Italian Surrender

[Leadwieght]

Everyone has their own preferences, of course. For myself, I don't require a 50/50 game balance, nor was I advocating for it. But if the Axis is virtually certain to lose, then it's not going to a terribly interesting game to me to play as the Axis against another person, though it might still be entertaining to try to frustrate the Allied AI as long as possible.

For person-to-person games, if the balance is really tipped heavily towards the Allies, I suppose one could always do mirror-matches and see which player wins faster or more convincingly as the Allies, but that requires more time than some of us have.

[Ancient One]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

In real life, Italy flipped entirely, but was also rapidly occupied by the Germans, who anticipated their defection.

The problem is that the Germans can't do that in the game as easily as they did in history. It's not reasonable to have ~30 locations in Italy and Albania occupied by German units when Italy surrenders.

[Leadwieght]

"The problem is that the Germans can't do that in the game as easily as they did in history. It's not reasonable to have ~30 locations in Italy and Albania occupied by German units when Italy surrenders."

Agreed, Zagys. That's why I suggested for the MP version that we have an autoscript with a modest deployment of German garrisons at a few key cities, still leaving the basic choice of where and how strongly to defend the peninsula to the Axis player.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that, when playing against the AI, the German units one sees in Central Italy after Italian surrender are the result of a script, and were not actually moved there ahead of time by the AI

[Flaviusx]

I don't object to putting in a few units to flip over terrain in northern Italy, especially since I first suggested it myself.

What I do object to is this talk about "balance." It has no place in a historical wargame. I don't want balance. I want historicity. And historicity is very unbalanced, happily so in this case, since I don't believe in giving Nazis a fair shake.

[sPzAbt653]

This is a larger issue than Italy, as oddities happen all over the map when countries surrender. SC3 has a great mechanic for dealing with Hex Ownership Changes, I think that Hubert must have taken the time to code in a layer of sweet jam. You will notice that hexes will change ownership based on what I am guessing is local unit superiority. This is a great feature and I have yet to come across any instance where this doesn't work well. However, this check seems to happen PRIOR to Surrenders, and that is an issue in most circumstances.
It would not be necessary to change the balance or add unit scripts or anything else, IF it is at all possible to do the Hex Ownership Check AFTER countries surrender.

Edit: The part in red is wrong, apologies to H&B and to anyone else that might have read this. I analyze this a little better in post #28 below.

[battlevonwar]

If Italy was brought into the War by French, British Aggression or threat perhaps her instincts should be different. For instance a gamy move to force her to surrender just so the Allies can delete a big Navy and bunch of Game Pieces?

With the terrain the way it is the Axis will garrison the heck out of Sicily and Italy(I do in all my Strategic War Games where Italy is hard coded to fold) cause making her fold takes a bit.(one German General was quoted was you should have started from the top down rather the bottom up to the Western Allies or something to the effect)

Italy fought hard in WW1 but like the French I think had a similar emptiness about the loss of life for nothing.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

In real life, Italy flipped entirely, but was also rapidly occupied by the Germans, who anticipated their defection.

If your Germans are having problems dealing with this, that's an entirely different issue than Italian surrender per se.

In may games, Germany generally has already flooded Italy with units and can respond to the flip, although it has a tendency of not dealing quickly with Northern Italy.

It certainly puts up a strong line of units (including engineers building fortifications) directly north of the Allied forces, and makes things quite a slog. Landings in Sicily should trigger a strong German reaction (including pulling units from the Eastern Front.) It's not ignoring the Med. I would tweak this script a bit to place some garrisons/corps in Northern Italy to make sure the entire country can be dealt with when it flips, but otherwise, there is no problem here.

Italy itself should surrender rather easily and if this is a response to the gamey exploit of suiciding the French fleet against the Regia Marina, it is the wrong one. The right one? For starters, weaken the French navy. And make the Adriatic an exclusion zone prior to Italian entry, so as to make prepositioning more difficult. Or, perhaps, lower NM morale worth of the Italian navy.

In actual real life Italy surrendered with much of its navy intact, which promptly sailed into Allied hands. (You could say it flipped.) So I don't buy this notion that sinking the Regia Marina should have such an impact on Italian surrender one way or the other. Italy threw in the towel for good solid, sensible reasons and was never going to go down in flames to the bitter end in German fashion.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't object to putting in a few units to flip over terrain in northern Italy, especially since I first suggested it myself.

What I do object to is this talk about "balance." It has no place in a historical wargame. I don't want balance. I want historicity. And historicity is very unbalanced, happily so in this case, since I don't believe in giving Nazis a fair shake.

Well, there are a number of conventions and events to bolster the Allies in the game in the name of "balance", because using historical or conventional numbers and rubric were creating too many effective winning stratagems for the Axis. The British and Russian "surrender" rules are among them. Do you object to that? Or do you only object to "balancing" which works against the historical losers?

Personally, I want historicity in all respects, and reasonable, standard assumptions for nations across the board when the events of reality cannot be identified.

