Italy Conquest Bug?

[Harrybanana]

Thanks Bill. I considered invading in or around Naples, but it was strongly held while Rome was not. But had I invaded Naples and Italy surrendered without first moving the capital to Venice, would I have then gotten plunder? If not, I assume the only advantage to this is that Italy will then be liberated when Rome is captured rather than Venice, is that right?

Regardless, I think the lesson I learned here is not to invade Naples rather than Rome, but rather not to invade Italy at all. I believe I would have been further ahead to invade France in 43. But I have to play a few more games to know that for sure.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Thanks Bill. I considered invading in or around Naples, but it was strongly held while Rome was not. But had I invaded Naples and Italy surrendered without first moving the capital to Venice, would I have then gotten plunder?

If not, I assume the only advantage to this is that Italy will then be liberated when Rome is captured rather than Venice, is that right?

If taking Naples triggers Operation Axis then yes, taking Rome would liberate Italy, rather than your having to wait until you reach Venice. On the plus side, if you have to wait until you take Venice then British and US income will benefit from the Italian resources you hold.