Italian Surrender
Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software
RE: Italian Surrender
I feel this is a wargame, not a historical replay and that either side should be equal to win. If not outright winning for the Axis then some sort of scale for holding out. I was not aware of he Naples thing and if Italy surrenders when Naples is taken then that should be in the rulebook as an objective.
-
battlevonwar
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am
RE: Italian Surrender
Capitaine,
throughout history villains have won and with fewer numbers and in situations with not such an advantage.
When one looks at production figures of 10 to 1 later they don't look at what was in the field and available at a particular moment. It's a broad view and the forest is basically obscuring the view. The Confederacy in the American Civil War managed some victories that were far more mismatched and with some hindsight could have likely tipped elections to their own ends.(ultimately becoming exactly what it all turned out to be anyway)
Thing is one side couldn't afford the repeated errors as the other side could.
throughout history villains have won and with fewer numbers and in situations with not such an advantage.
When one looks at production figures of 10 to 1 later they don't look at what was in the field and available at a particular moment. It's a broad view and the forest is basically obscuring the view. The Confederacy in the American Civil War managed some victories that were far more mismatched and with some hindsight could have likely tipped elections to their own ends.(ultimately becoming exactly what it all turned out to be anyway)
Thing is one side couldn't afford the repeated errors as the other side could.
RE: Italian Surrender
Yes. Very true.ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
Capitaine,
throughout history villains have won and with fewer numbers and in situations with not such an advantage.
When one looks at production figures of 10 to 1 later they don't look at what was in the field and available at a particular moment. It's a broad view and the forest is basically obscuring the view. The Confederacy in the American Civil War managed some victories that were far more mismatched and with some hindsight could have likely tipped elections to their own ends.(ultimately becoming exactly what it all turned out to be anyway)
Thing is one side couldn't afford the repeated errors as the other side could.
RE: Italian Surrender
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.
I think you're ascribing political affinity to what is really appreciation of military prowess. The early accomplishments of the Germans in WW2 is truly remarkable, and can be acknowledged as such without taking on any political baggage. That has no role in this game, and in my experience no role in why people like to play war games.
I love punching nazis and commies, but I wouldn't let that stop me from playing WITE, for example. Would an affinity for playing the Soviet side make that individual a Stalinist sympathizer, or even fan? How do those shoes feel?
A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.
War itself is a moral obscenity, but that isn't why we like to play these games.
Even chess isn't balanced, because white goes first.
I would agree the game is currently tilted in favor of the Allies, as was the war. But even the side with all the advantages can still screw it up. History is replete with examples.
Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.
[8|]
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
RE: Italian Surrender
We’ll never agree on this – one side wants a “game” and one more of a “simulation.” Hard to do both.
For what it's worth, I prefer "historically accurate" versus a "game." No offence to anyone, as I like and play both types, but if I want to play a “game” I would go for Panzer General or Axis and Allies. The advertisement does say “refight WW2 in Europe,” and I don’t think you can really refight WW2 if the Axis has a 50-50 shot at winning because they didn’t (unless they do not go to war against Russia but, in this game that is not a possibility). But, from what I understand, the game is highly moddable allowing, to some extent, for both preferences to adapt.
OK, so you don’t want to have to do that, but as a former programmer the best you can do is allow for modifications, unless you say something like this is a “hard-core simulation” of WW2 or “this is a game set in WW2 Europe.”
I am deep into my first HTH (against a long-time board game opponent) and we have solved the problem thusly (FYI - we both prefer simulations)
(1) We take into consideration political/historical aspects as applicable for the time period, for instance sending a much-needed Tank Unit (not the slower infantry) to Paris to liberate France when it is desperately needed in the drive to Berlin/Munich to win “the game;”
(2) We agree on house rules, often on the fly. For example not reinforcing units more than one time once they are deep within enemy territory and fairly far from their own front lines (plus NO upgrades when isolated or when not appropriate (no upgrading a British Battleship in a Greek port)); and
(3) We have a third-party referee
NOTE - I understand that this is not a solution for anyone else and I am in a unique situation, but I have found others (not neighbors) who are more interested in learning about the War (or other conflicts) and the effect certain decisions would have rather than just “winning the game.” In my game we simply switch sides and try to beat each other’s score. And yes, whoever takes Germany first is probably at a distinct disadvantage.
