Advice to the Newbie: The Italian gambit

[ratprince]

[;)]

hehe! I love it!

I think what people are missing is that if we wanted a "replay" of WWII....watch a movie. The fun and excitement of this game is the very fact that bold moves CAN be made by both sides. These moves have extremely powerful potential effects. I mean, heck, we didnt think Japan would "seriously" attack Pearl...they would be crazy! and that would be an "unrealistic" effect.....well, they pulled it off. The point is, we are basing the "unrealism" of something on an ephemeral idea because it "really didnt happen." If we are sticking to that type of thinking....well....then, the Germans "really" didnt win the war...so why play it?

This game is fun, because it can take narrow or WIDE variations on history to the elation or chagrin of both sides. While mayhaps not perfect in all respects...this game gives a superb chance to change the course of history......isn't that what we are all trying do anyway.....[8D]

later


Mike

[Maginot]

Personally, I'm guilty of blowing a fair amount of supplies on the first turn or second turn to give myself control of Sardina and Sicily. You steal only one resource point, but I love controling all three islands. Once you get those Islands and throw a fighter or two there, the Italian fleet can hardly move. Should the Axis chose to fight me in an air war of attrition in the Med, all the better.

[Uncle_Joe]

Mike,

To a certain extent, I agree, but the line should be drawn somewhere IMO. If not, why not allow the Germans to have Jet Packs and invade England from the air? How about helicopter gunships to defeat Russian tanks?

I dont think most people are looking for a replay of WW2, but to able to explore the options that the actual participants discarded or didnt think of. But I dont care for being allowed options that were just not possible at the time (or that violate the laws of time and physics).

Remember that there were plenty of people who felt that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack (and even invasion). In fact, the entire West Coast was under 'invasion routine' for a time. It was very plausible for Japan to pull of an attack on the US at Pearl or elsewhere.

It is NOT plausible that the Allies can bring transports from the far ends of the earth together in a three month period and orchestrate an invasion in the Med during the time that France was falling. Its about as possible as the Jet Pack invasion of England.

Again, I believe this is nothing more than an exploit of an interface aid. Without that aid, moving transports would be EXTREMELY time consuming to move each one 1 space to extend a chain. This 'feature' allows you to do it with first transport in the line. I dont *think* the intention was to able to do some of the things that it permits with regards to invasions. Too much else in the game is too well thought out and with realistic constraints for me to think that this is an intended capability.

Obviously it is part of the game. But I think its a part that should be evaluated again to see if its desirable to have such 'whacky' options available. If so, then I want my Jet Packs, dammit! [:'(]

[Drax Kramer]

The only reason "Italian Gambit" can work is that designers, for whatever reason, decided to ignore the historical deployment of Italian army on June 1940. It's available on the web, on several places as well in standard literature.

Here it is:

Northern Italy: 42 divisions (2 armoured, 2 motorised, 3 lorried infantry, 3 cavalry, 5 mountain, 27 infantry) in five armies.

Southern Italy: 7 infantry divisions

Sardinia: 2 infantry divisions

Sicily: 2 infantry divisions

Albania: 5 divisions (1 armoured, 1 mountain, 3 infantry)

Aegean islands: 1 infantry division

Tripolitania: 9 infantry divisions

Cyrenaica: 5 infantry divisions

East Africa: 2 regular infantry divisions (there were more colonial troops there)


GWAW gives Italians these:

Northern Italy: 2 militia

Southern Italy: 2 militia, 1 artillery, 1 flak

Sardinia: 1 militia

Sicily: 1 militia

Albania: 1 militia

Tripoli: 2 militia

Tobruk: nothing

East Africa: 1 militia


As you can see, it's not that rules for Italian surrender are problematic, it's Italian OOB that has little to do with the historical situation. Allies had better things to do than contemplate invasion of the territory defended by 42 divisions (equivalent of 28 western divisions).

Needless to say, I'd have to keep two sets of "regionxx" files. Original ones for PBEM and the historical ones for my personal enjoyment while playing against AI.

