Italians: First impressions

[Erwin]

The Italians are fun in the same way as the other minor Axis nations (Rumania, Hungary, Finland... Bulgarians?) were in CMBB. And of course how the Brits and NATO nations had to be handled differently in CMSF. Finding out what they are good at (and not good at) is the challenge. Good stuff.

[John Kettler]

gunnergoz,

Is the "unarmored scout car" a Sahariana http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-AS42-1.JPG or something else?

Amedeo,

You ascend to the heights of grogdom!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

BFC,

I think, armed with the actual manual, that Amedeo has made an ironclad case for modifying the Italian infantry squad as currently configured in CMFI. Having read the translated manual and looked at the diagrams therein, it is abundantly clear that the squad was considerably more flexible, in organization and employment, than we previously thought.

Amedeo,

Have sent the English translation link to some friends who still play AH's card wargame "Up Front." I imagine they'll be thrilled to have this remarkable info.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Frankster65]

The Italians are fun in the same way as the other minor Axis nations (Rumania, Hungary, Finland... Bulgarians?) were in CMBB. And of course how the Brits and NATO nations had to be handled differently in CMSF. Finding out what they are good at (and not good at) is the challenge. Good stuff.

I heartily agree. I remember the first mission I ever played as Italians in CMBB. Can't remember the name but I remember every other detail. It was from that mission I started aquiring books and such about the Italian experiencein Russia. Started same process with Hungarians and Romanians. This game is a learning center of activity.

[ridethe415]

Just finished the first scenario of A Fleeting Moment as the Italians. Superb scenario, right down to the minute. Really enjoying this.

Climbing those hills takes a lot out of the troops.

[slysniper]

I started another thread on this, but this is my first impressions as to playing the Italians, I think that it is not a good way of depicting them because of game mechanics.

What is the logic in not letting Italian squads split.

I can see it as to poor training maybe. but it is not working well in the game.

The units are so big, they are not working well with your action spots.

Examples. Assault is only allowed to one action square, 12 men in one square is not very good tactics

basically, ties the italians hands as to no scouting units. scoting with a squad is not very stealty.

To keep my men spread out, I need them to move to a 2 or 3 action spot location. problem is, since the game selects them spots, many times only 1 of the 3 action spots will have troops with the line of sight I need.

when inside bldgs, since I cannot split the squad and spread them out on floor levels, the old problem of too many men at one window is showing up.

So what is the logic again, because they are already at a great disadvantage without you doing that to them. With their large squad size, they should at least be able to split into 2 units or something.

I am just glad I am not italian or I would consider it a insult as to how they allow them to play.

[JonS]

Do you think the Italians used 2012 US doctrine while wearing funny hats?

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Only the Bersaglieri!

Regards,

John Kettler

[eltorrente]

I just began a PBEM with CMFI. We're playing one of the scenarios, called "Avanti".

I don't know what to expect, and I'm playing as the Italians. Looks good so far, and I'm curious what I'm going to run into as I head off on the attack.

The thing that struck me in the first turn, is that the Italian voices sound like they are recorded in a hallway, or a bathroom or something. Really poor recording quality, and certainly not immersive. Very surprised they sound so bad. I'll be looking forward to a sound mod that hopefully fixes this.

[phil stanbridge]

I remember these scenarios

The best way I found was to wait for Ze Germans to appear.

But seriously, if you group those Brixia's together you have rather a lot of ammunition at your disposal. Them along with the HMG's in support and you pack nasty little punch.

[Battlefront.com]

What is the logic in not letting Italian squads split.

Because they did not have tactical flexibility in real life, which mean they also had the negatives that came with it. If you want to realistically feel what it was like to command Italians this is important. To do otherwise would be all wrong.

I can see it as to poor training maybe.

No, it's poor doctrine. Big difference. Doctrine was more-or-less based on WW1, including almost no junior leadership. If you have no sub-leaders within the Platoon, who do you think would lead all these guys off in different directions? Privates?

but it is not working well in the game.

I promise you it didn't work well for the Italians in real life, so be thankful you're just experiencing this virtually

The units are so big, they are not working well with your action spots.

They are no bigger than any other Squad.

Examples. Assault is only allowed to one action square, 12 men in one square is not very good tactics

There is a 7 Soldier max (unless something goes wrong) per Action Spot, not 12. The largest Italian Rifle Team is 5 men from what I see. Which means there are a max of 5 men in one square, not the 7 possible and certainly not 12 which is impossible.

basically, ties the italians hands as to no scouting units. scoting with a squad is not very stealty.

Agreed that it would be nice to section off fewer men, though I'm not sure if that is realistic or not.

To keep my men spread out, I need them to move to a 2 or 3 action spot location. problem is, since the game selects them spots, many times only 1 of the 3 action spots will have troops with the line of sight I need.

I almost never split my Squads in CM, ever, and I do just fine with that. So I'd recommend trying things like using the Face Command.

when inside bldgs, since I cannot split the squad and spread them out on floor levels, the old problem of too many men at one window is showing up.

This is one place where it would be nice if the game could automatically spread you out more without allowing you to Split.

So what is the logic again, because they are already at a great disadvantage without you doing that to them. With their large squad size, they should at least be able to split into 2 units or something.

Please state a realistic reason for your position, not gameplay desire.

I am just glad I am not italian or I would consider it a insult as to how they allow them to play.

We don't think an accurate portrayal is an insult to anybody. Perverting reality to conform to ungrounded player expectations would be.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Assault is only allowed to one action square

I think that's a common thing. I even recall robust-squad Marines doing it like that in CMSF. 'Assault' has teams (even unsplittable Italian teams) leapfrogging eachother acrosss the map with the hope that they'll all arrive at the one objective ready to fight, not spread out.

[Fernando]

You don't need to split Italian squads because they are already split. What you see are HALF squads, NOT squads. Remember Italian squads were about 20-men strong while US squads were about 12-man strong and German ones usually about 10/9-men strong. In game you don't get a 20-men squad, but two 9-men half squads (a rifle and a MG one) and a 2-men squad HQ.

Italian doctrine said that the Rifle HALF squad was the assault element of the squad, led by the squad second-in-command, while the MG half squad was the support element, led by the squad leader who directed the fire of the MGs.

Sometimes, SOMETIMES, the MG half squad could break in two MG teams in order to provide fire support on each Rifle/Assault half squad flank, but that was rare because the squad leader couldn't direct the MG fire as intended. If the MG half squad had to assault then one MG moved at a time while the other one provide fire support. It is covered in the Assault command.

The big problem is that no scout teams can be created but that's all.

Please remember that IMHO German squads, the size of an Italian HALF squad, shouldn't be allowed to break up. Doctrine stressed that German squads fought as a unity, the MG moving and assaulting at the same time as the riflemen. If someone had to scout ahead of the squad it was the squad LEADER who did it, the second-in command taking care of the squad while the squad leader was out.

In short, perhaps we shouldn't ask for more flexibility but for less one.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

I have just played "Beyond the Belice", at elite level, real-time playing Italian against the AI. I suffered a tactical defeat.

My first impressions of the Itis: Infantry - no effective LMG and only those ghastly Mannlicher Carcarno things = not nearly enough firepower. Breda HMGs seemed to work ok. The Brixia seemed much more promising if I could only manage to deploy either it, or my FOO within yelling distance of each other and in sight of the enemy without getting their heads blown off which in this instance was easier said than done. Scout cars were pretty much useless. Use them at anything closer than long range and you lose them as I found to my cost. The tankettes had a very successful first outing and ate the US half-tracks for breakfast.

As a general comment, hardly any radios = big command and control problems. This is a challenge to which I will have to rise.

Fun, fun fun!

SLR

[Fernando]

I have seen a lone Italian sergeant (HQ unit) inside a building kill with his Beretta M38 SMG 8 or 9 US Paratroopers from two squads that were in the open, trying to storm the building and scaring away the remaining survivors. The poor lads chose the same door the Italian was defending.

Italian long range rifle fire seems to be as effective as any other nationalit. ,MG half squads with two MG's seems to be good enough for the task. However at short range a US squad can chew an Italian Rifle half squad up quite easily. Brixias grenades are quite small but lots of ammo can be carried (a soldier could carry on the back a 15-Kg, 30-round case) and are more accurate than a regular mortar.

[womble]

Please remember that IMHO German squads, the size of an Italian HALF squad, shouldn't be allowed to break up. Doctrine stressed that German squads fought as a unity, the MG moving and assaulting at the same time as the riflemen. If someone had to scout ahead of the squad it was the squad LEADER who did it, the second-in command taking care of the squad while the squad leader was out.

In short, perhaps we shouldn't ask for more flexibility but for less one.

There's a massive difference between doctrinal "squads fight as a unit" and a game mechanic imposed "no member of a squad can be more than 16m from any other squad member". Perhaps doctrine as you express it should prevent the German squad splitting into Assault and "the rest including the MG(s)" teams, since the MGs are supposed to move along with the rifles, but didn't doctrine also stress local adaptability? Did doctrine really say that the MGs have to stay within 8m of the rifles in their assigned fire team on every movement bound?

I will freely admit to treating a Platoon as 6-9 teams rather than 3 squads, but that's down to the choresome nature of attempting to keep fire teams grouped with the other teams of their squad. Another artefact of the game's mechanics/UI.

[Fernando]

There's a massive difference between doctrinal "squads fight as a unit" and a game mechanic imposed "no member of a squad can be more than 16m from any other squad member". Perhaps doctrine as you express it should prevent the German squad splitting into Assault and "the rest including the MG(s)" teams, since the MGs are supposed to move along with the rifles, but didn't doctrine also stress local adaptability? Did doctrine really say that the MGs have to stay within 8m of the rifles in their assigned fire team on every movement bound?

It was stressed that the German squad was a unit who moved TOGETHER. Splitting it in support and assault half squads was more than discouraged. Obviously Germans were kings of flexibility and initiative in military tactics and there may be lots of very different situations (i.e. urban, desert, steppe or bocage warfare), but splitting squads was not the way they were TRAINED to work according to German doctrine.

The WEAPON of the squads was the MG so the whole squad worked for it. Going a bit too far we might say that the rest of the squad were just ammo carriers for the MG team (2 or 3-men crew, depending on date, and squad leader directing them). In defence German riflemen were taught to held fire while the MG was doign the work directed by the squad leader (50 rounds to that group of men 400 m away next to the big tree!!!). The rest of the squad had to keep their heads down hidden from enemy until enemy infantry was really close. Only if accuracy rather than volume of fire was needed, one or more rifles would be ordered to fire at mid and long range.

In the final assault of an enemy position, just after throwing the grenades, German MG's weren't trained to support riflemen assault but to run Rambo-like, firing on the move (left hand grasping the bipod and the MG sling around the neck) trying to supress enemy infantry during the last meters.

IIRC US squads were trained to split into assault, support and scout teams if needed, its large size helping it, but it doesn't mean other nationalities were trained to do the same.

[Amedeo]

Have sent the English translation link to some friends who still play AH's card wargame "Up Front." I imagine they'll be thrilled to have this remarkable info.

John, I've never played "Up front!", I didn't even know it depicted also Italian troops. I was considering to buy that game, back in the '80s, but I was more than content with the SL series.

Do you think the Italians used 2012 US doctrine while wearing funny hats?

The Italians were, definitely, not up to date (euphemism!) in small units tactics during WW2, but what has this to do with the Bersaglieri feathers' drops? They still wear them today in Afghanistan (yesterday a patrol was ambushed after an IED attack and got involved into a firefight... I guess they didn't use WW1 tactics, despite the feathers on their helmets!

Please state a realistic reason for your position, not gameplay desire.

What about allowing only the LMG group to split? (see the link to the manual in my previous post)

Regards to all,

Amedeo

[slysniper]

Because they did not have tactical flexibility in real life, which mean they also had the negatives that came with it. If you want to realistically feel what it was like to command Italians this is important. To do otherwise would be all wrong.

No, it's poor doctrine. Big difference. Doctrine was more-or-less based on WW1, including almost no junior leadership. If you have no sub-leaders within the Platoon, who do you think would lead all these guys off in different directions? Privates?

I promise you it didn't work well for the Italians in real life, so be thankful you're just experiencing this virtually

They are no bigger than any other Squad.

There is a 7 Soldier max (unless something goes wrong) per Action Spot, not 12. The largest Italian Rifle Team is 5 men from what I see. Which means there are a max of 5 men in one square, not the 7 possible and certainly not 12 which is impossible.

Agreed that it would be nice to section off fewer men, though I'm not sure if that is realistic or not.

I almost never split my Squads in CM, ever, and I do just fine with that. So I'd recommend trying things like using the Face Command.

This is one place where it would be nice if the game could automatically spread you out more without allowing you to Split.

Please state a realistic reason for your position, not gameplay desire.

We don't think an accurate portrayal is an insult to anybody. Perverting reality to conform to ungrounded player expectations would be.

Steve

Thanks for the reply. Not that I disagree with you. Having limits is fine. But even adding a few adjustments could make a big difference.

I like your thought about squads spreading out in a building without us having to give them commands. But it could also lead to problems, maybe I know the enemy is on the second floor, so I dont want guys moving to go up there until I order them to. never easy answers. I did make two suggestions on the other thread as to what might be realistic changes.

As for my squad clumping into one action spot. maybe it was only seven. but I cannot verify it. I ordered a unit to the outside of a building side wall and I watched in amazement as the whole unit went to that one action spot and laid down along the wall on top of each other. As for the game never leaving more than 7 in a action spot, I know you understand your game better than I. But I also know I have seen all the men rush to one action square, then watch part break off and move to their square and spread out. Now if by chance, something like incomming fire happens at that moment, I think I have seen men get pinned and have more than 7 in one area for a short period until they crawl when able to a second action spot. But again unless i have proof shown here, it never happens, I know.

[slysniper]

As for the game and feel, last night was my first attempt with the italions and I liked the challenge. manage to win the scenario "avanti". really did not mind the squads having to stay together, since they have no firepower.

So it was a good feel to the challenge of a nation that was not to the same level of warfare as other nations at the time.

But it was a good thing I had plenty of infantry, because it was hard to get their firepower to bear on targets, so without have the numbers in my favor, the battle would have been hard to win otherwise.

The weapon firepower always reflect well to the real thing, so I love having a new nation to play with. with mostly it challenges as to how to get some good out of their weaker stuff,

I do hope some adjustments can be done to working with the squads, still seems too restrictive to me. Restictions are in order, it comes down to what extent is realistic.

[joeroma]

I do not understand why it continues to define, the hat, the Bersaglieri "funny"!

the bersaglieri were and still are, a specialty of the Italian infantry, as are the Alpini and have a great reputation.

the fact that the feathers are represented in the game, just makes the game more realistic.

[Battlefront.com]

... but didn't doctrine also stress local adaptability? Did doctrine really say that the MGs have to stay within 8m of the rifles in their assigned fire team on every movement bound?

Of course real life is infinitely more flexible than an artificial game experience. But here's the problem. In real life there were very, very practical reasons why there wasn't a lot of local adaptability for the Italians almost all the time in almost all situations. These reasons are completely overridden by things such as the player knowing way too much, the player not risking his life, the player's motivation to win vs. the soldier's motivation to survive, there being no enforceable penalties to make sub-Squad C2 penalties keep players from abusing things, etc.

The latter is the big one. Sure, if you have a battalion there's probably one or two situations where, in real life, there would be a significant deviation from doctrine from a game mechanic's standpoint. But if we allow the player to do that sort of exception, we open up the possibility of the player doing as routine. And there goes even any remotely defensible realism out the window.

Because realism is important, we (game designers) must protect you guys from yourselves. It's a well known fact that give you guys an unrealistic method of control that gives perceived advantages and you will use it. Routinely.

We do not take this responsibility lightly.

We had a big debate within the Beta group about the organization of the German squads. Originally they were set up as 2x Teams instead of 3x Teams. The consensus was that this bent the realism line a little bit the wrong way. That the Germans would have, and could have, a lot more flexibility than the 2x Team game system allows for. Players definitely abuse it, however we feel that the small number of men per Team makes significant abuses unwise. And therefore we're comfortable that there is a natural check and balance to at least offer a realistic chance of punishment for excessive flexibility.

I will freely admit to treating a Platoon as 6-9 teams rather than 3 squads, but that's down to the choresome nature of attempting to keep fire teams grouped with the other teams of their squad. Another artefact of the game's mechanics/UI.

There's really no viable alternative. Since the early days of wargaming players have said this:

"I want infinite flexibility to micromanage every little facet however and wherever I see fit, but I want it to be as simple to play as chess"

Games that try too hard to cater to this fail miserably because they are too difficult, too cumbersome to play.

I must cite one of my two favorite cartoon episodes. It's the Simpson's episode where Homer designs a car to be the "every man's car". He designs things based on whim. In the end he looks at the car, says it sucks, and walks away from it. The car company then goes out of business.

We must protect you guys from yourselves when it comes to control. For the sake of everybody, including the children

I like your thought about squads spreading out in a building without us having to give them commands. But it could also lead to problems, maybe I know the enemy is on the second floor, so I dont want guys moving to go up there until I order them to. never easy answers.

Which is why we don't do it One thing players hate more than having a lack of ability to do something is having the lack of control over something. Having the TacAI know when it is wise to spread out within a building and when it isn't is a fool's errand. There is no way to anticipate the player's desires. Having a special Command to spread out may be viable, it may be too problematic in it's own right.

I did make two suggestions on the other thread as to what might be realistic changes.

The first suggestion (trying to have common LOS to stuff) is actually in there already. The problem is that anything automatic is going to run into problems with doing something automatically in the wrong situation. We've played around with this aspect a lot since 2006 and it's gotten a lot better. Might be time to look into further tweaks again.

The second suggestion of allowing units to spread out only if they stay with LOS sounds simple on paper, but computationally it is extremely difficult to pull off. First there is the performance hit from all the LOS checks between Teams. That would likely kill the idea right there because LOS checks are extremely expensive from a CPU standpoint. Suddenly doubling the infantry based LOS checks would likely not be viable (I can almost promise it wouldn't be). And even if it weren't a problem, then we would have to write some pretty spiffy TacAI to keep the units together under a variety of tactical circumstances. That doable, but again it comes at a cost and would open the floodgate to a host of problems that would probably take years to tweak out.

As for my squad clumping into one action spot. maybe it was only seven.

It was 5 and I can verify that because that's the largest sized Team and the max Team size is 7. Since the system will not allow more than 1 Team per Action Spot, except for unusual emergency situations, I can assure you there almost certainly wasn't 12 men stuck in one Action Spot.

But I also know I have seen all the men rush to one action square, then watch part break off and move to their square and spread out. Now if by chance, something like incomming fire happens at that moment, I think I have seen men get pinned and have more than 7 in one area for a short period until they crawl when able to a second action spot. But again unless i have proof shown here, it never happens, I know.

Yup, that's definitely possible as an exceptional behavior. But you'd probably see that within the Action Spot there probably still ins't nearly as many guys as you perceive. Partly because the 2nd Team moving through the 1st Team's position is itself spread out. 9 or 10 men in a single Action Spot for a few seconds a few times? Sure, but hey... in real life this sort of stuff happens, so I see no problem with it happening within the game. Sub-optimal circumstances is a pretty normal feature of war.

Steve

[ZPB II]

Steve, how about the suggestion of being able to paint a movement order over 2-3 adjacent action spots, spreading the squad on these? Lowers micromanagement and makes it a bit easier to play with the Italians.

[Sergei]

I do not understand why it continues to define, the hat, the Bersaglieri "funny"!

the bersaglieri were and still are, a specialty of the Italian infantry, as are the Alpini and have a great reputation.

the fact that the feathers are represented in the game, just makes the game more realistic.

As a matter of fact, in order to earn the right to wear the feathers a Bersaglieri must stalk a wild capercaillie and then pluck its tail feathers while it viciously fights back. The bigger your plume, the higher your rank will be in the Bersaglieri.

This is also why so many Bersaglieri are scarfaced and wear a glass eye or two.

No one's really disputing the achievements of the Bersaglieri. But it's just the same kind of thing as digital camo uniforms. While the soldiers wearing them must be brave lads and all, one can't help but think that their pixels would blend better in Super Mario Bros or Duck Hunt.

[stikkypixie]

Steve, how about the suggestion of being able to paint a movement order over 2-3 adjacent action spots, spreading the squad on these? Lowers micromanagement and makes it a bit easier to play with the Italians.

Can you do this already with the face command or is that too cumbersome?