It works for us as playing a 50-50 game works for you. I’ve done both. But, frankly, I would not want to engage anyone in this game that simply wants to “play WW2.” I completely understand your position and I like to play games as well. It is just, for this game in particular, we have a wonderful opportunity to allow for both in an intuitive, smooth, and excellent environment.
NOT EASY!
So for me, let’s try a simulation that doesn’t take years to play. For others, you paid for it so play it as you want. It is a great game we can all enjoy!
For what it's worth, I prefer "historically accurate" versus a "game." No offence to anyone, as I like and play both types, but if I want to play a “game” I would go for Panzer General or Axis and Allies. The advertisement does say “refight WW2 in Europe,” and I don’t think you can really refight WW2 if the Axis has a 50-50 shot at winning because they didn’t (unless they do not go to war against Russia but, in this game that is not a possibility). But, from what I understand, the game is highly moddable allowing, to some extent, for both preferences to adapt.
OK, so you don’t want to have to do that, but as a former programmer the best you can do is allow for modifications, unless you say something like this is a “hard-core simulation” of WW2 or “this is a game set in WW2 Europe.”
I am deep into my first HTH (against a long-time board game opponent) and we have solved the problem thusly (FYI - we both prefer simulations)
(1) We take into consideration political/historical aspects as applicable for the time period, for instance sending a much-needed Tank Unit (not the slower infantry) to Paris to liberate France when it is desperately needed in the drive to Berlin/Munich to win “the game;”
(2) We agree on house rules, often on the fly. For example not reinforcing units more than one time once they are deep within enemy territory and fairly far from their own front lines (plus NO upgrades when isolated or when not appropriate (no upgrading a British Battleship in a Greek port)); and
(3) We have a third-party referee
NOTE - I understand that this is not a solution for anyone else and I am in a unique situation, but I have found others (not neighbors) who are more interested in learning about the War (or other conflicts) and the effect certain decisions would have rather than just “winning the game.” In my game we simply switch sides and try to beat each other’s score. And yes, whoever takes Germany first is probably at a distinct disadvantage.
It works for us as playing a 50-50 game works for you. I’ve done both. But, frankly, I would not want to engage anyone in this game that simply wants to “play WW2.” I completely understand your position and I like to play games as well. It is just, for this game in particular, we have a wonderful opportunity to allow for both in an intuitive, smooth, and excellent environment.
NOT EASY!
So for me, let’s try a simulation that doesn’t take years to play. For others, you paid for it so play it as you want. It is a great game we can all enjoy!
-
IrishGuards
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:49 pm
RE: Italian Surrender
Italy never surrender's, remember tunis, libya n cairo'
once spain joins and Gib is gone, dominate the seas so much even turkey is in the sphere to invade into southern russia via dardenelles.
[&o]
IG
once spain joins and Gib is gone, dominate the seas so much even turkey is in the sphere to invade into southern russia via dardenelles.
[&o]
IG
RE: Italian Surrender
throughout history villains have won
No, the good guys ALWAYS win ... and then they write the history. [;)]
RE: Italian Surrender
Back the the main point, the biggest issue with Italy remains that the AI deploys an abnormally large number of IT forces east. When it surrenders the AI lacks any precognition so it blows a huge hole in the German lines, also the Germans usually don't have anything in Italy so the Allies land in the south, force surrender and then are North if Rome the next turn. If the AI managed the Italian surrender better it wouldn't be an issue. I would think it would be fairly simple to have the Germans deploy units to Italy when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold. How to handle the Eastern Front units seems like a bigger problem. Maybe the AI could be setup to not send Italian units east other than the IEF.
