Matrix Games Forums

I wonder if in an update it would be possible to add an option (rather like the winter option in WitE) which would make the surrender conditions for Italy much less predictable. Maybe by adding a range of conditions, ranging from Sicily to Calabria or Naples to Genoa with the conditions randomly picked by the computer and not known to either side.

All this because right now as in so many board-games before the Allied player can select targets certain in the knowledge that capture triggers or assists in triggering surrender. Which in reality the Allies never knew - hence their planned attack on Rome while also planning the Calabria and Salerno landings.

I'm beginning to agree with this. I'm not sure I would include Naples or Genoa in the surrender conditions, although I think that it should be moved north out of range of a turn 2 amphibious landing, or take away the option to re-target invasion sites and retain enough points to launch on turn two. Maybe the re-target points should be reduced so it takes another turn or two to launch it. Italy is too easy to knock out of the war, although I'm not sure how ready they were to surrender at this point. Knocking Italy out of the war also just about ensures you get Sardinia and Corsica with in a short amount of time with all the Italian units that flip on turn 2. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I think it does need a look at.

You guys able to get a turn two invasion into mainland Italy?

The surrender talks by Italy started August 16, 1943 in Lisbon. Long before any Allied troops landed in Italy proper. According to the treaty, Italy was going to surrender no matter what.

Since it took time to travel and work out all the details, the actual document was not signed until 9/3/43. Which was actually pretty fast for something like this.

So I do not think any randomness should be allowed. The only thing that would make sense is if the Allies do not invade any part of Italy. Then the surrender could be delayed to be a month after the Allies invade ANY Italian territory.

ORIGINAL: meklore61

I'm beginning to agree with this. I'm not sure I would include Naples or Genoa in the surrender conditions, although I think that it should be moved north out of range of a turn 2 amphibious landing, or take away the option to re-target invasion sites and retain enough points to launch on turn two. Maybe the re-target points should be reduced so it takes another turn or two to launch it. Italy is too easy to knock out of the war, although I'm not sure how ready they were to surrender at this point. Knocking Italy out of the war also just about ensures you get Sardinia and Corsica with in a short amount of time with all the Italian units that flip on turn 2. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I think it does need a look at.

This is the WITW Lvov Pocket

As far as the generals were concerned the talks in Lisbon were purely speculative (in general all 'talks in Lisbon' throughout the war were dismissed as noise as secrecy there was impossible to contain). Obviously the Allied high command knew that Italian morale was weak, but the memory of 1917 remained, a time when the entire Italian army went from despair to devoted resistance just with the appointment of a new commander in chief. And the Allies also knew that ideas were being floated to create a government of national unity with or without Mussolini but with a new military leadership under the direction of the king. So my argument is not that Italy would not surrender, rather that Eisenhower and Alexander did not know, and could hardly even guess, which military actions they ordered would cause an Italian surrender.

And in reality the regal power was in Rome and the north where most of the ministers, the senior generals and influential industrialists came from (the old Kingdom of Sardinia of course) and many of these had no interest in Sicily, Calabria or even Naples and might well have ignored their loss. What they did care about was the Allies getting close enough to establish bases from which sustained attacks could be launched against the areas that mattered.

Incidentally the Italians in the end did not surrender because the Allies occupied bits of Italy or because an invasion of the mainland was imminent. The King and his cabinet ordered the Allies to be contacted because they thought, rightly, that the Germans were moving to formally occupy Italy and depose its government and military. And how that could be factored into a game baffles me!

Well, you can't exactly simulate what happened historically in the game. But from a game design perspective, too much certainty in an event means this event can be abused.

More randomness in the trigger and the conditions may help. It forces the player to keep in mind that more than one outcome is possible. It may also give a more historically accurate scenario : more randomness means you can imagine any plausible real life event happening to explain what happens in the game, instead of knowing "this happens because this unit is there..."

Agree with all comments here. I would suggest a house rule for PBEM games of no landings allowed in Italy until Sicily is in allied hands, otherwise Italy will be out of the war on turn two of any game guaranteed.

Jim

Hindsight is not a good thing for any strategic game of this kind.
So, I would prefer an amount of uncertainty here, too.
A fixed and hardcoded date makes things to predictable and removes immersion IMHO.

agreed, lets see some randomness, even a small chance Italy will fight to the end

+1

Perhaps Sicily should be a must have before the invasion of the mainland of Italy can trigger a surrender.

To bypass Sicily would have been very hazardous for the allies - this way the game can show the cautious planned allied invasion of Sicily and/or Italy.

I have had several games (including my current one) where the Italians did not surrender upon invasion of the mainland. The extreme case had the Italians still fighting until Rome fell in January 1944.

There are chances that the Italians will not surrender, but historically I think the game gets it about right.

I like randomness because it suprises you, sometimes in a good way, sometimes, in not such a good way. But, it always makes things interesting.