Do the Italians mobilise too quickly in 1915?

[stockwellpete]

It is something that I have been wondering about. Apparently, the Italians initially were hoping to fight a limited war against Austro-Hungary and did not declare war on Germany in 1915. Yet, in the game, they mobilise all 3 HQ's, 10 Infantry Corps, 1 Mountain Corps and 4 Detachments as soon as they enter the war. Maybe 2 HQ's and 7/8 Infantry Corps (including the Mountain Corps) would reflect their hesitancy more accurately and the other units should come early in 1916 as Italy accelerated its war production rapidly?

Also, I think it is a bit odd that a solid line of opposing units can develop in such a mountainous region between Italy and Austria-Hungary. The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89) so that the fighting is shaped more into two main areas - the Trentino and the Isonzo.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

It is something that I have been wondering about. Apparently, the Italians initially were hoping to fight a limited war against Austro-Hungary and did not declare war on Germany in 1915. Yet, in the game, they mobilise all 3 HQ's, 10 Infantry Corps, 1 Mountain Corps and 4 Detachments as soon as they enter the war. Maybe 2 HQ's and 7/8 Infantry Corps (including the Mountain Corps) would reflect their hesitancy more accurately and the other units should come early in 1916 as Italy accelerated its war production rapidly?

Also, I think it is a bit odd that a solid line of opposing units can develop in such a mountainous region between Italy and Austria-Hungary. The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89) so that the fighting is shaped more into two main areas - the Trentino and the Isonzo.

Agreed! It is a lot very quickly and a wide front!

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

It is something that I have been wondering about. Apparently, the Italians initially were hoping to fight a limited war against Austro-Hungary and did not declare war on Germany in 1915. Yet, in the game, they mobilise all 3 HQ's, 10 Infantry Corps, 1 Mountain Corps and 4 Detachments as soon as they enter the war. Maybe 2 HQ's and 7/8 Infantry Corps (including the Mountain Corps) would reflect their hesitancy more accurately and the other units should come early in 1916 as Italy accelerated its war production rapidly?

Also, I think it is a bit odd that a solid line of opposing units can develop in such a mountainous region between Italy and Austria-Hungary. The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89) so that the fighting is shaped more into two main areas - the Trentino and the Isonzo.

The Italians do Not deploy 3 HQ's upon declaration of war. If you are seeing this then its some kind of random thing I have never seen. (see below). They sometimes get a decision to purchase at a cut rate an additional HQ 6 Cadorna.

I have never seen the Alpini corp deployed for free in any game I have played as Entente. (75% of my PM games are as the Entente, and I have over 1800 hours with this particular title), though maybe its a random thing I have never seen.

The Italians DO benefit in research acceleration..the benefits derived by their Allies S&I lvls and the lvl of those allies different techs.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89) so that the fighting is shaped more into two main areas - the Trentino and the Isonzo.

I highly disagree to making any geographical changes such as you have proposed here. The fighting always devolves around those two areas as you have mentioned anyway, with the optional possibility of a thrust up some alpine valley or up and over some high craggy spur on the edges of these two main sectors....these kind of 'lonely and forlorn' fights occurred all along this front from 1915 to 1918.

Its hard to move anything on this front at all as it is...and abstractly, detachments (non-corp level) commonly deployed on this front seem to accurately convey the actual realities that occurred there back then. If someone wants to make a real effort there..then they can bring in some corps or better yet, mountain troops.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


The Italians do Not deploy 3 HQ's upon declaration of war. If you are seeing this then its some kind of random thing I have never seen. (see below). They sometimes get a decision to purchase at a cut rate an additional HQ 6 Cadorna.

I have never seen the Alpini corp deployed for free in any game I have played as Entente. (75% of my PM games are as the Entente, and I have over 1800 hours with this particular title), though maybe its a random thing I have never seen.

The Italians DO benefit in research acceleration..the benefits derived by their Allies S&I lvls and the lvl of those allies different techs.

I am reading from the Editor - the Production Queue in the Country Data section. It gives those numbers. Unless I am misunderstanding something?

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89) so that the fighting is shaped more into two main areas - the Trentino and the Isonzo.

I highly disagree to making any geographical changes such as you have proposed here. The fighting always devolves around those two areas as you have mentioned anyway, with the optional possibility of a thrust up some alpine valley or up and over some high craggy spur on the edges of these two main sectors....these kind of 'lonely and forlorn' fights occurred all along this front from 1915 to 1918.

Its hard to move anything on this front at all as it is...and abstractly, detachments (non-corp level) commonly deployed on this front seem to accurately convey the actual realities that occurred there back then. If someone wants to make a real effort there..then they can bring in some corps or better yet, mountain troops.

