If you read the top of page 11 you will see there is a new rule for V3 where you cannot combat move through a canal as you proposed. The example they give is exactly what you were talking about. You can still choose to do it the old way but either way that is one of the things you should have all of the players to agree to before the game begins. We always play it the new way.
Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?
-
I am just wondering is it the best strategy to Italy stay neutral. I am leaning on the neutral side, here’s why:
-
They could get all 4 victory conditions while staying neutral, and it is frankly easier doing so, since if they aren’t going to be attacking any major power, they don’t have to defend their home country, and they could spend more money on helping the nationalists, and they could spend more on tech, especially Wartime economy (more cash=more battleships) and improved construction (fast development of ships or cheap development). For Abyssinia, It might be best to stay defensive, if Abyssinia has lend-lease, or has succeeded on that recruitment roll, though maybe not.
-
They could support the other axis through lend-lease. To me, it seems usually it is the other way around with the offensive Italy, and A good British player would definitely suppress Italian plans to take areas with a few militia.
-
-
Since the allies can not ever declare on a neutral italy, it does seem a bit of a loophole that lets them stay neutral. It seems to me the meare threat of them being able to declare war, is more valuable than actually declaring war.
-
It’s funny you mention that! This was a topic mentioned a while back too:
When I saw your post in our other thread I immediately thought of this thread also haha.
@insaneHoshi’s point was brought up specifically too, if I remember correctly. The longer you stay neutral, the weirder the threat is to the Allies!
I think a retort to this might be that if you are Italy and not declaring war, you’re economy is going to stay really small at 10 IPP a turn. Point being, there’s nothing to really stop the Allies from meeting this money in kind, and only devoting 10-12 IPP of their own to countering any Italian builds, and focusing their money in other theaters that are actually seeing action, while still maintaining a defensive force in the Med region in case Italy does spring into action.
I’ve never had this happen in a game, but I think that, while Italy could get their VC’s met easily, I wonder if the negative impact of more units and focus again Germany and Western/Northern Europe instead, won’t ultimately hurt the Axis more in the long run. Not sure though at all! But yeah, at the very least the threat of Italy declaring war would still be something to be monitored regardless!
-
I agree with David here. I think that Italy does best when it chooses the time and place.
Here are some of the upsides of being at war:
-
You can get more money -So what? Money without use is meaningless.
-
You can capture Cairo or Gibraltar and take 2 UK VPs. You can take one of those without being at war
-
You can support Germany. Be realistic, this will never happen. Italy is too vulnerable.
Now for the downsides:
-
You can be attacked, and lose all of those VPs you got at peace.
-
You must spend to keep Rome Italian.
-
You must destroy the UK Med fleet, and then weather the storm from the rest of the UK fleet. (The UK starts with nearly double the fleet.)
-
There is no more threat projection anymore, and once you are killed off, the UK can leave.
Is it worth it to go to war? I think that anything Italy can do will just be undone by the Allies with their economic advantage. When you can get all of you VPs while neutral, almost a quarter of the Axis total, that is a lot.
(PS: If you fail to take Abyssinia, this is a lot less viable.)My plan would be:
Spend a unit a turn to Spain
Build 3 transports in Jul 36 through Jul 37.
Using those units, hopefully take Abyssinia by the end of 38.
Spend all IPP on Battleships. (No more than one carrier. or any fast or heavy battleships. They just aren’t worth it for pure VP farming.)
Annex Albania at some point.For Tech, considering you aren’t going to war, go for improved construction for cheaper Battleships.
At some point, you will run out of battleship sculpts, and that is probably a good time to be done. (Or when you double the entire UK capital ship fleet.) Then you can slow your pace and lend lease some to Germany (or Japan!)
-
-
@trig I like your thinking, but something to point out that wartime income (the Tech) would just give a massive boost if Italy goes into war( maybe 1944-45), which would easily cover the costs for defending the mainland (forts, miltia, more ships (destroyers, crusiers, stuff to defend you capital ships), and costal guns) I think that at some point Britain might as well give up the naval war which would allow Italy to send stuff to the Germans and Japanese (I mean, why not give a battleship to Japan?). I also think this will give you an easier hand at the Spanish Civil War. Though, I would probably try to Italy and Germany be controlled by the same player (so the Italian plyer wouldn’t be bored out of their mind). I think the best Early Abyssinian strat is to go defensive and send your aircraft there and when your ready, invade. If the Allies are really rubbing in the lend-lease, that is less money they have building up stuff.
