Matrix Games Forums

I think MWIF will have much more cases of 1on1 as PBEM tends to get quite slow if you have many players.

well this thread certainly detoured somewhat from what the actual Italian strategy should be.

Here is a question for you: what should the Italians build on the first two turns?

ORIGINAL: brian brian

well this thread certainly detoured somewhat from what the actual Italian strategy should be.

Here is a question for you: what should the Italians build on the first two turns?

Planes & Pilots, especially NAVs.

for me it is a hard decision. I also like considering some saving for the Marine Corps, or perhaps the Marine division. I also like to get the Aquila CV started for joint operations with the Japanese in the Indian Ocean in 1942. It is also nice to get some lift started. In my current game I didn't draw the range 6 FTR at start, another wrinkle to the decision. Sometimes I am grateful for the CW starting the war for me so the German loans can start rolling in.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

for me it is a hard decision. I also like considering some saving for the Marine Corps, or perhaps the Marine division. I also like to get the Aquila CV started for joint operations with the Japanese in the Indian Ocean in 1942. It is also nice to get some lift started. In my current game I didn't draw the range 6 FTR at start, another wrinkle to the decision. Sometimes I am grateful for the CW starting the war for me so the German loans can start rolling in.

Here is the summary of this thread in regards to Italian production. There are still a few scatterred comments that I haven't yet integrated into the AIO Italy strategic plan. But this is 95+% of the comments about Italian production.
================
1.1.5 Areas of conflict and type of combat: land, naval, air, and/or convoys.

1939 - neutral - build major naval if desired plus ARM & FTR & NAV
1940 - maybe France, but definitely in Africa against the British - ARM & FTR & NAV & INF & SUB
1941 - more against the British but beware of the tide turning. - Build INF & SUB & NAV
1942 - start preparing defensive positions. Redeploy Fleet to react to enemy AMPH
1943 - Be prepared to sacrifice your fleet to stop enemy invasions. If you can destroy the first landing you will set their schedule back by six months.
1944/1945 - Hunker down and make him pay for every footstep. Build INF.

1.1.6 Master production plan (MC)

1.1.6.1 Resources and Convoys

Italy starts with 11 factories, 5 resources, and 7 convoys. The factories are all in Italy proper. The resources are located:
∙ 2 RP in Italy.
∙ 1 RP that has to either come by rail through Yugoslavia or by convoy (Italian Coast).
∙ 1 in Sardinia the has to be convoyed (Italian Coast).
∙ Italy gets one of Rumania’s oil points by trade agreement.

This only uses 1 convoy while Italy is at peace and generates 5 PP, which become 3 BP with Italy’s 1939 production multiple of 0.5. In 1940, Italy produces 4 BP, in 1941 - 5 BP, in 1942 - 7 BP, 1943 - 8 BP.

The convoy(s) in the Italian Coast are quite vulnerable to attack.

1.1.6.2 Build Points and Trade Agreements

∙ Italy’s only trade agreement is for the 1 oil point from Rumania each turn.
∙ Once Barbarossa starts, max out Italian production with German loans, but before then loans will probably depend on if the Russians are trying to delay a 1941 Barbarossa.

1.1.6.3 Force Pool, Lend-Lease, and Building Ahead

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

Italy can be a highly valuable partner of the EuroAxis. Germany will take a lot of land impulses with an occasional combined. Italy, on the other hand, can take a mix of combined, naval or air impulses as required. That makes Italian ships and planes more mobile than the German ones, and so Navy and Air Force are what Italy should focus on.

What should be built, and when depends only slightly on the Axis strategy. Certainly the question how many AMPHs (if any) Italy should build does. But most units listed below should be built (or not built) regardless of the Axis strategy.

Building for Italy requires German Lend Lease. What to build early is sufficiently valuable to delay German ARM production. Decide at the start of each turn what Italy should build that turn, and then send lend lease accordingly. Small adjustments may be necessary at the end of the turn in case of losses suffered.
1.1.6.4 Production Priorities
Land

∙ Build all HQs. Badoglio in time for Barbarossa, Cavallero for Summer 1943. The EuroAxis needs a number of HQs for supply in the West. At least 2 are needed in France to watch the coast, and it`s much better using Italians for this than having to leave German HQs behind during Barbarossa. Also, Italian HQs can be useful for reorganizing planes in air impulses. I like to use Balbo in Russia and leave the others in the west.