But sometimes you get a continuous line of troops from both sides right across from Trentino to the other side of the Isonzo. Much of the mountainous area was completely impassable and the area was deadlocked until 1917.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

The mountains there (the Carnatic Alps) have a movement penalty of +2, but maybe they should be at either +3 (for High Mountains) or even be impassable (hexes 171,88 and 171,89)

But sometimes you get a continuous line of troops from both sides right across from Trentino to the other side of the Isonzo. Much of the mountainous area was completely impassable and the area was deadlocked until 1917.

Hmmm...where would you propose the +3 high mountain hexes? I'm curious from a game standpoint and as a geographer by profession. I saw where you proposed the impassable hexes on the map. At this scale, maybe +3 high mountains would be more suitable?

Sorry btw about dismissing this whole notion out of hand in the previous post...I was grumpy about something else.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Hmmm...where would you propose the +3 high mountain hexes? I'm curious from a game standpoint and as a geographer by profession. I saw where you proposed the impassable hexes on the map. At this scale, maybe +3 high mountains would be more suitable?

Sorry btw about dismissing this whole notion out of hand in the previous post...I was grumpy about something else.

No problem. The +3 hexes would be in the same place as the impassable hexes (at hexes 171,88 and 171,89). Whichever works the best. I am not sure what the effect of having two +3 hexes would be. Would the AI still try to send units over those hexes? If so, then perhaps impassable hexes would work better. Would it be detrimental to multi-player just "shaping" this particular front a little bit?

What generally happens at the moment, when playing as the Central Powers against the AI (Entente), is that the Italians are very aggressive in 1915 and attack through the mountainous area on a broad front, forcing me to defend in the same way. If I try and defend with 2 separate contingents, the Germans at Trentino and the Austro-Hungarians on the Isonzo, the AI will always send units up through the gap towards Salzburg. They are easy enough to deal with and the Italians suffer heavy losses, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Note also that Italy had not actually declared war on Germany at this point in the war, so that is another anomaly.

I am wondering if the two issues I am raising in my first post are linked. I am not exactly sure now how many units are fully mobilised for Italy when they enter the war, but in my current game as Central Powers I could see 8 Infantry Corps and a Detachment pretty much straight away. There would be other units deployed away from the northern front I would assume. Because it is equally possible for the Central Powers player (including German units) to attack Italy across the mountains on a broad front, is Italy given a larger initial deployment than is historically correct to be able to resist such an attack? If so, then if the terrain on that front was made more difficult then could Italy be given less units in 1915 with those withheld made available in the spring of 1916?

The other thing that is not currently modelled is the fact that large numbers of Italian soldiers froze to death in the winter on this front (I have still to find out whether the Austro-Hungarians suffered just as badly). There is a mechanism in the game that could be used for this and that is when typhus effects Serbian and Turkish troops early in the game. Units lose strength points across a wide area. Maybe the Italians should suffer similar scale of losses from the cold? The Turks also lost many soldiers at Sarakamish in this way in 1914/5.

I think the front between Italy and Austro-Hungary should be very difficult. As it is now I find it very hard to defend Trento from the Italians and I usually have my first successes against them on the Isonzo. If I try and use just the Austro-Hungarians to defend the whole area though I just get defeated. I simply do not have enough units. Given that the AI seems to deploy nearly all the Italian units in the north, the key to defeating Italy seems to be for Austro-Hungary to make progress in the Balkans first, defeating Serbia and Albania and taking the port of Cetinje. This allows Central Power subs to get into the Mediterranean to attack Italian convoy routes and it begins the process of clearing the Adriatic of Italian shipping. Once that is done, the Austro-Hungarians can launch amphibious assaults on to the Italian mainland behind their main northern front. It takes a while but the Italians are doomed from this point onwards.

[stockwellpete]

This is a very good summary of the Italian participation in WW1 and shows their main efforts were directed at the Isonzo front rather than at Trentino . . .

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.n ... lian_front

It says this about the Trentino, which makes me wonder whether Trento might be better represented as a fortified town . . .

"The Altopiano [plateau] d’Asiago in the Trentino was much better protected, with a string of armoured fortresses backed up by a solid communications network."

