Italy the Forgotten Land

[targul]

Has anyone ever seen anyone actually land in Italy and take Rome?

I have never seen this happen in a single game. Even when playing vs Humans it just doesnt happen.

Everyone bypasses it in favor of France.

So did the Allies screw up by landing in Italy and knocking them out of the war first? Was that a waste of resources and only a delay in getting to Normandy?

Where there any lesson learned in Italy that made Normady work that would have failed without it?

Should the game make it advantageous for the Allied player to knock out Italy first?

Opinions please.

[ozarkmichael]

Just got the game yesterday, and i am making my first post here, but i have followed the posts here for awhile.

From what i understand africa is a bit quiet for the allies in this game.

In real life though the allies had an army supported in north africa, and once the axis was driven out i imagine Sicily looked convenient.

[Syagrius]

In my last game as the Allies I managed to land a British army in 1942 in southern Italy where they fough about a year and after there was an American army coming from France who invaded from the North, so I took Rome quite easily

[Major Victory]

I find the Allies simply do not have the resources necessary to attack Italy. It takes every production point for the US to just get teched up to compete with the Axis, and then by the time you build enough ground/air, you go for France.

I also think Italy(Rome) is way to easy to defend.

I think just as the Axis player finds it difficult to conduct a Uboat campaign (production wise), the Allied player finds the same issue as to fight a Stragetic bombing (Air) campaign or launch a second front in Italy

[Syagrius]

I have used the North African British troops to land in Italy, after they took Tobruk and Tripoli they have nothing else to do anyway.

[Major Victory]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

I have used the North African British troops to land in Italy, after they took Tobruk and Tripoli they have nothing else to do anyway.

My observations are based on playing a human player not AI!

It is a rare event indeed that playing against a human player that you would have troops with nothing to do.

[Bigfish]

Their is no need to took Rom first because Italy is no thread. The germans are the problem and if you finished them you have all the time of the world to take rom - and this is quit easy.

The more i think about it i have to say taking an capital for victory is not an good idea. Why should a hole army surrender when the capital falls? Victory over an enemy should only be possible if two things happens:

1) All enemy units are destroyed (exspect of garrisons)
2) All enemy capitals are captured

When i finished up Berlin, the germans had still a huge army only one or two turns away from taking Perm. After taking Berlin the german units end up in smoke - unrealistic i think...

[targul]

Bigfish you are correct.  It is not realistic.  That is kinda my point here.  Why no Italy?  Was it simply an Allied error or should we need to take it out.

[ozarkmichael]

The OP was asking if the Allies did the right thing by invading italy. i didnt try to answer that question. So now i will try:

There was something to gain from the invasion of italy beyond the economic/strategic goals we think of in these games.

After a few years of having allied nations invaded and occupied, the Allied Political leadership saw a better gain from a relatively easy landing in an Axis homeland compared to a more difficult retaking of france. Also, there was a need to 'do something now' and italy was close at hand. Perhaps some saw italy as a chance to practice for the big landings in France later.

That easy landing in Italy did not lead to an easy advance. The fighting was very tough, as we all know. I see the attack in italy as an expensive sideshow, initiated because of its convenience, and its pyschological effect at home and upon the enemy.

[Happycat]

ORIGINAL: ozarkmichael

The OP was asking if the Allies did the right thing by invading italy. i didnt try to answer that question. So now i will try:

There was something to gain from the invasion of italy beyond the economic/strategic goals we think of in these games.

After a few years of having allied nations invaded and occupied, the Allied Political leadership saw a better gain from a relatively easy landing in an Axis homeland compared to a more difficult retaking of france. Also, there was a need to 'do something now' and italy was close at hand. Perhaps some saw italy as a chance to practice for the big landings in France later.

That easy landing in Italy did not lead to an easy advance. The fighting was very tough, as we all know. I see the attack in italy as an expensive sideshow, initiated because of its convenience, and its pyschological effect at home and upon the enemy.

The invasion of Italy was not just in response to "a need to do something now", but rather a response to Stalin's constant pressure on Roosevelt and Churchill to create a second front, thereby presumably taking some heat off of the Red Army.

As you note, the fighting was tough, and did, I suppose contribute something to the morale of the home front. However, it took a relatively small portion of the Wehrmacht to bog the Allies down for months. It took considerable Allied resources to inch up the Italian peninsula, and really contributed nothing to speedily concluding the war.

IMO, the Allies would have done better to save the resources for D-Day. The extra divisions may well have accelerated the pace of operations in Normandy. And of course, we would have avoided the unfortunate "slapping" incident with Patton in Sicily, thus ensuring that he, instead of Omar Bradley, commanded the landing forces. I will be shocked if there are any who would postulate that Bradley was the better general. Nicer, maybe, but not better.