∙ Keep the MTN and INF divisions on the map, split up corps or rebuild them whenever they are lost. They are useful both for invasions, and as second or third units for places like Malta or Sardinia.

∙ Build the elite GARS from 1940 and 1941. They are very useful to defend places which are liable to be put out of supply like Malta, Sardinia, Copenhagen or Frederickshaven. Germany has not enough bad elite units for these places, and you don`t want to leave a German 7-3 elite INF on garrison duty when you can have an Italian 5-1 elite GAR instead.

∙ Other land units should be built later (1942/1943+) only after the corresponding German units are built. At some time, the Axis wants every land unit, but the German units are both better and less restricted by action limits. However, for late game, the Italian MIL, INF and ENG are a must, and a rich Axis may find value in the MOT, MECH and ARM as well, after Germany has emptied their land force pools.

∙ Do not build the Italian MAR or PARA, since the German ones are better. Only build them if you build the Germans as well and still want more, for a strategy like Sealion or Gibraltar by invasion.

∙ When on the defensive build maximum ground units.

∙ Build INF.

∙ From Mar/Apr 1941, Italy starts producing some land units (mil+gar) to help bolster the defenses, which start arriving in the autumn.


Naval

∙ Build and rebuild the FROGs whenever they are in the Force Pool. They are cheap, and can sometimes be used to good effect against Allied AMPHs preparing to invade.

∙ Build all SUBs, whether you build the Germans or not. The Italians have better action limits, so if you build the German SUBs as well they can search for them in a German land impulse. If you don`t build the Germans, the Italians should still be built as a mobile threat which forces the Allies to at least guard their convoys.

∙ You may or may not want to build one or more AMPH or TRS, depending on your strategy. Building one is prudent though not required with any strategy in case the British nail one with a good search roll. Building more can be interesting in conjunction with a strategy other than Barbarossa 1941, in order to increase transport and invasion capacity in the med (and outside, if you take Gibraltar or Suez). However, if you decide to build any, start them as early as possible to get the most out of them.

∙ Build convoys only when necessary. Try to make the 7 you start with last as long as possible, but if you might run out, rebuild early enough. Having to keep supply with TRS is both embarrassing and costly.

∙ Do not build or repair SCS early, the build points can be spent much better on planes (or German panzers). In 1942/1943, after most of the more important stuff has been built, it may become interesting to repair ships and complete the Impero and Roma to help defend the Italian Coast (or play in the Atlantic if you have Gibraltar), particularly when playing with DSB (?). Again, a judgment call depending on the situation. You may well decide that the BPs can be used better in other ways.

∙ Do not build CVs, they are not worth the expense.

∙ Lay down carriers and new battleships in 1939/early1940 or not at all. Since it takes those units 2 years to get operational then there's no point leaving it any longer.

∙ The Aquila CV sometimes though to have fun with in the mid-game as part of a Mid-East or Gibraltar strategy but it is an expensive investment.


Air

∙ Build all FTRs, every year. Germany never has enough fighters. The Italians are slightly worse than the Germans, but their increased mobility due to the possibility of Italian air impulses makes up for that. In 1943, Italy should advance build the 1944 and 1945 FTRs as well, even before Germany does so.

∙ Build enough NAVs to form a credible threat to invasion fleets. Build points permitting, build most or all Italian NAVs every year until the EuroAxis is losing the air battle in the west.

∙ Build the Stuka in Jan/Feb 1941. It is the most valuable plane the Axis has, as it can be reorganized by Italian ATRs and HQs and fly many times in a summer turn.

∙ Build both ATRs. Italian ATRs are great both for dropping German PARAs and for reorganizing the above mentioned Stuka in an air impulse.

∙ The Piaggios and LND-3 are very nice if you can afford them, which you probably can`t before 1942. Build Italian LND-3 before building German ones. They are slightly worse, but Italy will have less problems with action limits than Germany.