I have also been thinking about this anomalous situation whereby Italian and German units can clash in the game before Italy actually declared war on Germany in August 1916. Obviously one way would be to have Italy just initially declare war on Austro-Hungary and leave it up to the players whether Italy declares war on Germany at a later stage or vice-versa. I am not sure how that would work out. The other way that I have thought of concerns the decision the Austro-Hungarians have to make about giving up territory to the Italians. What if, instead of getting just 3x Detachments to garrison that border they got 2x Detachments plus a Mountain Corps unit that was placed in Trento (possibly made into a Fortified Town)? Doing this might give the Austro-Hungarians the capability of defending that area themselves and reduce the chance of German units clashing with Italians "prematurely" in 1915.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I have also been thinking about this anomalous situation whereby Italian and German units can clash in the game before Italy actually declared war on Germany in August 1916. Obviously one way would be to have Italy just initially declare war on Austro-Hungary and leave it up to the players whether Italy declares war on Germany at a later stage or vice-versa.

This is how it was when the game was in the early beta stage, but it caused significant player confusion as people didn't automatically understand why their German units could not fight the Italians, or vice versa.

One could advise them before Italy mobilizes that it won't automatically be at war with Germany, but messages aren't always read and fully digested.

Therefore I decided to make them automatically at war, and leave it up to both sides whether they attack each other.

[Chernobyl]

If Italy and Germany couldn't fight each other then I think you'd see players railing German units to Trieste to be an invulnerable defender, and even worse Italian units would get railed to the western front to act as invulnerable hex-occupiers

That being said, I think Trento is a bit precarious. The Italians sit in three adjacent hexes and it's not really feasable to dig them out without first advancing in northeast Italy. This is because of the terrain and also because you likely won't have enough leverage. Successful attacks require space and to destroy an Italian Corps next to Trento and then also move in and entrench isnt easy even if you cart over artillery. By contrast, one Entente artillery should be able to blast Trento and Italy has plenty of space to shuffle in multiple attack corps and then march into Trento. If I recall that's a significant NM swing (+2000 for Italy and -1000 for Austria) and Italy was only able to capture the city when the Austrian armies deserted in 1918

The problem isn't just hex-geometry it's that artillery is what it is right now. But even with that in mind, if Trento really was historically a maze of forts, then it would probably be good to upgrade its defensive status. Right now it's not even as strong as the regular mountain hexes; you can't entrench as much.

I'll probably make Trento a fort town in my mod and also add a tiny road to allow for some maneuvering.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

If Italy and Germany couldn't fight each other then I think you'd see players railing German units to Trieste to be an invulnerable defender, and even worse Italian units would get railed to the western front to act as invulnerable hex-occupiers.

It is a difficult issue and maybe the current solution is the best one. The two most likely areas for German and Italian units to come into conflict in 1915 are the Trentino and the Adriatic (if the Germans deploy submarines at Pola). Apparently the German submarines in the Adriatic had Austro-Hungarian markings so the Italians would not know where they really came from. That would be reasonably easy to change in the game. The option that allows Germans to deploy their submarines at Pola could just be altered slightly so that the Austro-Hungarians get to deploy extra sub units instead of German ones being there. There would be an anomaly inasmuch as the German subs are often at a higher Tech level than the Austrian ones throughout the game.

The likelihood of German and Italian army units clashing is more difficult. One way would be to strengthen Austro-Hungarian deployment on the Alpine front at the time they say "No" to handing over territory to the Italians. At the moment they just get 3 Detachments, which are very weak. I think giving them one Mountain Corps at Trentino (and possibly another one at Klagenfurt) instead of the Detachments would encourage them to defend that area themselves without needing German units to go there to help in 1915. In addition you would need an event in the game that triggered war between Italy and Germany if certain unit movements were made e.g. if German or Italian units moved to within 2 or 3 hexes of each other, or within 2 or 3 hexes of each other's borders. Something like that could probably be scripted, I guess.

That being said, I think Trento is a bit precarious. The Italians sit in three adjacent hexes and it's not really feasable to dig them out without first advancing in northeast Italy. This is because of the terrain and also because you likely won't have enough leverage. Successful attacks require space and to destroy an Italian Corps next to Trento and then also move in and entrench isnt easy even if you cart over artillery. By contrast, one Entente artillery should be able to blast Trento and Italy has plenty of space to shuffle in multiple attack corps and then march into Trento. If I recall that's a significant NM swing (+2000 for Italy and -1000 for Austria) and Italy was only able to capture the city when the Austrian armies deserted in 1918

The problem isn't just hex-geometry it's that artillery is what it is right now. But even with that in mind, if Trento really was historically a maze of forts, then it would probably be good to upgrade its defensive status. Right now it's not even as strong as the regular mountain hexes; you can't entrench as much.

I'll probably make Trento a fort town in my mod and also add a tiny road to allow for some maneuvering.