RE: Italian Surrender
I am trying to learn as much as I can, but so far I have not seen anything that will do this. There are events that will trigger as Morale goes up, but not down. As far as I know, so far.when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold
-
KorutZelva
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am
RE: Italian Surrender
The more I think about it, the more I think maybe any Italian surrender would surrender it (mechanically) to Germany. Basically, once they did they were never going to be an independent force in that conflict. Let's say the German got the upper hand and kicked the allies out of Italy they would have ran the show occupied-france style.
Germany gets a small boost of MPPs but loses the manpower limit on unit from the lost of an independent ally.
Germany gets a small boost of MPPs but loses the manpower limit on unit from the lost of an independent ally.
-
BillRunacre
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: Italian Surrender
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I am trying to learn as much as I can, but so far I have not seen anything that will do this. There are events that will trigger as Morale goes up, but not down. As far as I know, so far.when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold
This line in the DECISION Event files is available for setting events to happen when National Morale falls below a certain %:
;Set National Morale Trigger (dummy value)
#NATIONAL_MORALE_TRIGGER= 0 [0]
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
RE: Italian Surrender
Will that work for an event for Germany based on Italian national morale?
-
BillRunacre
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: Italian Surrender
Yes, it can be done. [:)]
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
RE: Italian Surrender
#NATIONAL_MORALE_TRIGGER= 0 [0]
for a value less than or equal to the 'national_morale_percentage'
Certainly can come in handy, in the right circumstances [:)]
for a value less than or equal to the 'national_morale_percentage'
Certainly can come in handy, in the right circumstances [:)]
-
Leadwieght
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am
RE: Italian Surrender
Hi,
Going back to KorutZelva's post, I too am beginning to favour the idea that, once surrendered, Italy should be incapable of being "Liberated" by the Germans and returning to play as a full-fledged Major Power.
In one early game against the AI, I managed to knock Italy out in September of 1940 (this was before the higher NM was put in place). It was a fluke, and I had so few British units available that I couldn't hold any positions on the mainland. Had to retreat to Sicily while the Germans put Il Duce back in power and the Axis proceeded to raise a pretty large Italian army for use in the Balkans and Russia. I still won because losing North Africa and the Allies gaining access to Albania lured the Axis into a long drawn-out Balkan adventure that ruined any chances of a strong Barbarossa.
But, although I am definitely on the "game" side of the game/historical simulation debate, it felt extremely ahistorical to see the Fascist regime in Italy revive from completely ignominious defeat almost as if nothing had happened.
So, in the event of Italian surrender I'd like to see hexes in Italy and Albania not under Allied control go over to Germany (North Africa should go Allied though), maybe a few German garrisons could deploy automatically in 2-3 N. Italian cities, and the Germans would get the opportunity to form a few RSI units. But no liberation would be possible
Leadwieght
Going back to KorutZelva's post, I too am beginning to favour the idea that, once surrendered, Italy should be incapable of being "Liberated" by the Germans and returning to play as a full-fledged Major Power.
In one early game against the AI, I managed to knock Italy out in September of 1940 (this was before the higher NM was put in place). It was a fluke, and I had so few British units available that I couldn't hold any positions on the mainland. Had to retreat to Sicily while the Germans put Il Duce back in power and the Axis proceeded to raise a pretty large Italian army for use in the Balkans and Russia. I still won because losing North Africa and the Allies gaining access to Albania lured the Axis into a long drawn-out Balkan adventure that ruined any chances of a strong Barbarossa.
But, although I am definitely on the "game" side of the game/historical simulation debate, it felt extremely ahistorical to see the Fascist regime in Italy revive from completely ignominious defeat almost as if nothing had happened.
So, in the event of Italian surrender I'd like to see hexes in Italy and Albania not under Allied control go over to Germany (North Africa should go Allied though), maybe a few German garrisons could deploy automatically in 2-3 N. Italian cities, and the Germans would get the opportunity to form a few RSI units. But no liberation would be possible
Leadwieght
RE: Italian Surrender
To add some info on the game mechanics for those of us that aren't as familiar as the developers, I ran a test a couple days ago where Italy surrenders to Germany, and as with other cases of surrender/liberation, the result was the same or worse as Italy surrendering to the USA or UK [Libya, as part of Italy, also went all German except for Allied occupied hexes].