∙ When on the defensive build maximum fighters.

∙ Build all the Italian LND as soon as possible.

∙ Germany's favorite units in Barbarossa are Italian airplanes.

∙ Build the Italian 'Stuka' the LND-2 they start with but without a Pilot in. It's as good as an extra INF corps if trying to break into the French Alps on the surprise impulse. Later it is good to help protect the Italian CPs from CW SUB raids.

Special

Italy, especially if the Allies are going to come after her first, and the med is not closed, needs Nav and FTRs's to survive. It is all very well saying it should commit a large number of air units to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early.

To avoid this Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closely followed by FTRs's.

If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb Italy should request the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones.

If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav are very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay.

If the German is planning a 1941Gibraltar, Italy builds accordingly: AMPH, ATR, PARA & MAR if possible.

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

I agree with Patrice. Italy has its own strategic goals, and even if those must be subordinated into the overall Axis plan, the Italians should not just be German lapdogs to the point that the Germans are the ones doing all the building and moving.
 
Generally, as the Italians, I will always try to convince my German allies to think about taking a crack at Gibraltar or Malta (or both) and Suez and getting help from them, if necessary, to accomplish these.
 
(Note that trying to capture Gib may not necessarily involve going through Spain - but making CW go to the effort of defending it may take its attention away from the Battle of the Atlantic, the battle in the Med, strategic air war over Germany, and whatnot.)
 
Seizing Gibraltar without going through Spain is difficult, but it uses a lot less assets, could probably be done simultaneously with a Barb campaign, and requires three things to go right - Gib is cut out of supply, one or both corps are flipped, and the invasion goes well. As a pre-req you will probably need to conquer Algeria (and maybe Morocco) instead of having them go Vichy.
 
On the plus side, depending on how well or poorly Gib is defended, the Italians might be able to take a try at it, with limited German help, in late 1940; then they could do it again, once or twice, in 1941, and, depending on the strategic situation, they could even try again in '42 if they rebuild the Marines/Paras lost before.
 
Capturing Malta is invaluable to the defence of Italy, as long as Sardinia and the NW coast of Italy are well-defended, as suddenly the Allies do not have a great port adjacent to the Italian Coast sea area.
 
Capturing Suez can, of course, lead to expansion in the Middle East (aligning Iraq/Persia or seizing them from the USSR, grabbing Saudi Arabia) and to operations in the Indian Ocean. Depending on how Barbarossa is set up, it can lead to bringing Turkey in through the back door.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

The list I presented is a collection of advice from forum members. There are many places where directly contradictory advice exist. In fact, I actively encourage that so the AIO will have a variety of choices and not be too predictable.

More work remains to be done with this section of the Italian AIO. In particular, the Italian builds should be derived from the overall strategic plan for the EuroAxis. So, the different strategic plans need to be laid out first (in broad scope) and then details like what to build can be defined. In response to Brian's question about what Italy should build, I thought the summary/collection would be useful.

======

By the way, one of the things I do when editing the AIO posts is to remove redundant comments (so if you say something 6 times it only appears once) and to remove concillatory phrases like "in my opinion", "I have found it best to", and so on. The result is to make the statements much starker and thereby seem more forceful. For example, "In my opinion it is best to build the Italian fighters" becomes "Build fighters." That is all I need to write the AIO rules.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

I can only second that.

Even with DAK and the Italians in mind: The only real lasting strategic coop in WW2 was Anglo-American. The rest of the powers just didn't and couldn't act as team players - in end because of their ideologies.

Regards

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis. It must not be played independently from Germany, there should be but one strategy and one operational command. In practice, that means that the German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions, decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse.

As I already said, I disagree that Italy is a puppet of Germany.
Even if I agree that Italy is an integral part of the EuroAxis, I maintain that Italy must have its own objectives & goals, and not hesitate to pursue them instead of pursuing Germany's ones.

I agree with "German player, with advice from the Italian player, should make strategic decisions".

I disagree strongly with : "Germany (...) decide what and how much Italy builds, decide where Italian units are deployed and decide what action type Italy takes each impulse".

But I've already said that a hundred time.