[hmsmystic]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

While I agree that all of those methods will help defeat a first turn attack like this, the fact remains that it shouldnt even be a realistic possibility IMO. What allows it is the 'convenience' feature of Transports not spending movement points if traveling over other Transports that have not moved. I believe this feature is intended to prevent needing to move every Transport 1 or 2 spaces in order to extend a chain.

Unfortunately, it can be abused to launch 'surprise' invasions of massive scale with no prep work (and no chance to defend against it). IMO, Transports off of South Africa and near Madagascar should not be viable threat to Northern Italy (especially going all the way west around Africa!) within a 3 month turn. To me, this is an undesirable exploit of an interface aid and should be corrected as such. It forces the Axis to guard against completely unrealistic invasions FAR earlier in the war than the Allies would ever have been able to mount one.

Perhaps I am incorrect and things like this were intended. If so, then so be it. Its 'counterable' so its not like it breaks the game, but it does convey more of a 'beer and pretzels' game feel than anything like a simulation of WW2. If its not intended, I'd like to see some 'safe guards' put in place to make it less possible. Personally, I think all Amphibious invasions should be impossible from more than say, 3 or 4 zones away. It just shouldnt even be allowed IMO. Either that or Tranports that use the 'free move' (ie, move more than 7 MPs) should lose their Amphib capability for the rest of the turn (or half it rounding down or something). Barring any of that, Italy should simply have a few Militia at start to disuade such tactics.

I'm curious to see how things like pan out in the near future with the game. Now that everyone is starting to grasp the mechanics and how to best use them, I'm sure we'll be seeing many more completely off the wall strats coming out. It will be interesting to see if the game's mechanics can stand up to them all. If not, I hope the patches keep coming to continue to improve the game and remove undesirable 'exploits' of the game mechanics.

YMMV.

Really this is the key point. I'd like to see a limit on the capacity of a "transport chain" to prevent the massive buildup and reinforcement of amphibious invasion capabiltiy. Perhaps limiting the transport capacity to one or two land units per transport and the end of the chain would make sense. In other words, to land 4 infantry and 2 tanks, you'd need 3 transports at the beach head.

This should also hold for strategic movement.

I played a game as Russia. After the fall of Berlin, I built 3 transports in Vladivostok and stockpiled an army thier. After defeating the garrion on Hokkaido, was able to strat delpoy an insane force. in one turn.. seemed a bit gamey

[marc420]

OK, perhaps I'm not seeing it, but how is using the "easy" movement of getting a transport to the end of the chain a distortion, while if we had the "click-fest" movement of sliding the transports each a couple of sea-zones along the chain not.

Ie, if the transport rules made me move each transport, I could move all transports within 7MP to the western med. Since most of this is 2MP sea-zones, then I could get everything within 3 sea zones. That goes to the transports in the Irish sea to the north, and well out into the Atlantic to the south and west. Then you could fill in those blanks with the additional transports being pulled from other areas.

So I don't see where this is the result of the transports rules that just mean I don't have to click on every transport to rearrange them.

The Italy OOB seems at fault.

Also, there's two concepts that are completely missing from this game. It makes the game simple and easy to play, but it leads to things like this. One is that there is no planning in the game. The second is there's no concept of developing a doctrine like amphibious assault. In the real world, its hard to imagine that the Allied General staff would have quickly thrown troops onto transports and sailed them off to Italy. If you look at any amphibious assault, they all had extensive planning that lasted longer than say two months before the attack. Thus some planning would need to be done before the turn of the invasion. Maybe later in the war the Americans were so skilled in island invasions in the Pacific that they could throw one together relatively quickly. But otherwise any invasion requires a lot of planning. The second is that the Allies in 1940 had little or no experience in doing an invasion. And no specialized landing craft.

In writing and thinking about this, a lot of the latter is reflected in the transport ratings. So maybe a solution is to lower the initial Allied transport invasion ratings even lower than 3. This would increase the number of transports required for something like this and thus lower the number of Allied troops that could appear in Italy. It would also mean the Allies would have to do some research in Transports (and effectively develop landing craft and amphibious assault doctrines) before they could do an invasion.

