Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Neutral Italy



  • Since Italy didn’t declare war on France and Uk untill the last moments of the german conquest, I wonder how an optional rule would work out where Italy is neutral until their 1st turn, when they would immediately have to declare war. The alies were trying to keep Italy neutral, so Uk won’t be allowed to declare on them. That way they would be safe from the british attacks, and actually get to make the first assaults on turn 1. Might be intersting to try.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    I like the historical perspective, but I don’t think it would be a good idea from a viewpoint of game balance. Consensus has it that Global 1940 already favors the Axis and needs a bid for the Allies, and this change would make the UK’s standard “Taranto” move impossible. With Italy’s navy united and having three transports, Egypt would surely fall.



  • @Herr:

    I like the historical perspective, but I don’t think it would be a good idea from a viewpoint of game balance. Consensus has it that Global 1940 already favors the Axis and needs a bid for the Allies, and this change would make the UK’s standard “Taranto” move impossible. With Italy’s navy united and having three transports, Egypt would surely fall.

    Agreed, letting so much of italy’s navy live way too strong.  Maybe have UK start with an IC in egypt to build ships in the med to preserve his fleet, and maybe an airbase too.  Then it might be ok to keep italy neutral.  Giving italy easy naval dominance with a fancy fleet it bad news bears for cairo.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    I think Italy has to start at war, for the reasons mentioned. And remember France has fallen (usually), when UK has its go.
    Italy cannot be any stronger and giving then another turn of peace ensures it is.



  • I love the thought process here, make one simple little rule for big changes… but I agree with all the above comments, Taranto is the only thing the Allies got going for them these days.



  • @Young:

    I love the thought process here, make one simple little rule for big changes… but I agree with all the above comments, Taranto is the only thing the Allies got going for them these days.

    And Torburk!  Don’t forget!



  • @ghr2:

    @Young:

    I love the thought process here, make one simple little rule for big changes… but I agree with all the above comments, Taranto is the only thing the Allies got going for them these days.

    And Torburk!  Don’t forget!

    So the standard is now Taranto and Torburk UK1?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    If you get a bid of 9, then I say do both.
    Sub helps and so does an Inf (Art better) in Alex.
    Can always retreat for. Tobruk if it goes badly. I would use the Tac in Tobruk, not Taranto.



  • @wittmann:

    If you get a bid of 9, then I say do both.
    Sub helps and so does an Inf (Art better) in Alex.
    Can always retreat for. Tobruk if it goes badly. I would use the Tac in Tobruk, not Taranto.

    OH, OK… forgot people use bids, so probably wouldn’t be wise to do both attacks without one.



  • @Young:

    @ghr2:

    @Young:

    I love the thought process here, make one simple little rule for big changes… but I agree with all the above comments, Taranto is the only thing the Allies got going for them these days.

    And Torburk!�  Don’t forget!

    So the standard is now Taranto and Torburk UK1?

    With no bid, its 1 or the other.



  • @Young:

    @wittmann:

    If you get a bid of 9, then I say do both.
    Sub helps and so does an Inf (Art better) in Alex.
    Can always retreat for. Tobruk if it goes badly. I would use the Tac in Tobruk, not Taranto.

    OH, OK… forgot people use bids, so probably wouldn’t be wise to do both attacks without one.

    It’s worked out in a live game before. I was UK at the time, saw that SeaLion was a go and decided to go balls-to-the-walls offense.  It actually worked really well, as Germany took the bait and cleaned up the Med for Italy, while Russia just built a giant army.  I think when we finally called it a game, Germany had moved 2 whole territories into Russia while US/UK were about to invade France.

    It was probably the dice.



  • 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.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Nice post Noll.
    Will have to try and look at the NWO map. Every time I have, I get a headache the map is so full and tight.



  • @Herr:

    I like the historical perspective, but I don’t think it would be a good idea from a viewpoint of game balance. Consensus has it that Global 1940 already favors the Axis and needs a bid for the Allies, and this change would make the UK’s standard “Taranto” move impossible. With Italy’s navy united and having three transports, Egypt would surely fall.

    Depends if you do a few small changes there could actualy be a battle in de med for a change.
    Now Italy is dead most of the time and UK europe gets its free 5ipc NO. Enough to start harassing germany if they want.

    If france would go before Italy and the cruiser would be on the other side of gibraltar things could be pretty interesting for italy.
    Uk would have 2 destroyers 3 cruisers and a loaded carrier that is way to much for italy to attack and with the airforce it is big enough to attack italy if they leave port.
    It would create a pretty historical standoff and Italy does not get any NO money so with 16 ipcs they are not that big.

