I totally dislike the Medi and North Africa fight in G40.
It’s too straightforward, there’s no battles, no attrition, it’s either Allies dominate (more than often) or Italy dominates.
I mean: if Italy dominates it becomes a production monster, if Allies dominate Italy is completely neutered.
There’s no middleground!
I believe the reason is the geography of the G40 map. Having Southern Italy hittable from Gibraltar and Egypt hittable from Southern Italy makes everything a 1-move action. Even if you stay at port you’re still in danger. There’s no positioning etc…
I really like how they made Italy in the custom map “New World Order”. It’s very hard there for either Italy or UK to get an advantage in the seas prior to US intervention, and that’s historical. Before 1942 neither side had really major victories, the war was a war of convoy sinking and attrition. Italians advancing and retreating in North Africa. And when USA started attacking the medi Italy basically surrendered easily the islands and then the southern territories. Yet there was a very very long war (also a civil war) between the southern allied occupied territories and the northern “puppet states under germany” territories.
If you check the war prior to the US joining it, Italy even had a momentum in 1942. It was a year in wich due to the attack on Alexandria’s battleship and other lucky engagement Italy had almost a year of naval dominance (and thus was able to efficently support their troops in Africa).
What I mean? I’d like to see something like that in a ww2 game: Italy and UK struggles eachother for medi dominance. There’s no winner, just attrition and small gains. The only way for one side to gain terrain is if there’s another player investing huge resources in aiding them, either being Germany for Italy or US for UK.