[sPzAbt653]

I just closely watched an Italian surrender, and what I said in post 25 above is wrong. Here is a screen shot of what we are all familiar with [I am the Allies, computer running the Axis]. At the end of my turn Italy surrendered, all Italian units were removed. Hex Ownership then happened and now that I watched it closely, I can see that it worked as designed and in proper order. The screen shot is from the beginning of my next turn. The reason Italy didn't go back to Germany/Axis is because all the town/cities were transferred to the Allies, and they don't change ownership unless physically occupied. So all the town/cities would have to be somehow Axis occupied to avoid this situation. Or, is it reasonable to Transfer Italy to Germany when Italy surrenders ? Or would that create more nightmares ?

[CapitaineHaddock]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't object to putting in a few units to flip over terrain in northern Italy, especially since I first suggested it myself.

What I do object to is this talk about "balance." It has no place in a historical wargame. I don't want balance. I want historicity. And historicity is very unbalanced, happily so in this case, since I don't believe in giving Nazis a fair shake.

This discussion has been ongoing ever since the inception of the series. I am sorry to say that I couldn't disagree more.
Historicity is best sought after in books. What we can all agree on is that we want a degree of credibility, not historicity.
If we have historicity, the axis loose every time.
This game series has a large and loyal following of competitive P2P-fans.
The moment the game becomes too heavily tipped in favor of one side, they will shelve it- and so will those of us who are not really interested in AI-play.
For my part, I will simply play the AI to learn the game mechanics, then I very quickly loose interest.
The good thing is that everyone is free to tweak the game. Perhaps one day even create their own scripts for units etc.
But the Vanilla 39' scenario without tweaking is the reference point and should stay competitive.

[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.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Or, is it reasonable to Transfer Italy to Germany when Italy surrenders ? Or would that create more nightmares ?

The trouble with Italy is that when it surrenders, the exact frontline will vary from game to game, and having territories transfer either to a new country (e.g. the Salo Republic) or Germany would have to depend on these frontlines.

It's a scripting nightmare, particularly as we would have no way to prevent other scripts from firing at different times, e.g. if Bologna is transferred to Axis control when Italy surrenders, and the Axis advance and liberate Milan, then another set of scripts would fire.

This could carry on ad nauseam, and Rome would also have to transfer to become part of Germany if it is to remain in Axis hands when Italy surrenders, preventing Italy's potential liberation, and the whole thing would fiercely detract from the playing experience.

I have spent many hours wracking my brain trying to come up with a workable situation, but so far I have not worked out a robust solution that would feel right and also lack unwanted side-effects. My mind still returns to this every now and again, but the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders so that they can seize local control when it does surrender.


PS I am carefully watching the whole discussion over Italy and we'll see how the new National Morale settings work after more experience.

What will be handy is knowing what Italy's NM level is in your games when the Allies capture Sicily and have a foothold (north or south) on the mainland. Along with knowing of any other factors that could be considered important, if applicable.

Through comparing results it will help to assess the change, and whether any further changes are needed.


Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943. For instance, if the Axis were winning against the Red Army and had victory in sight in the east, with Italy knowing that massive German assistance would be available in the event of an invasion, could we have expected Mussolini to have been overthrown so soon?

I'm in two minds about the answer, because even if the Axis were winning in the east, allowing one's country to be invaded by sea hardly reflects being in a position of strength. It also feels to me that any intelligent observer could have seen that by the summer of 1943 the Axis were not going to win the war, so looking for a way out would not be a silly thing to do. But even so, losing in the east cannot have boosted Italian faith in victory.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
I have spent many hours wracking my brain trying to come up with a workable situation, but so far I have not worked out a robust solution that would feel right and also lack unwanted side-effects. My mind still returns to this every now and again, but the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders so that they can seize local control when it does surrender.

Feasible to the Human player, harder to pull for the AI. Maybe have the AI get free garrison unit in all non-allied occupied Italian cities before the surrender kicks in. It will give the AI an opportunity to operate stuff in the theater.

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943. For instance, if the Axis were winning against the Red Army and had victory in sight in the east, with Italy knowing that massive German assistance would be available in the event of an invasion, could we have expected Mussolini have been overthrown so soon?

This could be done by having a requirement tied to the national morale of Germany. You could have something like if Germany national morale dips under a certain threshold, Italy morale takes a dip.

Either that or have a combined 'Axis' and 'Allies' national moral that kind of reflect how the war is going on a macrolevel. Italian surrender can start happening after dipping under '70%' or something.

[DeriKuk]

Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943.

As KorutZelva points out, the loss of a captured objective - Stalingrad in the example - should affect the morale of both sides.

It does not have to be the same, predictable objectives. Instead, the Axis player may have to specify a pivotal objective in the USSR with the declaration of war (Barbarossa). The morale implications of that objective is then multiplied when its ownership changes. The objective specification expires at the end of March every year, and has to be re-directed by the Axis player at that point ... in the USSR if there still is some vital Axis presence; or anywhere on the map is there is no longer a vital Axis presence in the USSR.

... oh, I forgot; this about Italian surrender. [:D]

I also forgot: The Allied player should not know what that objective is. It is Fuehrer privilege.