So this has me pondering the last couple of days why hexes transfer ownership upon surrender/liberation. I can't control it so I can't run any tests, the only thing I can do is monitor when these situations come up and then take a minute to peruse the map and see what effects there are and what effects there would be if hex ownership did not change. My thought is that the normal routine for hexes automatically changing ownership would take over and be sufficient. In some cases this would have a similar effect as what we have now, but in reverse. Example - Germans take Paris and France surrenders, but all of France does not automatically transfer to Germany. This would mean that until the Germans occupy all the resources that the UK could Transport units into France.
I think this could or might be reasonable because the game uses only two forms of hex ownership, Axis or Allies. Therefore when Italy surrenders all hexes remain as they were, with normal end of turn ownership calculation taking place. Resource allocation may be an issue.
So this has me pondering the last couple of days why hexes transfer ownership upon surrender/liberation. I can't control it so I can't run any tests, the only thing I can do is monitor when these situations come up and then take a minute to peruse the map and see what effects there are and what effects there would be if hex ownership did not change. My thought is that the normal routine for hexes automatically changing ownership would take over and be sufficient. In some cases this would have a similar effect as what we have now, but in reverse. Example - Germans take Paris and France surrenders, but all of France does not automatically transfer to Germany. This would mean that until the Germans occupy all the resources that the UK could Transport units into France.
I think this could or might be reasonable because the game uses only two forms of hex ownership, Axis or Allies. Therefore when Italy surrenders all hexes remain as they were, with normal end of turn ownership calculation taking place. Resource allocation may be an issue.
RE: Italian Surrender
warspite1ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
ORIGINAL: Leadwieght
I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson.
In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis.
And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism.
I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.
A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.
Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.
morally obscene.
The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.
Well each to their own but I must confess I was a little taken aback by these comments Flaviusx!
I think this is far too broad brush in its approach, and to say that ‘much’ of the wargaming community are soft on fascism because they like playing the Germans or they want to play a game where the Germans can win is extremely unfair.
I have no doubt that there are some knuckle-dragging Neanderthals amongst the wargaming community (just as there are in wider society) who subscribe to Hitler’s world view, but I would think they are in the minority.
So ADG* is a ‘morally obscene’ company because its strategic game World In Flames is designed for either side to win? No – it’s a bit of fun (and happens to be a bloody brilliant game). For the Axis to win World In Flames, liberties have been made in terms of some of their units quality – otherwise a win would be impossible – but in so doing the game does not glorify the Nazis or Hitler, or his Axis schmucks; it’s nothing more than a game mechanic to create a fun game that can be won by either side.
Yes I prefer to play the Commonwealth more often than not, but when I play the Germans I want to win – for the simple reason that I am playing the Germans, not because I secretly harbour a wish that those scumbags had won the war. And what about the Soviets? When I play the Soviets I want to win purely because I am playing the Soviets and not because that paranoid psycho Uncle Joe does it for me (not clear from your post but is the wargaming community too soft on Communism too)?. Ditto the Japanese, ditto the Italians.
Just my GBP £0.20
* I have not mentioned SC3 here because I don't know if the ultimate game plan is to allow equal chance of victory for both.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
-
battlevonwar
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am
RE: Italian Surrender
I wish that in 1938-1939 the French/British sat down and ran proper war games on the possible outcome of situations at hand. A board game of this, Strategic Command with even the most remote and simplistic values could have given their Generals less a rigid point of view and the foresight to stop a war from lasting more than a few months. German High Command sues for peace terms and hangs their leadership. Game over...
Oh but people say the variables? We're human computers, run as many as humanly possible. I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at West Point(or any Military Academy) and isn't he who wrote something like, "Know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will never lose?" I don't know but these games actually can be education in the right light.
