Italian Strategies

@Cmdr:

Yea, I never played the rule.  But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.

I bet the same can be said about any rule.  And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.

The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection.  Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes.  Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

Yea, I never played the rule.  But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.

I bet the same can be said about any rule.  And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.

The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection.  Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes.  Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

There’s no real way to win this argument for either of us.  (Between whether or not you can see a rules, hear stories about it and make a decision or if you must play the rule before you can tell if it is good or not.)

What I can say is this:

The Rule is optional.  That means it was not needed enough to make it mandatory.  That tells me there is a strong consensus of players who think the rule is unneeded.

There are ways, in the game, to negate the impact of SBR without using Interceptors.

Revised:Enhances (and AA50:Enhanced) have a better solution, IMHO, to the SBR issue through the use of “interceptors” of a sort.

Even in games where the optional rule of Technology is not played, the cost benefit to SBR over thousands and thousands of games is minute at best. (1.5 IPC a round advantage per bomber.)

The suggestion of putting bombers back to 15 IPC (or I think someone said 14 IPC) reduces that cost benefit.  If 15 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1 IPC a round advantage per bomber.  IF 14 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1.2 IPC a round advantage per bomber.

We’re not talking a huge benefit over the course of many games.  And remember, that’s just the average, you could find yourself losing a bomber every round and doing no damage, you could find yourself never shooting down a bomber and taking massive damage.  It’s the blessings of using dice instead of Low Luck.

@Vall:

Back on topic here, I believe that an industrial complex in the Balkans would be a good means of getting infantry and artillery into the Ukraine, but the problem is Italy doesn’t start with enough money to buy one. Securing the national objectives seems to be the greatest source of income for Italy from my experience, and they aren’t all that difficult to get.

I am going to try building a complex in the Balkans and use it to move infantry and artillery against Russia. After I have seized Egypt that is.

If the allies ignore Italy, then yes, you might utilize the Balkans IC enough to make it worth it.
I think Italy would be better served with 3 tanks or 5 inf that will, in only one turns delay, be in the Balkans.

yea if you think about it you could build an IC in the Balkans and then 5 inf there next turn, or build 5 inf and move them to the Balkans next turn, either way you have 5 inf in the Balkans.

No, it is not quicker at all, in any sense, unless you need to build more than 6 units.  Just as if Germany could only afford 10 inf, it would be pointless to put an IC in Poland to get troops to the front faster, now if you have an IC in Poland and one in Germany, yeah you would build inf in Poland and armor in Germany, but they wouldn’t get to the front any faster than if you built them in Germany the round you built the IC.

@bbrett3:

I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time

I agree with you that Italy is quite important, so this is what I’ve been doing lately, and I think it’s great.

G1 - hit Egypt with everything including the bomber.  Take Egypt losing the bomber if necessary.  Germany loses 12 IPCs, but gains 2 and England loses 7.  This is a net loss of 3 IPCs, but I feel that the tempo gain is more than worth it.

I1 - buy 1 fighter, take Trj, retake Algeria if needed with 2 inf, 1 fig - collect 21 IPCs.

I2 - buy 1 cv, 1 tr unless you need more ground troops.  In that case, 1 cv, 1 inf, 1 art.  Collect 21+ IPCs.

I3 - buy 1 tr if you didn’t buy it on I2, 1 ca, 1 dd, or 1-2 ss, and 4 ground units.  Collect 23+ IPCs.

See I think Italy does best to shore up Germany’s weakness.  France needs taken or defended? On it.  Russia needs threatened with can opener to keep her in check?  On it.  Southern Europe needs traded with Russia?  On it.  Allies need slowed down in Africa?  On it.  Allied fleet in SZ 12 needs thinned out for the German planes to sink?  On it.  Now granted I cant do it all, but whatever Germany is struggling with, I can be that little bit that tips the odds in Germany’s favor.  It really depends on the individual game.

italy is way cool. here is why:

2 tanks in bulgaria/ epl or 2 inf in EPL with ftr in range will nullify the effect of a 1inf  russian blitzblocker in EUK and BEL. that means whenever theese units are in range, russia cant  press germany with north/south push from KAR,BST / CAU,UKR .  this eases fighting for gerrmany alot imho, as it ristricts the red army.

of course italy will have to get their NOs as often as possible but how you do that really depends on what british / US are doing.

but i prefer italy pumping out ground units as much as possible. maybe a trn+ inf round one is best. this way you get 12 units at end of turn 3 to africa.