[sPzAbt653]

preventing Italy's potential liberation

In my mind, I am thinking this is unnecessary, as Italy would not have surrendered, and then rejoined Germany if the Germans had occupied Rome. Historically the Germans did occupy Rome, and it was a bit messy as some Italians continued to fight for the Axis, some switched sides, and the rest went home. But I have been thinking of making Italy similar to Poland, in that the territory would transfer to Germany and that way avoid the liberation process. This is what I think happened historically [Italy surrendered and Germany occupied them].

[sPzAbt653]

the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders

This is absolutely true and fine for a human Axis player, but the computer doesn't execute it well. As can be seen in the post 28 screen shot, the only thing he garrisons with Germans is the Casino Line. As most games are played solo [and all of mine], I would rather see the situation focus on the solo aspect [:D]

[sPzAbt653]

What will be handy is knowing what Italy's NM level is in your games

I said earlier that I thought it was fine as it was, so much so that I did not incorporate the latest NM change into v653H. However, it might of relevance that in some of my Allied games against the computer Axis that these were played after I had played the German side until 1944, then switched sides. In these cases, the German NM has reached around 160, the Italian around 130, while the UK is around 30 and the USSR around 60. Playing the Allies at this point is a real handicap and challenge to get a win [and it's fun]. However I have noticed that the retaking of NM Objectives has little or no effect, while positive NM values seem to go up 1 each turn and negative go down 1 each turn. This may be due to other factors, but it makes wonder if it is coded to do that.
Anyway, in the example of my latest game of switching sides after Germany does quite well against the computer, the Italians were at about 130 NM and playing as the Allies I had to take back all of Africa, get Sicily, and then advance up the boot to Naples before the Italians surrendered. A little longer than I would expect, but not a game killer. Meanwhile, the UK NM continued to go down each turn, with minor positive increases due to enemy units destroyed. Sealion had been successful but after switching sides I had retaken England, and even recapturing London did not add to the UK NM total. I have decided to look at the NM scripts soon to see if I should or could do something about this, but I think it is obviously a limited situation as I don't recall anyone else saying that they play this way [switching sides].

[sPzAbt653]

what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender

Well, [opinion warning] from a war motivation perspective I don't think Italy was much interested in Russia. Mussolini attacked France because he wanted a place at the surrender table. Italy [and many others] expected Britain to accept terms. Once it was obvious to Italy and Germany's other Minor Allies that Germany would not win, they all were looking for ways out. However, they all also feared Germany [except for Finland] and had to be very careful of a brutal occupation. In Italy's case they wanted the Allies in a strong position on the mainland in order to counter the German occupation forces and guarantee Italy's safety. I'm not giving a history lesson as I know you don't need it, I'm just outlining my main thoughts on how to deal with Minor Surrenders, which is 'once the Germans don't win, the Minors will fold at the first safe opportunity'. Building this into a game is quite difficult, but I intend to work on an outline and post it in the 653H thread for everyone to critique [when I ever get the time [:)] ].

[battlevonwar]

Italians were doing nightmarish on all fronts, Egypt+Russia+Med Navy+Greece... Everything had been bad for them. I watched a psychological profile on Mussolini and they debated things like this. Italy joined the War cause he saw that an Axis Victory(Grab a hold of the German coat tails) was inevitable and though unready for war he thought he could get some cheap and easy gains all around the place. Of course that was one theory! There were fierce debates pre-WW2 between Italy and France/UK that actually pushed Italy away from them, like Ethiopia and what happened with Austria made Italy jump deeper in bed with Germany.

Why they surrendered so quickly goes into the internal culture, politics and inevitably what what was coming. In CEAW you get a auto-surrender with select cities. Libya, Sardinia, Sicily and I do not even remember if Naples is required. It made Sicily packed with endless units and Southern Italy. Plus any other region almost unreachable. Though here Italy is much larger. To reflect history she shouldn't be too tough but neither should giving her up be well, a forgone conclusion. Some randomness in it would be nice, I think? Or if we go rigid history will it be a typical Allied to Strategy to Blitz the Toe to get an auto surrender much like CEAW?

P.S. In all this does anyone figure the possibility of Op Valkyrie actually working? sorry but nobody ever brings that up even if Germany is winning what kind of situation figures in there to all these history lovers?

[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.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: 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.

You seem to have a very political view of WWII. If you are missing the opportunities the Axis had early on had they been more "prescient" then I can only believe you're too blinded by ideological beliefs to examine things objectively. This wasn't a deterministic conflict; there were a lot of variables. In a wargame, with the benefit of hindsight, there are a lot of strategies for the Axis that could've yielded a much stronger position. For example, consider the German switch from airfield bombing to terror bombing in the Battle of Britain. That was fatal when truth be known they had the RAF on the ropes from the former.

I seem to recall that you make similar arguments in the War in the East folder as well, insisting there was no way the Germans could've won, and any avenue that allows it should be foreclosed (my own recollection and impression). That's a very odd viewpoint to my way of thinking. Which is not to say that ultimately the Allies hadn't developed and accrued many advantages. But Germany was ascendant through about 1942 I'd say. Allies probably favored 70-30, but that 30 still persists.