-
I definitely get what you’re saying in theory for sure. And I think it’s worth trying!
I think my biggest point is not necessarily what Italy can or can’t do when at war or staying neutral, but instead what this allows the Allies to do. This will allow a lot of Allied resources to focus on Germany and/or Japan instead of in the Med/Italy. I just wonder if that’s ultimately a good thing.
You might be able to argue that, while Italy looses a longer war, largely for the reasons @Trig point out above, is Italy’s best use to tie up as many Allied IPP’s as possible to give Germany more time?
-
@chris_henry The Allies don’t really have to do much to defend North Africa (drop in a few militia her and there) and they could just land in Rome and end the war (like @Trig had said). With an experienced Allied Player you can take out Italy with a little planning and a couple turns. Then they would be able to attack Germany from the south (like as said in the Somalian Pirate Strat). The Allies will already have IPPs tied down there and as @insaneHoshi had said, it seems that Italy will be a greater threat if neutral in the ability to attack than if they do attack. While neutral, they could potentially attack many areas, which means that the allies will have to tie down more IPPs or just give up more territories than if they attacked which means that they already attacked one or two areas, Great Britain won’t have to reinforce more areas.
-
@chris_henry I do remember one game when I played as Italy and the Axis got basically naval supremacy (for 1 turn) after a naval defeat by the Americans and the Italian counter attack destroyed their naval fleet which was supposed to attack Rome and Italy basically took by the end of the game most of africa, but the USSR came and took Iraq.
-
I think a good question to ask before going to war is “Can i take Gibraltar/Suez”
Taking one or both of these is incredibly useful strategically.
-
@david-06 said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
@chris_henry I do remember one game when I played as Italy and the Axis got basically naval supremacy (for 1 turn) after a naval defeat by the Americans and the Italian counter attack destroyed their naval fleet which was supposed to attack Rome and Italy basically took by the end of the game most of africa, but the USSR came and took Iraq.
Haha that sounds like a crazy turn of events in that game!
Yeah, I mean, this is probably a situation that depends greatly on how your Italian and Allied players are playing the game. While you won’t need to leave much to defend as the Allies, you do want to make sure you place them in the strategically important spots, and that could flow based on a neutral Italy’s movements as well!
Frankly, I’m having a hard time contemplating how a game design for Italy has it in their best interest to do nothing all game long. To me, this might be an “easier said than done” situation, but I do think would be fun to play!
I know if I’m the Allies I’m leaving skeleton forces in the Med to defend against whatever Italy might eventually do, and focusing a ton more towards Western Europe to pressure an ally-less Germany. If there’s nothing Italy is doing to make me keep a bunch of stuff in the Med, I’m simply just going to go around them with the majority of my forces, especially if I’m seeing Italy lend-leasing battleships. That’s a turn-plus worth of Italy’s money. Then I know they aren’t even building up their own units any more than I am to surprise me in a devastating fashion later on! If I just place 8 IPP worth of units to defend, that’s already one more step ahead of Italy who is countering with 0 IPP of it’s own units.
@insanehoshi said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
I think a good question to ask before going to war is “Can i take Gibraltar/Suez”
Taking one or both of these is incredibly useful strategically.
Definitely. If you’re playing this wait and see strategy with Italy, I think the best thing you do is see if any opportunity arises to nab either one of those, otherwise I’d definitely say you’re better off sitting neutral for a while longer!
-
@chris_henry said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?: @insanehoshi said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
I think a good question to ask before going to war is “Can i take Gibraltar/Suez”
Taking one or both of these is incredibly useful strategically.
Definitely. If you’re playing this wait and see strategy with Italy, I think the best thing you do is see if any opportunity arises to nab either one of those, otherwise I’d definitely say you’re better off sitting neutral for a while longer!
I totally agree with that. I would do both in hopefully one turn, so there will be no allies in the Med, which will force USA to force the strait and lose 1/4 of its navy.
-
@david-06
@Chris_Henry
@insaneHoshiHere is my thoughts on Italy and the Allies.
If Italy goes to war they lose. The Allies have way more income, and are on the defensive.
Yes, Taking Gib or Egypt is great, but one is a mountain city with a fort and a coastal gun, and another is a desert. Both must be taken in an amphibious assault, as not to allow the UK navy time to move through and kill yours. A few militia and infantry will secure one for the entire game. (As England, I like to drop a militia in Gibraltar or Cairo ever turn or both if possible.)