I can only second that.

Even with DAK and the Italians in mind: The only real lasting strategic coop in WW2 was Anglo-American. The rest of the powers just didn't and couldn't act as team players - in end because of their ideologies.

Regards

But how do we know that would be the case again? We're not replaying WW2. The circumstances in every MWiF game will differ and perhaps the politics will too. Quite possibly not for various cultural and ideological reasons (as you mentioned) but I think it should be as open as possible.

When Italy is played by an individual it is highly likely that that player will pursue their own goals but otherwise perhaps it is better that Italy works to maximize victory for the Axis. Just something to think about.

Cheers, Neilster

When Italy is played by an individual it is highly likely that that player will pursue their own goals but otherwise perhaps it is better that Italy works to maximize victory for the Axis. Just something to think about.

Yes, but not to the point of being a puppet of Germany and having Germany decide its builts and action choices and its moves. Germany can influence its built and action choices and actual moves, but Italy decides in the end.

Could Italo-German cooperation be done on a quid pro quo basis ?

Say I'll DOW on France when you want me to inreturn for a HQ and ARM in africa once france has vichied
or
Two nav for to be utilized in the med at my discretion for three italian subs to be pushed into the atlantic

any number of these sorts or deals can be preplanned/propositioned on the fly if fitting in with current strategy

But how do we know that would be the case again? We're not replaying WW2. The circumstances in every MWiF game will differ and perhaps the politics will too. Quite possibly not for various cultural and ideological reasons (as you mentioned) but I think it should be as open as possible.

When Italy is played by an individual it is highly likely that that player will pursue their own goals but otherwise perhaps it is better that Italy works to maximize victory for the Axis. Just something to think about.

Cheers, Neilster

Does it make MWIF "more open", when for the AIO Borg-like team playing is implemented?

Strategy games for PC perhaps mostly are played against the AIO. Right now there is a poll in AGEOD's forum on that, again underlining this point.

Now playing against the AIO "more open" could also mean interaction within the own alliance, not only interaction with the enemy AIO. For solo players this perhaps could even (in a weak way) simulate WIF boardgame atmosphere.

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Could Italo-German cooperation be done on a quid pro quo basis ?

Say I'll DOW on France when you want me to inreturn for a HQ and ARM in africa once france has vichied
or
Two nav for to be utilized in the med at my discretion for three italian subs to be pushed into the atlantic

any number of these sorts or deals can be preplanned/propositioned on the fly if fitting in with current strategy

Yup, there are some older posts, I think even in this thread, contemplating exactly the same ideas. But AFIR unfortunately Steve put it down for MWIF product 1.

Regards

ORIGINAL: wosung

But how do we know that would be the case again? We're not replaying WW2. The circumstances in every MWiF game will differ and perhaps the politics will too. Quite possibly not for various cultural and ideological reasons (as you mentioned) but I think it should be as open as possible.

When Italy is played by an individual it is highly likely that that player will pursue their own goals but otherwise perhaps it is better that Italy works to maximize victory for the Axis. Just something to think about.

Cheers, Neilster

Does it make MWIF "more open", when for the AIO Borg-like team playing is implemented?

Strategy games for PC perhaps mostly are played against the AIO. Right now there is a poll in AGEOD's forum on that, again underlining this point.

Now playing against the AIO "more open" could also mean interaction within the own alliance, not only interaction with the enemy AIO. For solo players this perhaps could even (in a weak way) simulate WIF boardgame atmosphere.

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Could Italo-German cooperation be done on a quid pro quo basis ?

Say I'll DOW on France when you want me to inreturn for a HQ and ARM in africa once france has vichied
or
Two nav for to be utilized in the med at my discretion for three italian subs to be pushed into the atlantic

any number of these sorts or deals can be preplanned/propositioned on the fly if fitting in with current strategy

Yup, there are some older posts, I think even in this thread, contemplating exactly the same ideas. But AFIR unfortunately Steve put it down for MWIF product 1.

Regards

There are several difficulties for building autonomous AIO within MWIF.

First, let me say that there is no single monolithic AI opponent in MWIF, but rather a separate AIO for each major power. And even within each major power's AIO there are 8 or more different DMs (Decision Makers). Coordination between DMs for a single AIO is tight, but even there I do not consider it monolithic because some decision making is made at the lower levels in the command structure (rather than a dictator at the top, micromanaging everything). Of particular importance are the separate FMs (Field Marshals) who exert their own influence over their battlefield commands.

But, even so, there is an explicit DM within each AIO that handles Foreign Relations (FR) = coordination with Allies. The FMs' primary goal is to cooperate and coordinate for the maximum benefit of the side, without particular regard for the impact on his own major power. That does not mean that the maximum can be achieved, given the structure I have imposed on how compromises are made between FMs. To repeat, there is no supreme decision maker in MWIF deciding what all the major powers on a side are going to do.

To get the level of conflict between major powers that you seem to want to have present in the game would require developing 'personalities' for each AIO. By that I mean a fundamental system for making the trade-offs between personal (for his own major pwoer) versus group goals (for the side). That balance is not easy to achieve, especially if the human opponent is able to get an insight into how to increase the enemy side's internal conflict and exploit any weakness.

Anyway, there are numerous restrictions built into the rules (RAW) regarding cooperation, so it is not like you are going to see American, Dutch, Free French, and New Zealanders helping defend Stalingrad from an assualt by Germans, Italians, and Japanese.

As for the major powers not cooperating during WWII, the British sailors that died on the sea route to Murmansk would disagree. As would the British evacuated at Dunkirk, the Germans in North Africa, Stilwell, and many other examples that I am sure you can come up with.

Cooperation by and competition between major powers on the same side is not a simple concept to implement. And personally, I do not see any driving 'need' for it. When you play the Axis side in a game of WIF over the board, do you intentionally have the Germans deny resources to the Italians so it properly reflects the selfish interests of the Germans?[;)]

So, again, what are your favorite choices for Italy's first two builds? They only have 2 BP a turn really, as they need to save their oil, and even if you as Italy don't jump in the war in 1939 or face a CW that isn't doing a pre-emptive strike on you, you can only add 2, perhaps 3 units before you do enter the war in 1940. Patrice's idea of a Pilot first and then a new plane may be the best all-around flexible choice regardless of strategy.

Reading this thread gave me the great idea of building the extra LND-2 they have in their force pool, which I have never done before, although I do put a Pilot in the one in the Reserve Pool and use it heavily. Having two of those sounds fun - but now my first two build decisions are even harder. I also really like to get some Marine forces ASAP.

One comment above suggested not building the Italian MARines at all. I actually like to have all the Axis MARines, one of my favorite ways to 'defend' places like Oran is to have the option to counter-attack a succesful enemy landing, which might have suffered casualties and been nicely flipped. Japan is the more obvius application of that idea but it can work in the Med too.

Another comment above calls using TRS for supply 'embarrassing'. Actually that is a strong tactic; once you don't need TRS for lifting units into areas where you are on the offense it is far easier to defend overseas supply lines via TRS in the 2-4 box than a CP in the '0' box. (Assuming Limited Overseas Supply, I haven't played without that for so long I can't even recall what it is like without it).

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


There are several difficulties for building autonomous AIO within MWIF.

First, let me say that there is no single monolithic AI opponent in MWIF, but rather a separate AIO for each major power. And even within each major power's AIO there are 8 or more different DMs (Decision Makers). Coordination between DMs for a single AIO is tight, but even there I do not consider it monolithic because some decision making is made at the lower levels in the command structure (rather than a dictator at the top, micromanaging everything). Of particular importance are the separate FMs (Field Marshals) who exert their own influence over their battlefield commands.

But, even so, there is an explicit DM within each AIO that handles Foreign Relations (FR) = coordination with Allies. The FMs' primary goal is to cooperate and coordinate for the maximum benefit of the side, without particular regard for the impact on his own major power. That does not mean that the maximum can be achieved, given the structure I have imposed on how compromises are made between FMs. To repeat, there is no supreme decision maker in MWIF deciding what all the major powers on a side are going to do.