Yes, I agree very much with this. The only way to defend Trento at the moment is to invade northern Italy and that must usually mean German units are involved. In the real war they didn't become active in that area until 1917.

[stockwellpete]

In my latest game against the AI (Entente), it has sent a tank up into the mountains! As we used to say, "Far out, man!"[:)]

[Tendraline]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Yes, I agree very much with this. The only way to defend Trento at the moment is to invade northern Italy and that must usually mean German units are involved. In the real war they didn't become active in that area until 1917.

In this regard, though, the game is destined to be unrealistic. Unlike the historical Central Powers, players know that the Treaty of London will drag Italy into the war in May 1915, so they have the option of the pre-emptive attack. Typically, around this time, the Serbian campaign would wrap up if focused upon, dragging an early Bulgaria and freeing up troops for another front.

But yes, Trento needs to be a fortified town at least; it should not be easy to take, seeing as it was one in real life and was not actually taken.

By the way, real life "lonely and forlorn" fights do not exactly translate to a corps marching half-way between Udine and Bruneck. I have yet to see anything in real life threatening a breakthrough in that front, unlike say 11th Isonzo. My only problem here changing the region to high mountains would be supply.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tendraline

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Yes, I agree very much with this. The only way to defend Trento at the moment is to invade northern Italy and that must usually mean German units are involved. In the real war they didn't become active in that area until 1917.

In this regard, though, the game is destined to be unrealistic. Unlike the historical Central Powers, players know that the Treaty of London will drag Italy into the war in May 1915, so they have the option of the pre-emptive attack. Typically, around this time, the Serbian campaign would wrap up if focused upon, dragging an early Bulgaria and freeing up troops for another front.

But yes, Trento needs to be a fortified town at least; it should not be easy to take, seeing as it was one in real life and was not actually taken.

By the way, real life "lonely and forlorn" fights do not exactly translate to a corps marching half-way between Udine and Bruneck. I have yet to see anything in real life threatening a breakthrough in that front, unlike say 11th Isonzo. My only problem here changing the region to high mountains would be supply.

There's a growing consensus amongst some of us that Trento perhaps should be a fortress. I support this idea.

I personally don't think the terrain depicted as it is should be changed, but it is an interesting idea non the less, and it warrants discussion concerning this topic thread.

The "lonely and forlorn" fights is a quote from one of my posts on this thread. Well, I like to use colorful language...and I wasn't referring to corps level operations in the Alps or Dolomites, or "a corps marching half-way between Udine and Bruneck" either. What I was trying to illustrate were the small isolated battles on the tops of crags and high altitude meadows and ravines by smaller components of these 'corps' you mentioned, but I did not.

As you probably well know, since you seem to know about the 11th Isonzo battle, that corps are composed of divisions, then regiments and battalions, and down and down hierarchically to companies and then platoons and sections. These smaller scale fights are where these "lonely and forlorn" encounters occurred..at the end of mountain trail just below a wind swept peak.

[Chernobyl]

Consensus of like 3 people

Not sure if being a fort would really make a difference against the current state of arty. 10 shells can probably beat any fort.

Should probably at least be a mountain hex though.

I will say that in my experience the Italian Entente player rarely makes any sort of attack against me. In a limited sample size, they've never made any serious attempt to push into Austria. Probably a smart thing since historically the Italians beat their head on the Isonzo.

But more than that I've never really felt threatened by the Italians. I'd feel threatened if they carted over a French or British gun, but that's about it. So I almost feel bad for them and I wonder how to make them "historically threatening to possibly take Trieste".

If I could change the game, I would make the Italians somewhat stronger on attack, but unable to rail in French/British units into Italy unless the Central Powers have captured a couple NM cities or it's 1917.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Consensus of like 3 people

Not sure if being a fort would really make a difference against the current state of arty. 10 shells can probably beat any fort.

Should probably at least be a mountain hex though.

I will say that in my experience the Italian Entente player rarely makes any sort of attack against me. In a limited sample size, they've never made any serious attempt to push into Austria. Probably a smart thing since historically the Italians beat their head on the Isonzo.

But more than that I've never really felt threatened by the Italians. I'd feel threatened if they carted over a French or British gun, but that's about it. So I almost feel bad for them and I wonder how to make them "historically threatening to possibly take Trieste".

If I could change the game, I would make the Italians somewhat stronger on attack, but unable to rail in French/British units into Italy unless the Central Powers have captured a couple NM cities or it's 1917.

Yeah..I probably overstated 'growing consensus' ...I'd just used that to segway into a response to someone who quoted a portion of one of my posts out of context to make his point.

