Adding Italy



  • Given that the Anniversary edition is going to add Italy to the revised game, and therefore have additional Italian Units, has anyone given any thought to rule modifications to add them to the Europe game?  I have started looking at the idea, but was initially planning to use Japanese units to represent Italy.  Italian units will make it much simpler.  I hope that Wizards uses the SM-79 Spaverio for the Italian bomber.  Tank is likely to be the M-14, hard to say about the artillery.  Carrier has to be the Aquila.  Battleship is likely to be the Littorio-class, cruiser hopefully the Zara-class, and not one of the lights.  Should be interesting to see how they look.



  • I guess you would just take German spaces and call them Italian leave the IC’s and the IPC values the same.

    Would you leave the unit placment the same just “change uniforms” so to speak?

    LT



  • @LT04:

    I guess you would just take German spaces and call them Italian leave the IC’s and the IPC values the same.

    Would you leave the unit placment the same just “change uniforms” so to speak?

    LT

    It can’t be that simple.  Taking away those units and IPCs from Germany in a game that is already a losing battle for the axis just spells constant defeat.  You have to beef up Germany (make a few territories worth more, give them some more units) and make North Italy worth more and give Sicily an IPC to make Italy somewhat competent.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Why do you assume Germany is losing IPC?

    you could just make a sticker and make Germany at 20 IPC and boost the difference as lend lease to USSR the the net change is the same. More pieces=more fun.



  • Cobert,

    Well how much more can you beef up Germany?  In revised the 3 core Germany units (Germany, W Europe, S Europe) make up 22 IPC’s (10, 6 and 6).

    Yeah Germany will loose 6 of them but then what do you do beef up E Europe from 3 to 9 to make up the diffrence.

    My point is Germany is saturated with IPC’s now they need to find a way to beef them up wile thining the wealth out.

    LT



  • I agree adding Italy sounds like a great idea, just assimilate the entire med fleet - bb, destroyer, and trannies - into Italy… Also make everything that is Italian attack or defend at minus 1. So that means if an infantry unit attacks it like transport can only be used as a casualty. Why do I say this? Because you gotta keep at least some realism in the game, and more than any other army, Italians were absolutely useless! I think this will be a gripe that I will have against the anniversary edition, if Italian units defend and attack the same as every other nation’s units then the game has lost any stake to realism. As it is my major gripe against the revised edition is that America has a fricken carrier in pearl harbour when the very thing the Americans didn’t have in pearl harbour in WW2 when the Japanese attacked was a carrier! So go figure… Don’t get me wrong though I love these games 🙂


  • Official Q&A

    @General:

    As it is my major gripe against the revised edition is that America has a fricken carrier in pearl harbour when the very thing the Americans didn’t have in pearl harbour in WW2 when the Japanese attacked was a carrier! So go figure… Don’t get me wrong though I love these games 🙂

    The Revised game starts in the Spring of 1942, as did the Classic game.  This was months after the Pearl Harbor attack, so it’s quite probable that the US carrier fleet was back at Pearl at that time.  This is also why the US battleship is positioned off the US west coast.



  • Ahhh right you are Krieghund, now I can feel better about the game 🙂



  • Besides, its not like the russians faught much better.



  • Yes it is, Italians ran away, Russians didn’t, a definitive difference. The Italian navy was also notoriously hopeless, and ineffective.



  • @General:

    Yes it is, Italians ran away, Russians didn’t, a definitive difference. The Italian navy was also notoriously hopeless, and ineffective.

    Actually, after the first Italian debacle in late 1940, that ended at Beda Fomm, the Italians fought pretty well.  Rommel never would have managed to stay in Africa if they had not.  Part of their problem was poor equipment, a byproduct of Italy mobilizing in 1935 to attack Ethiopia locking them into earlier technology.  For a brief overview of the North African campaign, at least from El Alamein on, I would recommend Jack Coggins The Campaign for North Africa.  Also worth reading if you have the time is the British Official History of the Mediterranean and the Mid East.