Watching Char-1 Bis facing off against Panzer IIIs in a simulated 3-D model of history. World's Great Tank Battles. Seems like things were just so very close.
Oh but people say the variables? We're human computers, run as many as humanly possible. I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at West Point(or any Military Academy) and isn't he who wrote something like, "Know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will never lose?" I don't know but these games actually can be education in the right light.
Watching Char-1 Bis facing off against Panzer IIIs in a simulated 3-D model of history. World's Great Tank Battles. Seems like things were just so very close.
RE: Italian Surrender
ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
I wish that in 1938-1939 the French/British sat down and ran proper war games on the possible outcome of situations at hand. A board game of this, Strategic Command with even the most remote and simplistic values could have given their Generals less a rigid point of view and the foresight to stop a war from lasting more than a few months. German High Command sues for peace terms and hangs their leadership. Game over...
Oh but people say the variables? We're human computers, run as many as humanly possible. I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at West Point(or any Military Academy) and isn't he who wrote something like, "Know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will never lose?" I don't know but these games actually can be education in the right light.
Watching Char-1 Bis facing off against Panzer IIIs in a simulated 3-D model of history. World's Great Tank Battles. Seems like things were just so very close.
Knowing how to win and having the will to win are two separate things. France should have fought harder but they did not have the will to. Thank God that there was no landbridge from France to England because there is no doubt in most historians minds that England would have fallen quickly as well. I'm not going to blame the French for their lack of desire to fight after the horror of the WWI - I don't fault the United Kingdom either for not rushing a second front either - we simply don't recall how heavily the manpower of a generation of those two nations was wasted in a meat grinder of war.
Flaviusx: I think you are a little over the top, while history identifies the outcomes of wars, we are the ones that determine the good guys and bad guys. The World War had multiple players and many of the actions taken by those players are more gray than Black or White.
Fondly remembers SSI's "Clash of Steel"
-
battlevonwar
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am
RE: Italian Surrender
FF_1079, it makes me a little curious that you have a country like Germany rearming out the rear and the United Kingdom is very shell shocked no doubt from WW1 and doesn't want to participate in WW2 at any cost, unless they have to. All is relying on the French and an unfinished Maginot Line that is costing a mint. Also France is all fractured politically ... Still manage to field an impressive army between the French and British. The equipment isn't even that bad! Just about as much as the Germans!(Germany had a heck of a lot of Panzers Is and IIs going into Blitzkrieg) Some of those are paper tanks. It's really the tactics and not so much the 'will to fight' or the 'equipment entirely'.
Blitzkrieg was a lucky gamble and didn't work so well in the backwater supply constrained East. Just well for nice relatively flat plains in Western Europe with great roads and rail to bring up the supply. The Russians fought but they were given an alternative = the devil you know or the devil you don't. French didn't have that harsh an alternative nor did the English.
So why did the Italians throw it in? Probably just like the French, the terms were pretty good. Look at Wilson and Post WW1 peace. Maybe they expected things would better if they did quickly. OF course it was true!
(IF Poland would have been a disaster the Regime in Germany would have toppled as fast as the one in Italy, and I think faster and in France, double that, so Will is a matter of winning, by Stalingrad that will was as battered as France in '40 ... )
Blitzkrieg was a lucky gamble and didn't work so well in the backwater supply constrained East. Just well for nice relatively flat plains in Western Europe with great roads and rail to bring up the supply. The Russians fought but they were given an alternative = the devil you know or the devil you don't. French didn't have that harsh an alternative nor did the English.
So why did the Italians throw it in? Probably just like the French, the terms were pretty good. Look at Wilson and Post WW1 peace. Maybe they expected things would better if they did quickly. OF course it was true!
(IF Poland would have been a disaster the Regime in Germany would have toppled as fast as the one in Italy, and I think faster and in France, double that, so Will is a matter of winning, by Stalingrad that will was as battered as France in '40 ... )