Anyway, the rest of what you just posted I pretty much agree with. I thought for a long time that Trento WAS a mountain hex..until I started knocking off Austro-Hungarian entrenched corps with relative ease off that position with green Italians. [;)]

[Chernobyl]

No I am part of your consensus! I just felt like I have made too many "demanding" sounding posts lately so I wanted to make a joke, not at your expense!

But I am curious were you able to easily take Trent with just mass Italian corps assaults and that's it? I haven't really tested it. But if that's the case then it really does need to be a stronger defense hex.

Consider that the Central Powers can't really do anything more than just stick a corps in Trent and just hope for the best. They can't advance to gain space/leverage because the Italians have the opportunity to occupy the border mountain hexes. The only way to change the situation is artillery, which takes time.

Not saying the overall situation is unfair in Italy, but maybe add some reasonable breathing space for a NM objective.

Perhaps instead of making Trent a fortress town, I might slightly edit the border and add some fort ring hexes like Switzerland gets. Padua is actually south of Venice so it makes sense to move that town and perhaps the railroad one hex south. I added a picture of what the new forts might look like. They stick out and don't really present a serious threat to Italy in terms of an austrian breakout, but at the same time they make a direct assault on Trent less feasable. Not sure if it's a completely fair, balanced and historically acceptable border but it was what I came up with.

[Tendraline]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

I personally don't think the terrain depicted as it is should be changed, but it is an interesting idea non the less, and it warrants discussion concerning this topic thread.

Well, I like to use colorful language...and I wasn't referring to corps level operations in the Alps or Dolomites, or "a corps marching half-way between Udine and Bruneck" either. What I was trying to illustrate were the small isolated battles on the tops of crags and high altitude meadows and ravines by smaller components of these 'corps' you mentioned, but I did not.

As you probably well know, since you seem to know about the 11th Isonzo battle, that corps are composed of divisions, then regiments and battalions, and down and down hierarchically to companies and then platoons and sections. These smaller scale fights are where these "lonely and forlorn" encounters occurred..at the end of mountain trail just below a wind swept peak.

I think we are actually agreeing on this point, that these smaller engagements do not translate to corps-sized actions like those in the game. That portion of my post was made to put the ability to move across the terrain in game perspective, not to make some argument about real life actions or point out deficiencies in your examples.

No, it is more of a deficiency in the game engine. The distance we call a "hex" is stunningly large; for example, the distance between Verona and Trento is 70 km, or 35 km per hex, and the distance between Venice and Trieste is 116 km, or 39 km per hex. Even in the north, the distance from Narvik to Kiruna is 132 km, or 26 km per hex. Doubtless to say, a raid across that much territory, much less the movement of a whole corps, is improbable at best in this region.

Also, if your argument is that it is impossible to attack high mountains in game, that does not hold any water.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tendraline

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

I personally don't think the terrain depicted as it is should be changed, but it is an interesting idea non the less, and it warrants discussion concerning this topic thread.

Well, I like to use colorful language...and I wasn't referring to corps level operations in the Alps or Dolomites, or "a corps marching half-way between Udine and Bruneck" either. What I was trying to illustrate were the small isolated battles on the tops of crags and high altitude meadows and ravines by smaller components of these 'corps' you mentioned, but I did not.

As you probably well know, since you seem to know about the 11th Isonzo battle, that corps are composed of divisions, then regiments and battalions, and down and down hierarchically to companies and then platoons and sections. These smaller scale fights are where these "lonely and forlorn" encounters occurred..at the end of mountain trail just below a wind swept peak.

I think we are actually agreeing on this point, that these smaller engagements do not translate to corps-sized actions like those in the game. That portion of my post was made to put the ability to move across the terrain in game perspective, not to make some argument about real life actions or point out deficiencies in your examples.

No, it is more of a deficiency in the game engine. The distance we call a "hex" is stunningly large; for example, the distance between Verona and Trento is 70 km, or 35 km per hex, and the distance between Venice and Trieste is 116 km, or 39 km per hex. Even in the north, the distance from Narvik to Kiruna is 132 km, or 26 km per hex. Doubtless to say, a raid across that much territory, much less the movement of a whole corps, is improbable at best in this region.

Also, if your argument is that it is impossible to attack high mountains in game, that does not hold any water.

We are agreeing I think )

I also am not arguing that its impossible to attack mountains in game. Someone else proposed something like that actually...by changing some of the mountain hexes into impassable hexes. Somewhere in this thread I said (imo btw) that I didn't like that idea. But, its interesting to hear other ideas all the same.

Sometimes context gets warped when writing text..which I think has happen here both ways..so peace bro! [8D]