[Uncle_Joe]

marc420:

The 'chain move' allows you to bring transports from South Africa, South America and father that are 20+ MPs away in. You just have to 'collapse' the chain from the farthest reaches on out, ensuring that none of the transports in the chain has moved a supply or anything that turn. If the movement 'aid' was not there, you could only get the transports within 7 MPs into an attack. This is not anywhere near the number that can be thrown in by using the 'chain' method.

[aletoledo]

several good points in this post, I'll throw my 2 cents in also.

I had this gambit played against me by QBeam and simply forfeited the game after that, since there was no way I was going to take italy back and it was clearly a lost cause.

There are a couple counter strategies I've worked on, but it seems excessive to have to devote so much to defend on turn one! since I've been defending better it hasn't happened and even when Mike Mcmann has tried it against me in our current game, I've at least stopped him from doing it on the first turn. It really seems like a gimmick similair to the pearl harbor strike by japan. I think both of these need a better deterant against them.

I agree with the transports moving too far in one turn for free. I use it all the time, but because of this you can really move all your transports in almost one shot across the entire map! IMO if you put advanced supply on, then transports should lose this ability. this would help stop the northern italy invasion, but not 100%.

I think considering the consequences, that italy should spawn militia at the very least.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

CUT

As you can see, it's not that rules for Italian surrender are problematic, it's Italian OOB that has little to do with the historical situation. Allies had better things to do than contemplate invasion of the territory defended by 42 divisions (equivalent of 28 western divisions).

Needless to say, I'd have to keep two sets of "regionxx" files. Original ones for PBEM and the historical ones for my personal enjoyment while playing against AI.

Italy in 1940 was not prepared to go to war. Lots of division were "understrenght", with poor equipment and not ready for battle. You cannot compare an Italian Infantry division with a German or British one. How do you model this in GGWAW?
Bye

[mavraamides]

IMO, the easiest way for the Axis to defend Italy and in fact all of the Med region is to immediately invade Gibralter and put 2 arty there. This not only allows the Med fleet to sneak out, attack tranny's and run back to safety but effectively cuts off any realistic Med offensive for the Allies.

This, of course, is yet another exploit that should be almost impossible to pull off. But just ask the Vebmonster how hard it is. He's done it to me and my partner 2 PBEM's in a row! [:@] Not to mention taking out Scotland when I was the WA.

With Gibralter gone, North Africa will likely follow. Then with just a strong Garrison in Gibralter and Tunisia (I think that's it, the African province directly south of Gibralter) the Med can be defended easily by the Axis.

There are 4 places too easy to invade compared to history:

Gibralter, Sicily, Scottland and Italy. Not sure what can be done about it. All I can say is CYA when you're playing a good oponent!

Seems the rule, "Strike first, strike hard, show no mercy." is a very effective strategy in this game!

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

...
Seems the rule, "Strike first, strike hard, show no mercy." is a very effective strategy in this game!

Exactly![;)] Because the Axis is on a time line to get 70 resources and the Allies are on a time line to beat Summer 1945, both sides can ill afford to sit around enjoying the view.[:-]

I don't think anything said in this thread is convincing enough to change the way the game works or is setup. People just need to think their strategy through more. Thes game has only been available a month and already everyone's an expert.[8|] Not even the designers are experts![X(] There are many ways to play this game. When your opponent make a play that totally wrecks your strategy (ie taking Italy out) that means you made a mistake or didn't pressure him enough to not be able to do it. Putting the Italian navy in the West Med will be enough to keep the Wallies out on the first turn. Yes it's expensive in supplies but at least you get to keep the Italians around. Invading Scotland is only possible if the Wallies strip the British Isles of the navy around it. Keep a strong navy there and it won't happen.