    The Italian Navy fought well too, and was most definitely NOT ineffective.  Again, without the aid and sacrifice of the Italian Navy, Rommel does not stay in North Africa.  They did not have radar, which hurt them very badly, and lack of naval airpower was a constant problem in the Med.  Oil shortages were a continual problem, and left them dependent on Germany for fuel, which the Germans never supplied in even close to adequate quantities.  I would highly recommend you read the History of the Italian Navy in WW2, which I think is still avaiable from Naval Institute Press.



  • Your giving the Italians too much credit. Maybe I don’t know enough. What you are saying is new to me, alot of it anyhow. However the Italians massively outnumbered the British in Africa only to retreat, and have the Germans save them. The Italians outnumbered the Greeks, only to have the Greeks beat them back in Albania. On the Eastern Front German troops were appalled by the lack of stamina of the Italians, who retreated in the face of the Russians.

    I haven’t read enough, true enough, but I have always thought that the Italian navy was over exagerated so that the British could look better when they sunk their ships.

    Its not for nothing that the Italians are considered to be a bunch of mummies boys.



  • Uhm? The russians DID retreat. Or are you saying they all died or surrendered when germany attacked? In africa, the Italians weren’t motorized, while most other units were. Can’t chase someone who’s running faster than you’re marching.

    I dunno, I don’t think its much of a military feat throwing men at the enemy untill their out of munitions.

    Besides, you want historical… Do hitlers plans again.

    The whole point is that now YOU’RE incharge of the nations. Maybe the Italians would have been better if musulini wasn’t all Gungho on Italian pride and had more traning from the germans, copy their designs. blah blah.

    Just saying, When germany wins Axis and allies, its COMPLETLY un-historical! LOL duh.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Italian army fought very well, but had inept military leadership.

    Italian fleet was basically stuck for want of fuel.

    IN Oct 1940 they had 300,000 men against 30K British on Egyptian border and beganto built trenches thinking this was ww1 over again. Thats horrible leadership. If Hitler sent somebody to lead their armies things would have been different. If Italy told Germany it was attacking Greece BEFORE it did this… things would be different.

    Italy cant afford too many goof ups to start. Everything she did from attacking the french to get 10,000 war dead was haphazard and unprepared and w/o any vision of how warfare changed since 1918.



  • No, I disagree, every account I have read describes the Italians as hopeless fighters. You explain away all their military failures to leadership? They failed in Greece, they failed in France, they failed in Africa, and they failed in the med, and thats all atributable to poor leadership. Thats a bit coincidental I think.

    Do yourselves a favour, go onto google, search Italians eastern front, and read articles on how they fought.

    Am I saying the Russians never retreated? No! I used it as a historically correct generalised factual statement. Stalin had a policy of not one step back. It basically meant that if a Russian retreated, or if a Russian was found behind enemy lines, then they were either shot or sent to the gulag. A big enough incentive to not retreat, wouldn’t you say? And yes that incentive did work!

    Yes they probably had poor equipment, and yes they probably had low fuel, and yes any chance they had they ran like hell for the hills! Italians weren’t and aren’t good fighters, and I am by no means saying this is a bad thing! They just are preferential towards fine wine and women, and who can blame them.

    As for historically correct, the game is meant to be correct up to spring of 1942, or at least close to historical correctness. Then its up to you to decide the future. Making out that the Italians were good soldiers for the sake of the game, is a bit too far fetched.



  • Tell you what, why do you not tell us the accounts that you have read, and let us read them as well.  I gave you three of my sources, and I have a lot more.  None of them view the Italians as poorly as the sources you claim.  How many accounts have you read on the Battle of El Alamein?  How much have you read on the sea war in the Med or Italian submarine operations in the Atlantic?  Have you ever read the Diaries of Count Ciano, Italy’s Foriegn Minister, and son-in-law of Mussolini, who was never quite sure if Germany or the UK was a greater enemy of Italy?

