Italian neutrality

Ya what ever game play you want.

@CaptainNapalm I like the Italian neutrality, but if you want to make it more reasonable to Italy go to war, and to promote going to war, here’s some changes I would make:

Italian VPs:
3 | Neo-Roman empire: get 1 VP up to a maximum of 3 VPs for each of these territory groups Italy holds at the end of the Game: Yugoslavia and Thessaly, Western and Eastern Egypt, Gibraltar, Transjordan and Syria, Spain (NS allies to Italy in this Scenario.
1 | Fascist Victory: NS wins the Spanish civil war.

Italian Navy:
Add 1 naval transport at SZ 81.

Italian volunteers:
While Italy is neutral during the Spanish Civil War, Add +1 to NS recruitment rolls.
While at war, Italy get recruitment rolls for each home country territory they get.

@captainnapalm hahaha. I do like the creativity though, @David-06.

I won’t rehash here my thoughts on this from the thread the other day in full. I totally get how this is a viable strategy for the Italians, but I still wonder if it hurts the Axis in the end by the Allied ability to now devote way more resources to other theaters against Germany or Japan, and just keep a skeleton force against Italy/the Med. Again, I certainly could be wrong here as I’ve never played a game where this happened. But I’d be curious to try it, as I already am envisioning things I would/could do with the extra Allied resources to be used elsewhere!

All this said, I do think it’s a bit lame this can happen. I wish a simple change of something like “Italy has to be at war with at least one major power to get it’s VP’s were to take affect.” Something like that. Or has to have been at war with a major power for “X” amount of turns before the game ends to get the VP’s. That would alleviate this potential loophole, especially if it’s shown to give the Axis a lopsided victory through game play!

@chris_henry it’s not a loophole though. If Italy stays neutral than yes, Japan and Germany can be the allies focus. Let’s say the allies focus on Japan (the easier foe to defeat) if Jaoan is knocked out that takes off 7 victory points from the axis table! Will the axis even have a chance at winning if this is the case, I highly doubt it!

@bretters Hey, I’m totally with you on this! I’m not fully convinced this is a winning strategy for the Axis (without having attempted it myself) in the long run! Is it a winning strategy for Italy specifically? In every way. But to the greater Axis efforts? Not so sure.

I guess loophole was probably not the right word to use, but I think you know what I mean!

@chris_henry you want a change - but there is no good way to make the change- therefore it is not a viable rule to change. If Italy must declare war in 1940 or 1941 that will be a death sentence to Italy and definitely be unfair - but also if Italy only must declare war "just to meet a requirement of “at war status” by the end of the game than that seems silly as well…
also - if there is a set date (any date) that Italy must join the war than all sides are preparing for that and there is no randomness or player choice factor and its dumb. Jan 43… OK then ill have the US with the invasion fleet arriving at Rome’s doorstep in Jan 43 to attack… Jan 43 - ok ill build militia and inf in Rome/ N italy to protect myself every turn up until then… its just dumb and BS

@bretters Yup, that’s kind of what I was getting at too. There’s not a real good way to do that.

I have to imagine this came up in playtesting also, and they clearly decided there wasn’t some massive Axis advantage to this Italian ability to conceivably not declare war.

I think when it’s all said and done, this strategy isn’t as viable as it looks on paper, like we’ve both said!

@chris_henry the thing is, my friends aren’t complaining about the strategy aspect I guess but the fact that’s possible to earn 4 “victory points” towards the axis powers while Italy remains neutral in the whole war. While the game is focused on a war that Italy isn’t fighting , but still earning points for. But I agree with you and I’m against changing the rules regarding Italy and their victory points.

@captainnapalm doesn’t apply to Japan

@captainnapalm Italy’s units land, air , and naval are not committed to the fight and not helping the axis powers if neutral the whole game

@captainnapalm Is it best for Italy to stay neutral link

@david-06 here’s the thing … an early aggressive Italy is more of a liability than an asset. Italy will
Fail To both be aggressive and defend her capitol and major factory. Maybe near the end of the game if Italy spends all $ and builds both a defensive force and an aggressive force …. The easiest way for Italy to get her 4 victory points is to stay neutral . Helping to
Win the Spanish civil war, winning the war in Ethiopia/Abyssinia and annexing Albania , and having more capital ships in the med at end of game than Uk / allies

@bretters
Here is y thought.
As referenced above, victory points for italy are all about spreading their influence and becommign at great power aginan. ITaly didn’t want to fight a war. Mussolini only joined when it looked like the allies would be a pushover.
Thus, it makes sense that a neutral Italy could achieve all their VPs. This game is not just about the war. Some nations can work better through peace and posturing.

Also, other nations can get all of their VPs at peace.
France, UK, US, USSR, I think even Japan. Italy is not an exception.

@david-06 oops I originally thought that was a question posed to captain napalm but I see now it’s a link to another thread .

@trig I like your points, well said. But your nation list at the end as examples …. Japan most definitely cannot and will not get her victory points by staying neutral, France doesn’t have a choice and will be in the war, UK will also always be in the war and the US is best served fighting in the war. Realistically There are no player nations that get to benefit from neutrality besides Italy and yea. I guess the USSR. A perfect game for the Soviets being one they maintain peace with both factions , win and hold Spain, gain control of Iran and Finland and Mongolia .

No sense envisioning where to use imagined additional Allied resources. You won’t have any. You won’t have the easy $3 from Italy, in Africa, so Italy will have an extra $3. You can’t abandon Egypt, or Italy can just take it. The Italian threat doesn’t disappear. The Axis aren’t down resources, as the Italian IPPs are lend-leased to Germany. All that it really changes is now you have to fight the Axis forces in France, where they are concentrated strongest, and the Axis doesn’t have to spread themselves out, fighting in Africa, the Med, or Italy, which is where they are always weakest. The Axis income is combined, and their weak link, and soft underbelly, is protected.

I’d have to agree with @bretters here. Sorry @CaptainNapalm, I don’t agree! All Italy would be able to make in this scenario is 10 IPP a turn. Nothing stops the Allies from just matching that output, or putting a little more. Hell, they could even do a bit less if they wanted to knowing they have better odds defending! I think you’d see a lot of extra IPP to be used in other theaters! It doesn’t make sense that the Allies would expend the same amount of Capital to defend against a neutral Italy than they would against one at war.

The point above about Italy’s units not being used is also a good one too.

I think it’s an interesting strategy worth trying, but I just don’t see it working in the longrun!

@chris_henry let me clarify, you don’t see Italy staying neutral as a viable strategy ?

@bretters Oh, sounds like we’re misinterpreting each other! Or at least me you haha.

I ultimately don’t think it’s a viable strategy. Again, I have not tried this, and so could be wrong, I certainly don’t mean to sound like this is a dumb idea or a waste of time or anything.

I just think that the Allies will have a lot of IPP to be able to utilize in other theaters if they don’t have to fight Italy. Keep a skeleton defensive force in the Med, and match Italy’s IPP output for defenses. After that, all IPP can be focused in Western Europe and/or the Pacific to fight that would have otherwise been used in the Med/North Africa. While it makes a ton of sense for Italy individually, I’m just having a hard time seeing how the extra resources the Allies will be able to have on hand won’t negatively affect the other Axis members. I’d have to see it play out over the course of multiple games with players of somewhat equal experience!