Keep playing. Take the long approah to this game. Don't try to master it quickly. This is NOT Axis & Allies... not by a long shot![8D]

[Harrybanana]

Bartheart,
I agree with you a 100% that this is not Axis & Allies. Therein lies part of the problem. Few people ever complain when playing Axis & Allies that it is not historical or realistic because no one expects it to be. But a certain degree of realism is what everyone has come to expect from a Gary Grigsby game. I love this game and if they didn't change a thing I would still play it and enjoy playing it. But, I would prefer that the developers listen to our comments and make certain changes to make the game more realistic. Yes there are counters to the Italian Gambit but I for one would hope that the game will be improved so they are not necessary. Though I think the Italians did keep a strong garrison in Mainland Italy from very early in the war because they feared a British Invasion. Whether they had good reason to be afraid is another matter. I agree that it is too early to make any final decisions, but my preliminary advice for the Developers would be to make the following changes in either a future patch or GGWaW2 (oh please let there be a GGWaW2):
1. Change rules for Italian surrender as per my 1st post,
2. Change invasion rules by adding a new unit type- landing craft which have to be moved like other units (you could still use trannies for invading undefended areas),
3. Units loaded onto landing craft can invade enemy held territories using tactical movement (not strategic movement),
4. If Germany invades Spain US production multiple goes to 2 (if not already 2 or higher),
5. Make it more difficult to research the uber units and/or improve the die roll modifiers for a unit attacked more than twice (ie so that several weak attack units have a better chance of hitting a high evasion unit)

Just my thoughts.

[Uncle_Joe]

IMO, this has less to do with 'rethinking strategy' than having to be aware of completely ahistorical gamey tactics. When flight of fancy 'strategies' that are completely outside the realm of the possible in reality are as powerful as the ones listed here, the game suffers. It becomes less a game about WW2 and more a game about who can get the most out of the game system itself.

We KNOW that Italy will surrender the second it is invaded. The real Allies didnt. So, there was never a consideration to do so before the Torch campaign. We also KNOW the exact conditions for the US (and Russian) entry into the war. Again, Hitler and the Japanese could not afford to do the things that we do in the game because they didnt have that perfect knowledge. There are countless hard and fast rules that we can count on the real leaders could not.

So, there are already a lot of advantages that the player possesses that the actual participants did not have. Why do we have to give completely ahistorical and unrealistic capabilities to the UNITS as well as the players? Why not let Battleships fire cruise missile strikes? As long as its defendable (perhaps by SAM batteries), it should be fine, right? Obviously this is exaggeration, but the point is the same. The capabilities should be the same in the game as in WW2 (or as close as possible).

Nothing makes the game seem like Axis and Allies more than witnessing (or pulling off) something just completely not possible in reality. I want to play a game of WW2 'what ifs' not a game of 'can you defeat the strategies that couldnt even remotely have been possible in WW2'.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Italy in 1940 was not prepared to go to war. Lots of division were "understrenght", with poor equipment and not ready for battle. You cannot compare an Italian Infantry division with a German or British one. How do you model this in GGWAW?
Bye

Italian divisions had only two regiments hence I wrote how 42 divisions represented 28 British or French division equivalents. Whatever you or I think about their preparations, this was a massive force, much bigger and better prepared in June than anything French had outside France. Unless you think that Italy would have collapsed under attack of few ANZAC divisions and an armoured one, Italian surrender in 1940 is as realistic as Alien invasion from Outer Space.

The weakness of Italian divisions compared to British or German is already modeled in GWAW by giving Italians only Militia. However, two Militia to stand for 28 division equivalents is hardly a historical representation. It's probably some Design for Effect solution, although incomprehensible to me for a moment.


Drax

[Tac2i]

I was going to write my views on this issue but Uncle_Joe has stated it rather clearly. I'll just say that as players learn a new game, the "exploits" of the game mechanics always follow. A perfect example is World War II Online. That game suffered greatly in its early years to "gamey" exploits that drove it core players crazy. The issues mentioned in this thread have the potential to drive players away from the game. That would be a horrible outcome since WaW is such a good game. I'm certain a future patch will address in some way the "gamey" issues with some of the game mechanics.