    As for the Russians not retreating, they retreated quite a bit, and there were lots of Russian soldiers behind German lines, many of them flown there to aid the partisans, many of whom were soldiers left behind in the retreats.  The Germans never did fully control the Pripet Marshes, and had to divert a large number of men to protect their lines of communication from partisan attack.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I’m with timerover on this. Italy was not a joke. If you want jokes look at the Vichy french or the free french for that matter. Even some of the Ivan units could be melted with little pressure. Id place the fighting quality of Italy ahead of France and in some cases ahead of most 1941/42 soviet 5 bullets to a man ‘Ivan conscript divisions’



  • A generalised factual statement, implies that on the main they did not retreat, and on the main when they came across Russian soldiers behind enemy lines they put them in the gulag. They even did it to Stalin’s own son! Yes he was thrown in the gulag after they found him in a prisoner of war camp.

    I know what the problem is, you have read too many sources from the perspective of the allies. Why would the allies prop up the Italians? So that when they beat them they looked better. Remember history is written by the winners. So my suggestion to you is buy some books written by German veterans. I would suggest Hans Sajer’s ‘forgotten soldier’, Von Mellethin’s ‘panzer battles’, Von manstein’s memoirs, or even Heinz Guderian’s memoirs. If you want books written by Americans or British who tell it how it is, try Max Hastings or Antony Beevor. I will no longer argue with you, World War 2 is a sea of dis-information propagated by the allies after the war to make themselves look better.

    As for the free French imperious leader, are you forgetting Monte Cassino!!!


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    So you saying Italy fought well or not well?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Monte Cassino?

    Germans defending against ridiculous odds and eventually the allies bypass the thing?

    where do the free french play a part in this? huh?



  • @General:

    A generalised factual statement, implies that on the main they did not retreat, and on the main when they came across Russian soldiers behind enemy lines they put them in the gulag. They even did it to Stalin’s own son! Yes he was thrown in the gulag after they found him in a prisoner of war camp.

    I know what the problem is, you have read too many sources from the perspective of the allies. Why would the allies prop up the Italians? So that when they beat them they looked better. Remember history is written by the winners. So my suggestion to you is buy some books written by German veterans. I would suggest Hans Sajer’s ‘forgotten soldier’, Von Mellethin’s ‘panzer battles’, Von manstein’s memoirs, or even Heinz Guderian’s memoirs. If you want books written by Americans or British who tell it how it is, try Max Hastings or Antony Beevor. I will no longer argue with you, World War 2 is a sea of dis-information propagated by the allies after the war to make themselves look better.

    As for the free French imperious leader, are you forgetting Monte Cassino!!!

    I have read Guderian’s Memoirs, Von Mellethin’s Panzer Battles, and some of Max Hasting stuffl, along with the Rommel Papers.  I have also read the studies done by the Germans during the war concerning the Eastern Front that were later collected and distributed by the US Army, along with some of the various interrogations of German officials and officers following the war.  What makes you think that history written by the loosers is more accurate?  The Germans did not like loosing the war.  They did not think that it was possible that the British, the Russians and the Americans could beat them.  Loosing to the Russians especially offended their pride.  The Russians were subhuman beasts, fit only to be slaves to the Master Race.  Scapegoats, like the Italians, become ready excuses for loosing.

    I understand that you will not believe this, but any competent military historian looks at all sides of a war and battle, and tries to find how both sides viewed things.  A good historian looks for every possible source, not just one side, to understand what happened and why it happened that way.  And the Germans are just as capable of disinformation as anyone.  Although for real disinformation, the Japanese are unsurpassed.



  • I like your argument, it shows you have considered my side, and that you are well read. I am actually half Italian by the way, and I had family that fought for Italy in the war. I have always been taught, and have only ever read that the Italians were hopeless fighters in the war. Have you any reliable good books on Italy in the war that you could recommend to me?

    As for you imperious leader, leave the historical debate to the experts.



  • I’d just like to point out that Rommel had Italian armor, which was not fit to fight against allied armor. Yet, with his leadership, performed well. Yes, having commanders who can make quick calculations and exploit weaknesses makes a big difference.



  • I’m still unsure whether Steiner is just way over-the-top making fun of timerover’s many house rules dooming the Axis to defeat before the game even begins.  That was my initial reaction anyway.  If he is, he’s sure doing a good job of keeping the charade going.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think those posts are a form of satire.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 20
  • 8
  • 1
  • 72
  • 32
  • 2
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

72
Online

14.6k
Users

35.1k
Topics

1.4m
Posts