the pacific and rather deminesh a players resources, just add a little to the opponent.  Italy’s navy getting destroyed in the Toranto raid is what makes Italy such a bear to play.  Like IWillNeverGrowUp said, I have seen Italy go nuts before with the right player and the allies looking else where.

Balancing Italian ships with Soviet ships (on the other side of the board) is not really doing any balancing in my opinion. These Soviet units may never see meaningful combat and would probably be sunk, without injury, by Japan before they got out of the Pacific. Even if they did break out of the Pacific it would be at least 3 or 4 Turns before they could get to the Mediterranean or the Atlantic. It would equate to free ships/other units for Italy with nothing to balance it on the European side of the map. (Remember that the USSR and Japan are not at war until one of them says so, so these ships are at least temporarily neutral for all intents and purposes.)

Maybe it is a little cynical of me, but what would be the repercussions of making Italy more powerful? If the reasoning is just so player 6 is a bit more interested in the game, then I think you will be sacrificing a lot of historical accuracy and game balance just to make Italy more ‘fun’. The reason Italy was never a playable Power in the earlier and smaller versions of A&A is because it isn’t on the level of the Big 5. Same for Anzac and China… they are just lighter versions of Italy. IMO the real problem is thinking that Italy should have more stuff or be more powerful than they actually were. I agree that it would be nice to construct your own little Mediterranean Empire with them, but it is difficult to do in the game because it was also difficult in real life.

I have been involved in a recent discussion along the same lines about France. The ‘logic’ went something like: they would never have been included as a playable Power if there was no chance they could ever be played/if they couldn’t actually do something. Then came the reasons why income and turn order should be changed just so Player X (who only plays France) has stuff to do. Ludicrous. IMHO

A sidebar… but I don’t know who in their right mind wants to or would bother playing just France or just Anzac or just China. Doesn’t make sense to me.

I do, on the other hand enjoy playing Italy. It is simple, contained and relaxing. Your brain doesn’t hurt in the process.

yea Italy can be a bit of a drag, but as L Hoffman points out, that’s kinda what they were. I guess you gotta think of Italy as some sorta designated driver. :)  what I did was make Gib, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Tobruk and Alexandria all worth a buck. I also gave Vyborg, Nenetsia and Bessarabia a buck to help offset some of the Italian bonus.

Not a huge difference but it gives just enough to allow some different builds. If Italy can survive with some fleet turn 1 She’s stoked. If not a mutual destruction with UK can allow for a small naval rebuild protected by German air. She can then capture some islands and will usually hold for a few turns. Allowing her to Bulk up a little more. : )

Anyway I found it to be a fun little boost. :)

@barney:

yea Italy can be a bit of a drag, but as L Hoffman points out, that’s kinda what they were. I guess you gotta think of Italy as some sorta designated driver. :)  what I did was make Gib, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Tobruk and Alexandria all worth a buck. I also gave Vyborg, Nenetsia and Bessarabia a buck to help offset some of the Italian bonus.

I do on the other hand like this idea. It doesn’t explicitly give a whole lot to Italy to begin the game, but it does boost their activity in the Med (more to do) and will result in more income over time. Even though 1 IPC is a small amount, 8 IPCs total for all those territories adds up over time and every bit counts for Italy. Plus it will incentivize battles/activity in some of the territories that actually had quite a bit of it during the war, but in the game are normally ignored (like Crete, Malta and Sicily).

I think this is better than giving Italy 14 IPCs worth (Destroyer+Sub) of actionable units to begin the game with.

I agree with LHoffman wholeheartedly. While true Italy is hard to play, it’s because this is also a game based on WWII. Italy was not very strong, this is shown in the game by their weak economy to start.

I do like playing Italy though. It’s fun with the options at hand. Focus in Russia, maybe attack Syria and into the ME, obviously duking it out for Egypt. Makes for some fun options in my opinion.

That being said, I too like the idea of giving the smaller territories 1 IPC of worth. I think it would give Italy incentive to play out some of those territories. I also have toyed with the thought of giving them another NO of holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus for +5 IPC’s. Malta was so important in real life and that’s lost a lot in the game.

This can also apply to the Pacific Islands, giving them all 1 IPC, to encourage a bit more meaning. Off topic with that though.

@Chris_Henry:

I also have toyed with the thought of giving them another NO of holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus for +5 IPC’s. Malta was so important in real life and that’s lost a lot in the game.

That wouldn’t be a bad idea either, even giving one to the UK for having Malta (+others maybe) would incentivize conflict there. I don’t know, that would require some thought. Otherwise Malta is kind of meaningless.

I’d rather add NOs than change territory values, and adding one for all the Mediterranean islands makes a lot of sense. Could be the Italian defense perimeter. On the flip side the UK could get one if the Allies control all the islands, including Sicily.

Agreed, that was my thought as well. Or if not an NO, at least make it a prerequisite for the Allies that they must control Sicily before they can invade Italy.

I like barney’s idea.  That way who ever captures the territory gets the IPC.  The NO is a good idea as well.  I need to bounce this off our gaming group.  Some suggestions are definately better than others.

that sounds like a cool NO (Malta, Crete, Cyprus) Chris_Henry. Maybe make it worth 3 ? Or 2 ? That would make all 3 worth a collective 5. I wonder if 5 might be too much.

I agree LHoffman. A small Malta UK NO would be cool too. I wonder how you could word it so they don’t start with it ? Maybe Malta, Gib and Cyprus for 2 ?

@barney:

that sounds like a cool NO (Malta, Crete, Cyprus) Chris_Henry. Maybe make it worth 3 ? Or 2 ? That would make all 3 worth a collective 5. I wonder if 5 might be too much.

I agree LHoffman. A small Malta UK NO would be cool too. I wonder how you could word it so they don’t start with it ? Maybe Malta, Gib and Cyprus for 2 ?

If Italy takes Malta, Malta becomes a UK NO. 1 buck and the Italian player has to do a shot.

I tested some G40 games where we gave each valueless (named) island on the map a value of +1 ipc, as an objective bonus. The original goal was to enhance the Pacific game, but it had a pretty cool side effect of making the Med more fun as well. Sand and Sea, it was pretty important theater of operations after all. Often times the Torch campaign gets stalled up, because there’s just not a whole lot to do except hold Cairo or take Cairo. Giving the islands a role to play seems to help.

A more narrowly focused rule like +X for control of “the Mediterranean islands” would probably also work. Though I tend to prefer when the NOs treat such territories individually rather than as a large group. If grouped the Objective is a lot easier to disrupt. You figure, if someone is going to go through the effort of putting a transport at risk to take Crete, they should probably get something out of the deal hehe.
:-D

@barney:

that sounds like a cool NO (Malta, Crete, Cyprus) Chris_Henry. Maybe make it worth 3 ? Or 2 ? That would make all 3 worth a collective 5. I wonder if 5 might be too much.

I agree LHoffman. A small Malta UK NO would be cool too. I wonder how you could word it so they don’t start with it ? Maybe Malta, Gib and Cyprus for 2 ?

Agreed, +5 IPC’s is maybe too much, just spit balling ideas. +2 IPC’s would probably be better for sure.

I also agree with LHoffman that giving some kind of bonus to the Allies for holding it would be nice as well. It would be great to find a single rule that incentivized both the Allies to want to hold it and make the Axis want to take it. This is a bit farfetched, but what about making Malta similar to a convoy zone for the Allies. By that I mean at the same time you roll for the regular convoy zone IPC hits, you roll 1d6 for Malta as well and remove those IPC’s from Italy. Could make the UK do more to want to hold/defend it, and would almost certainly force the Axis to take it out.

I may be wrong about this but since Malta is original UK territory, it is already a UK N/O.  IPC’s for all original  UK territories.  Italy takes Malta and UK doen not get the bonus and it is alot easier for Italy to hold that then say, Kenya.  I do like giving the islands a value of 1 no matter who pocesses them.

@Dafyd:

I may be wrong about this but since Malta is original UK territory, it is already a UK N/O.  IPC’s for all original  UK territories.  Italy takes Malta and UK doen not get the bonus and it is alot easier for Italy to hold that then say, Kenya.  I do like giving the islands a value of 1 no matter who pocesses them.

You are correct about that UK NO, but use the ANZAC NO’s as an example. One of them gives a bonus for holding all original ANZAC territories, while the other gives a bonus for holding the Solomon’s, which is already an ANZAC territory. So that one overlaps, this wouldn’t be much different.

I’d also point out that the Italians taking Alexandria from the UK is much more plausible in the game as is and thus taking away the UK NO than them having any incentive to taking Malta.

@Dafyd:

I may be wrong about this but since Malta is original UK territory, it is already a UK N/O.� �IPC’s for all original� UK territories.� Italy takes Malta and UK doen not get the bonus and it is alot easier for Italy to hold that then say, Kenya.� I do like giving the islands a value of 1 no matter who pocesses them.

Personally, I think that the OOB NOs for the UK suck. They only have two, only one of which is for the European side, and it isn’t much of an incentive: 5 IPCs if the UK controls all original territories, or something like that.

1. That is already the general goal of all Powers: to retain or take back their original territories… so it is nothing special or specific.

2. It can be a difficult goal to attain because it is so unfocused. The UK has territories all over Africa, the mid-East and the Med… if even a single, out-of-the-way and IPC worthless one is taken, the NO cannot be collected. Some people may say this is fine, which in-and-of-itself there is nothing wrong with it, but it is Britain’s only NO and is usually not achievable for at least 50% of the game. Even more if Italy is played well.

I never considered it before but the Axis could land an infantry in Cyprus on Turn 1 and screw the UK out of 15-25 IPCs over the course of the game.