    Maby combine it with a No attack clause for germany vs the USSR so they also get a turn to build up extra forces.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    @Noll:

    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.

    I think they should have separate the Med.sea a little more as well as the channel!
    Give it a few more sz, like upper and lower medi. Or north and south channel, it would have been more of a challenge then.

    Or in other terms for G40: split sz 110 into 110 /1 and 110/2 and 95 into 95/1 and 95/2.



  • I think one of the big issues is how easy air can reach different parts of the med in global.



  • It would definitely give a big boost to the axis, who don’t really need one. But I thought of it as just an intersting experiment to mess around with, giving the Italian player more fun instead of having his fleet get squashed before his first move evey game.

    The option could be used to as a help to a less experienced axis player, or the allies could be given something to offset it somehow. Like maybe an airbase in egypt, then the UK med fleet could consolidate there under their own air cover, which would probably create an interesting stand off until one side or the other invested enough resources to break it.



  • @ghr2:

    I think one of the big issues is how easy air can reach different parts of the med in global.

    100% agree.


  • '14 Customizer

    This is a very interesting discussion.  Correct me if I’m wrong on history but didn’t Italy start WW2?  They took Ethiopia first and gave Hitler the idea and courage to move into the Rheinland first. From what I was watching in a documentary Hitler was shy to begin war but after seeing Mussolini get away with it he figured he could as well and that’s what happened when he moved into the Rheinland.  The allies did nothing to resist.



  • @cyanight:

    This is a very interesting discussion.  Correct me if I’m wrong on history but didn’t Italy start WW2?  They took Ethiopia first and gave Hitler the idea and courage to move into the Rheinland first. From what I was watching in a documentary Hitler was shy to begin war but after seeing Mussolini get away with it he figured he could as well and that’s what happened when he moved into the Rheinland.  The allies did nothing to resist.

    I think historians debate the causes all of the time.  One can argue Japan started the war back in 31-33 when it invaded Manchuria.


  • '14 Customizer

    Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

    BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”



  • @cyanight:

    Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

    BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

    I thought the World Wars was very well done. I liked how it was more of a movie then a documentary.  My favorite is WWII in Colour though.  I also have World at War but it’s something like 30 hours long and I’m still at the beginning.

    Have not heard of Fury, i’ll have to check that out.


  • '14

    The World at War is the best. Every time I hear this song playing I get all misty eyed and Nostalgic for it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fmhnjPIU0

    Century of Warfare was great too.
    And Victory at Sea.

    I caught the World Wars on the history channel. It was cool to see the early careers of various WW2 actors during the Great War 1914-18. But the production values were definitely more modern less classic hehe.

    Fury looks pretty rad.

    To the original subject of this thread. I think you could potentially support a Neutral Italy, if you are willing to support a stronger Russia. As I’ve been suggesting elsewhere all night 😉



  • Apocalypse: The Second World War, is a great series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-jS37cBtM Six one hour parts with a lot of footage I had never seen before.

    Then there is The Last Secrets of The Axis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv-1i7Sx8L8 My favorite one shot documentary, deals a lot with german and Japanese cooperation.

    Finally here is the trailer for fury  🙂  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg I’ll be going to see it.

    Black Elk I really like those Russian NOs. While they seem like something I would like to use in every Global game I play from here on out, I could definitely see using them, with perhaps  an airbase in Egypt or some such thing, to help the allies offset a turn 1 neutral Italy, as an experimental game just for fun. I know for sure I have a friend – whos Italian navy I sank on UKs first move, with the Taranto maneuver which I learned from this site – who would certainly agree to it. Every time we get together to do another turn he complains at some point about how Italy is useless now and how Africa is his favorite front but now it is unimportant and Italy never got a chance to fight for it etc.



  • @IKE:

    @cyanight:

    Good Point ghr2, I was watching a documentary last weekend on the History channel called World Wars.  They went through the timeline and started with Italy taking Ethiopia.  It seems like all the losers of the “Treaty of Versailles” became the Axis.

    BTW, I’m really looking forward to that movie coming out called “Fury”

    I thought the World Wars was very well done. I liked how it was more of a movie then a documentary.  My favorite is WWII in Colour though.  I also have World at War but it’s something like 30 hours long and I’m still at the beginning.

    Have not heard of Fury, i’ll have to check that out.

    I heard it was inaccurate with dates n such.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 22
  • 7
  • 25
  • 4
  • 9
  • 17
  • 17
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games

58
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts