Matrix Games Forums

So it's May 23, 1941... I'm playing the Axis and Italy cannot produce any units at all because it's low on logistics at "13." What gives?! I'm giving 15 steel and 50 of oil per turn trade to Italy from Germany.
Please no two word answers. Explain why the problem and what is the solution?

It is mimicking their industrial and force pool capacity. I assume you didn't take losses with them.

I looked up "logistics" in the war plan manual and basically it's the ability of a country to field an army. Certain more sophisticated combat units have a higher logistic cost to produce and maintain, such as strategic bombers and high-value naval units.
In my game, no Italian units were "lost."
So basically you're saying that Italy's army is pretty much "built out" (various support units -- which don't have logistic cost, and the few built combat units -- an interceptor, 1-2 tac bombers, one armor unit, a few cavalry corps, a parachute corps, maybe one infantry corps, etc.,), having completed the array of Italy's army possible and therefore it's "tapped out" in spring of 1941(?!). No more. Correct?
(I wish there was some warning of this! Perhaps you can add in a yellow or red color to logistics total or flashing feature when it's getting low such as a low fuel gauge in an auto)

You can see the logistics cap on the production screen.
The solution is to play the game according to what logistics you have available for each country. So use the Italians so their production is going to repairing fighting units and not building a massive army that is not engaged in much combat.
Am not sure why you would want to send German production to Italy, when the same production points will fight better as German units.

I am considering slightly upping it just to give some flexibility to the Italians. They fielded roughly about 55% of the men the Germans did. 9m vs 17m over the war.

The player manual should be forthright in explaining that logistics number and that it is capped (permanently), as opposed to what one would expect during war as economies, production and capabilities gear up.
Though I can understand for a limitation.
As far as sending oil and steel to Axis allies, it is wise in the long run because that's where the extra manpower is. In other words, later in the war, Germany is going to run out of manpower and that will be the chief limiting factor. And, nothing wrong with a 40% experience Italian unit becoming 60% by 1943!
So you start off with small amounts of trade and then build up, say, the higher oil number for Italy needed for operations
(I have used the Italian Navy aggressively in the Mediterranean, combined with naval air with very good results!), plain and simple. Easy to ratchet back down.
This is not a historical run through, this is counterfactual, or should be. Flexibility is good.

My issue with it right now is that, for Italy to defend it's coastline against invasion with the current invasion rules, they need more logistics just to allow more garrisons of ports etc and some air units. Reality is that they cannot keep their navy at sea due to oil, so the odds of the navy being able to threaten an intercept is low (I still believe an intercept from port should be feasible BTW).

Ports stack any amount which causes a problem for interception not to mention they get to safely stay in port.

Don't defend Italy with Italian Units it's a bad idea. Do it with German ones and use Italian Ones on Anti-Partisan Duty and in backwaters... 1 German Div packs about the same punch as an Italian Small Corp anyway so, Oil management is tough. You got to pick your targets. Italian and German Navy can operate 'some'.

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

My issue with it right now is that, for Italy to defend it's coastline against invasion with the current invasion rules, they need more logistics just to allow more garrisons of ports etc and some air units. Reality is that they cannot keep their navy at sea due to oil, so the odds of the navy being able to threaten an intercept is low (I still believe an intercept from port should be feasible BTW).