ORIGINAL: paulderynck
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Italy / France and the CW
Sorry but this is simply a NO under any and all circumstances imo. Churchill was desperate to keep France in the fight (and so was France funnily enough!). We are envisaging the following situation. We have to assume Mussolini decides he wants Corsica, French North Africa and Savoy. He doesn�t want any of the British Empire and so declares war only on France. It�s a stretch but I�ll go with it.
However, that is Mussolini�s side. What about Churchill and Reynaud? Italy has declared war on France but not the British. They launch an attack along the Mediterranean coast towards Toulon, supported by the Regia Marina. The French appeal for assistance from Britain.
Italian troops are being ferried to North Africa to seize Tunisia and Algeria and Morrocco.
"We need you to attack the Italian Fleet, they�re killing us here". Churchill chews on this cigar, sips a brandy and thinks about it for a nano second�. "Nah! I�d love to help seeing as I need my French Allies in the war and if the Italians break through it does not matter even if the Anglo-French forces hold the Germans in the north but you know what? I don�t think I�ll bother".
Where does that even begin to make any sense in the context of WWII?
In WiF, you are Churchill. You can DoW Italy if you like. That may go down badly in the isolationist US. You could send some units to stem the tide in the south of France and make it a tough go for the Italians through the Alps.
You also know that later on if Italy DoWs the CW, the US may once again swing towards supporting the CW in this war.
OTOH, if Italy can get a surprise impulse on the CW and is currently risking naval assets in the Med, the RN may be able to put a good hurt on their navy - especially if they are risking their TRSs - using their own surprise impulse.
Choices, choices, choices, each with their own set of pros and cons. Each spawning a set of choices for the other side.
That's what WiF is, and why it's still so popular after close to 30 years.
It is odd though. So what you are saying is that Italy 'could' stay neutral the entire game, correct? Then on the last impulse of the last turn DoW the UK and have their resources count towards victory to the Axis? Of course once the US is active, no reason not to declare war on Italy. However, the US would not have done this in RL if Italy was still neutral.
So where are these choices? After all once the US is active, there is no reason for the Allies not to declare war on whomever they want, Norway, Greece, etc. So it seems like the actual choices are arbitrary depending on whether the US is active or not. This is a challenge for all WWII games, how to model the ways powers interact based on the realities of the time. After all in HoI Germany can declare war on Italy since their resources would be better spent building German units versus Italian ones [:)]
A good political model for the 1930's has yet to be developed for any WWII game. So we are left with seeming hooky rules to try and have some semblance of the flavor of WWII. After all if things were played out in Europe differently, Roosevelt could have lost the 1940 election then there would no US involvement. Or at least a lot less. Especially for the Russians. So where are my choices for that?
After all some of the very ahistorical actions on both sides that the game allows would have had repercussions on a lot more than US entry picks. As an example if the UK declares war on Portugal, Spain should immediately join the Axis. But No, they get to sit around and wait so they can get Surprised in turn. Not much choice in that is there.
So if you want real choices in a WWII game they need to be a lot more dynamic than what we have now. Especially in WiF. This to me is the weakness of the game, not accurately reflecting ALL the actions of ALL neutrals instead of the just the US.