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

IMO, this has less to do with 'rethinking strategy' than having to be aware of completely ahistorical gamey tactics. When flight of fancy 'strategies' that are completely outside the realm of the possible in reality are as powerful as the ones listed here, the game suffers. It becomes less a game about WW2 and more a game about who can get the most out of the game system itself.

We KNOW that Italy will surrender the second it is invaded. The real Allies didnt. So, there was never a consideration to do so before the Torch campaign. We also KNOW the exact conditions for the US (and Russian) entry into the war. Again, Hitler and the Japanese could not afford to do the things that we do in the game because they didnt have that perfect knowledge. There are countless hard and fast rules that we can count on the real leaders could not.

So, there are already a lot of advantages that the player possesses that the actual participants did not have. Why do we have to give completely ahistorical and unrealistic capabilities to the UNITS as well as the players? Why not let Battleships fire cruise missile strikes? As long as its defendable (perhaps by SAM batteries), it should be fine, right? Obviously this is exaggeration, but the point is the same. The capabilities should be the same in the game as in WW2 (or as close as possible).

Nothing makes the game seem like Axis and Allies more than witnessing (or pulling off) something just completely not possible in reality. I want to play a game of WW2 'what ifs' not a game of 'can you defeat the strategies that couldnt even remotely have been possible in WW2'.

[anarchyintheuk]

The only thing I'd favor is an oob change. I've only played as axis so far so I can't really comment on the gambit/gamey move. In playing as axis I rely on the rules for not triggering usa/su involvement, I don't see the problem w/ wallies relying on the italian surrender rules.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, its certainly not a showstopper by any means. It can be (and is) defended in many games that I've played. It more the capability than the result that I dont care for. Of course all it takes is for the Axis to break that chain somewhere to de-rail the 'summoning' of the distant transports.

I still wouldn't be adverse to seeing a few more Italian Militia in the opening set up though. Same for goes for UK Home Guard. Throw and extra one in England too and call it even!

[5cats]

There's a thought, but England gets 5 free militia if invaded...
I like my "transport involved loses 1 movement point" idea, although it might be hard to impliment in the game system. That is, the transport being 'passed over' on the chain loses a movement for every ship which passes over it. Thus you can only collapse the chain so far before it stalls.
The very number of transports given the WA is unrealistic too, but needed for game mechanics. They did have a world-wide trade web, how to portray that? Lots of transports!
Perhaps a 'landing unit' which would enable the attacking of defended beaches? Or you'd need that unit to land more than 2 units in any invasion? (it would be used up & dissapear after the invasion)
It is a PBEM game-breaker, to lose on turn 1 unless you defend Italy more than Germany itself...

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, as indicated above, there are multiple ways to defend against this strat. Also keep in mind that the WAllies are taking a big risk doing this too. They are not collecting the resources from a lot of areas if the move all those transports away.

I dont think it is some hugely overpowered game-breaking strategy, but simply one well beyond the capabilities of the times. So, while I dont care for it (at all), I can at least make due by making sure I dont get burned by it.

Looking at it another way, players will often strip 'safe' areas of troops altogether which would rarely be done in reality. This is basically just ensuring that the Italians dont leave home for too long.[;)]

[ratprince]

Uncle-joe;

I agree that it is a "risk" for the allies to attempt a turn one invasion, but it is not at the cost of all the resource collection.

All you need is "ONE" transport touching africa to get them ALL.

All you need is "ONE" transport touching India to get them ALL.

Ditto for the south pacific (frozen anyway)

Ditto for South america.


You can get about 15 transports to the central med AND still collect every resource on the map.



On a side note - I do not think it unrealistic AT ALL that an ivasion can be completed and then a hoard of troops deposited. I mean, on June 6, 1944 a "small" actual invasion occurred in France. By September 6 (three months later) there were VAST AMOUNTS of allied troops in the area. This is exactly reflected in the game. The idea is you MUST KEEP THEM FROM A FOOTHOLD! If you dont stop them at the beaches.....well, they will pour ashore!

No patch is needed, just some counter strategies....thats all.

later

Mike