Italy has so much to defend and no enough to defend it. Any gains you make will be countered and stopped.
That said, if the UK is never able to counter, and must keep building up in the Med to stop you, then you keep that money there.
The goal of this is to force the UK to waste money defending aginst an attack that might never come, but they don’t know that. They will be forced to keep their navy around to watch yours, and keep building up their defenses in Africa.It is not optimal. Optimal as Italy would be holding the Med, getting 20+ IPP a turn and having a navy. That however, is unrealistic, and rather luck based. The allies need to make a mistake for that to work. This just aims at a safe, efficient, and stable use of Italy.
On Italy’s tech, given average rolls, it takes one year to achieve a stage. Thus, they can have both Imp Construction at 2 and Wartime economy at 1 by Jul 39. Then you can get Imp Construction by the start of 42 (hopefully) and then get Wartime economy by 44 or so. (when you would ever go to war. )
On lend lease, I would only do it with money when left over. Not as my normal build. But then again, giving all of Italy’s money to germany is the same as sned Italian units there, but now they can attack together. It is also more flexible. Don’t send BBs to Japan though. Not unless it is absolutely necessary.
-
@trig I forgot about the Fort and Coastal Gun! I was earlier thinking in a case when it is underdefended and you could easily walk in the area and that if it would take 2 turns, then I would do it in a scenario when the ships are far off. Technically, UK could just defend the stuff from a land perspective and near the end they could just go into the med with the ships
-
Try this:
Italy and France (Free France) may keep fighting over Abyssinia even if both are still at peace. We used this as a house rule and it made that part of the map more interesting and if Italy wants to dispose of the threat (especially a strong Free French player) it has to act somehow to keep that VP. With 4 railroad per turn in Europe it is easy for Germany to boost defenses in Italian home country. Italy could build militia. Give militia movement within home country for all major powers.
Allow Allies to attack Italy as a neutral power (with the penalties) as soon as US is at wartime income and at war with Germany. This keeps Italy from staying neutral until end game and allows for some action in Africa if the French player is wise.My wish for a new map would be Rome as an inland Italian city (not coastal).
-
@delaja Explain. Militia already could move within the home country. If Italy doesn’t declare war, nations can’t attack them (except if you are commie). On you wish, Rome is literally 33 km from the coast. while there might be some accuracy to block it from SZ151, in history, they went past rome and then into the Northern Italy.
-
@david-06 said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:
” Explain. Militia already could move within the home country.”
Was a bit late when I wrote it but that is correct.“If Italy doesn’t declare war, nations can’t attack them (except if you are commie).”
Hence the exception I suggest.On you wish, Rome is literally 33 km from the coast. while there might be some accuracy to block it from SZ151,
Like London Rome is not a coastal city. Making it an inland city gives the option to pass it by historically and offers a turn extra for Italy to protect its capitol and not have enemy naval power bombarding it.“in history, they went past rome and then into the Northern Italy.”
Rome as an inland city would allow for this to happen. It could be surrounded but a strong Northern Italy would prevent that.We playtested this with a house rule version of the map. HBG might opt for an overlay like in Croatia at war. Might fit an Italy at war expansion as Chris proposed. But this is all just ideas for now.
-
@delaja Battleship guns could reach that distance (33 km). Also is the territory only representing Rome, or is it representing the urban areas around it?
-
@david-06 I agree. If you say that 33km is to far, what about the other territories that are far larger? I think that Rome historically, and practically is a coastal city. For instance, the Roman metropolitan area extends to the port of Ostia, which sits at the coast. I don’t like the idea of putting it inland. Also, the Allies landed at Anzio in Jan and were in Rome by June, which is one turn. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The reason the allies never attacked was due to the mountains and heavy defense, two things that are shown in game. Not due to it distance from the coast.
-
@trig Also other downsides of putting Rome inland:
- It does make it easier to surround.
- It makes putting a factory in rome a worse idea
- it makes rome a bad location to put planes.
-
@insanehoshi
These are all three of them incorrect arguments from a game play point of view. As the Italian player you don’t want to invest in factories in Rome or place places there, when the planes can scramble from N Italy. And a factory if anywhere should be built in Africa. Surrounding would become more difficult because Italy would get an extra turn before their capitol might fall. It would be easier to first reinforce N Italy and then Rome. It is definitely more fun to play Italy with Rome inland.
Suggested Topics