To get the level of conflict between major powers that you seem to want to have present in the game would require developing 'personalities' for each AIO. By that I mean a fundamental system for making the trade-offs between personal (for his own major pwoer) versus group goals (for the side). That balance is not easy to achieve, especially if the human opponent is able to get an insight into how to increase the enemy side's internal conflict and exploit any weakness.

Anyway, there are numerous restrictions built into the rules (RAW) regarding cooperation, so it is not like you are going to see American, Dutch, Free French, and New Zealanders helping defend Stalingrad from an assualt by Germans, Italians, and Japanese.

As for the major powers not cooperating during WWII, the British sailors that died on the sea route to Murmansk would disagree. As would the British evacuated at Dunkirk, the Germans in North Africa, Stilwell, and many other examples that I am sure you can come up with.

Cooperation by and competition between major powers on the same side is not a simple concept to implement. And personally, I do not see any driving 'need' for it. When you play the Axis side in a game of WIF over the board, do you intentionally have the Germans deny resources to the Italians so it properly reflects the selfish interests of the Germans?[;)]

Quite an eloquent reply.

I can imagine that its's easier to contemplate on WW2 than to write code for a WW2 strategic game. I'm not trying to talk you into some actually unreachable game design by "borg"-rhetoric. Just take AIO personalities as an idea for some future WIF products.

Beside Dunkirk, the mentioned examples for inter-allied coop (North Africa, Murmansk, Stillwell), well , might also be interpreted as examples for bad coop.

If I, as a German player, would deny ressources to Italy depends on the victory conditions. Perhaps a simple way to model the WW2 Alliance problems, as I see them, would be: Only single power victory conditions, but US and CW victory points are added and divided by 2. But that's just a thought, not WIF.

Regards

Been reading the whole of this thread with interest, it got quite lively at some points I think[:)]

Just thought I'd solicit opinions on what happens if there is an early (39 - us entry) strategy of non-cooperation between Italy and German powers ie both decide on there own plans for the game. Italy just tries for the Victory cities around the med maybe not even declaring war on the allies just trying for belgrade or athens say. Eventually the allies would DOW on Italy I assume, would the CW player do this while he's alone? (assume France Vichied, US not entered, russia preparing)

While Germany, leaving Italy to her own devices, sink or swim if you like, can concentrates on russia or the CW with out needing to divert resources.

Conversely would it be possible for the AIO for both Italy and Germany to be one. (maybe this could be an option under certain game configurations?)


ps not advocating any of this, personally I agrre with Froonp I like Italy to help out Germany as much as possible to a mutually agreed plan as a bad start to the game for the axis in general means an earlier bath for Italy.

Well, I was not thinking about total non-coop between Ger/It, just about conditional coop. Adolf and Benito had huge egos (just think of the chair scene in the Chaplin film).[:D]

Somtimes they were up to their own personal adventure (like Benitos' unsuccesful "parallel war" in the Balkans).

Sometimes they tried sort of coop, if the circumstances demanded it and if the bargain was high enough.

Regards

Well I never thought it was a good strategy the one time I tried to use Italy to take down Yugoslavia without german aid was an appaling mess. Suspect greece might be easier added advange of aligning Yugo? but history might warn you off that ploy.

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Well I never thought it was a good strategy the one time I tried to use Italy to take down Yugoslavia without german aid was an appaling mess. Suspect greece might be easier added advange of aligning Yugo? but history might warn you off that ploy.

I agree that Italy can't go it alone against Yugoslavia until 1940 at the earliest. If the Axis is going to target Yugoslavia early, the Germans need to be firmly on board with the operation. The Germans can leave an HQ, three corps, and a couple of planes after conquering Poland, or target Yugoslavia first, containing against the Poles. Yugoslavia will fall like the cardboard and paper it is, with plenty of time left to get those troops to the French line for spring.

Greece is risky if the CW or French are able to field 4 corps before you're in Athens. Yugo is easier early, but Greece will still need to be targeted eventually, even if only for Salonica. Still, if you can catch the CW napping early, a surprise invasion could pay off big. You would need to get ashore and get your attack on Athens before defensive shore bombardment, reserves and reinforcements make Greece a time consuming and costly diversion from more important objectives.