[Hard Sarge]

I think history has already shown who was the better General and who was the better PR man

[IrishGuards]

Italian PP and % of Industry in 1939 have been slaughtered in the new 1.02 patch .. [:-]
Compared to original ... Means less pointy units ...
Ire was here .. [:'(]
IDG

[targul]

We all know you are a min/max player IDG the question on this thread is was there a need to go to Italy.  If there was should that need be assimilated into the game somehow. 
 
At present I have not seen anyone go so I am trying to determine if that is a problem or just a result of bad generalship in 43 by the Allies.  If the later no need to make it more worthwhile if the former then some serious consideration should be given the area.
 
At present Italy. Greece and all below could be removed from the map.  There is no Vichy. Africa is a dead theater.  Italy is only a bunch of units who get deployed to Russia.  This could mean it would be better to strech out France and Russia giving us more play room and eliminating what doesnt matter anyway.  You could just augment Germany to account for the Italians that where actually deployed. 
 
 
 

[IrishGuards]

The fact is in real war ...
Italian Navy got butchered .. Army in N africa and Albania .. Greece 40 ... Dismal ..
 
If thats all you can do with Italy as a Major Power ..
In this game ..
Thats pretty sad ... Italy has lots of potential ...
IDG
 

[firepowerjohan]

For next patch, we are planning to increase the output from oil fields abit which puts more incentive to figth for Africa and Mid East oil plus going for Caucasus for Axis. To compensate we are increasin oil consumption abit for some unit types.

[ozarkmichael]

Per Happycat: "The invasion of Italy was not just in response to "a need to do something now", but rather a response to Stalin's constant pressure on Roosevelt and Churchill to create a second front, thereby presumably taking some heat off of the Red Army."

'a need to do something now' was my shorthand for the very things you said. The story of the Eastern front is huge and i didnt want to begin a discourse on that. But I stand corrected i guess. One point to you, Happycat.

Now that you have brought it up though, I would correct you about the following...

Stalin's pressure was not just to 'thereby presumeably take some heat off of the Red Army", but to involve the West in at least some measure of the terrible attrition which Russia was enduring. Remember that Stalin was very good at thinking ahead. He had plans for when the war would finally be over. Certainly he knew the west wouldnt like his future plans. How could he possibly reach for his plans if only the Soviets have been bled white? And he really thought that Roosevelt and Churchill were just being very clever to hold off and let him fight Germany all alone.

One point to me!

Happycat, you will win the match if you can remember( or find) what Stalin's opinion of the invasion of Italy was. I bet he put on a diplomatic smile and publicly wished the West good luck, but he privately thought it wasnt the right thing for the West to do.

[SMK-at-work]

And Churchill's preoccupation with the med.  Apaprently he had a map drawn up showing Europe as a crocodile in order to persuade Roosevelt to go south, with France as the toothy head - Italy and Greece were portrayed as the belly and front legs, and he pushed how "soft" they were - which is all very well on a crocodile but pretty much drivel as far as geography goes!!
 
The decision did push Italy out of the war (which it won't in CEAW or any otehr game)....but it wasn't the easy option Churchill had in mind!

[targul]

Point taken SMK.  But if we wish to ignore Italy and south why place it in the game.  Game is ahistorical anyway.  It is designed for balance of a game with armor air etc so why not eliminate all of the south and make France and Russia bigger so we can play around more.

[SMK-at-work]

Heck I'm not suggesting that Italy and Nth Africa can be ignored - not in the least!!  I don't think you can do that any more than you can ignore partisans or U-boats!!

[karloskar]

Since this game so much resembles the old classic Clash of Steel (Cos) in so many things it would not hurt to resemble it a bit more. Some things it does better but more things it makes worse, on the whole i love the basic concepts of this game though. Ill post more about what I would like changed in another thread later.

In CoS Alexandria or if it was Cairo had to be conquered to win vs England (London aswell of course). Implenting this into this game would force some sort of action in the south.

Another thing is the amount of labour it takes to actually build up an allied force in Egypt. My suggestion is to drop the loophex far south at sea and instead make it possible to loop from main England to Port Zues or similar place. This should remove the unit from play for an amount of time to represent the travel and also act as penalty for the safe journey as it is not possible to attack the unit with submarines. (exactly what the existing loophole does but it is to cumbersome to do and not worth the effort as it is now)

Of course, it should still be possible to move troops via the ocean too, entering the med via the gibraltar strait, faster then the loop (at least if aiming for northwest africa) but more insecure as subs and other vessels then can attack.

Italy and germany would still have to move troops the normal way to reinforce africa and I think with this simple change they would have to do so.

Kalle