Italians: First impressions

[ZPB II]

I use the Face command after pretty much every end of movement order, but it doesn't have that exact degree of finesse. Sometimes you have to plot a new movement order to get them to go somewhat into the positions you wish. And even Face command doesn't help when you're in a certain kind of tile, say the corner of a wall or a small crater. The entire squad will clump into the narrow corner and no amount of turning will change that.

[JonS]

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?

You and joeroma both missed the thrust of what I was saying. Basically, slysniper wants to be able to use his barely trained 1943 Italian conscripts as if they were highly trained 2012 US volunteers, as if the only difference between the two forces was their uniforms and helmets. He wants the freedom and flexibility that comes from a very thorough and expensive training program, backed up by a plethora of radios and other C2 equipment, which is great, except that none of it applies to the 1943 Italian Army.

My comment was about slysniper, not about the Bersaglieri.

[slysniper]

You and joeroma both missed the thrust of what I was saying. Basically, slysniper wants to be able to use his barely trained 1943 Italian conscripts as if they were highly trained 2012 US volunteers, as if the only difference between the two forces was their uniforms and helmets. He wants the freedom and flexibility that comes from a very thorough and expensive training program, backed up by a plethora of radios and other C2 equipment, which is great, except that none of it applies to the 1943 Italian Army.

My comment was about slysniper, not about the Bersaglieri.

Not sure where you get all that bull****, but whatever you say is always correct.

No, I did not make you statements at all. But I do feel a commander should at least be able to order his men to take certain areas of cover, which are within yelling distance and sight. where as not having some flexability there does lead to some issues.

In the game I was playing, the units were giving me 2 or 3 action spots. but only one action spot would be on the ridge line where I would have some cover and be able to see the enemy infantry below. So it brought up questions as to why we have no flexability there. Steve has answered them and as I figured. there is only so much you can do with the game, he mentions it is not perfect. but for now it is the best path for the situation of what should and should not be done.

I started another game today, playing Italions and have not noticed any issues. First, I am the fools in the valley, so they have no issues finding action spots showing cover and facing right. second, these units have built in 3 men scout units, plus the leader and MG in a seperate split unit from part of its squad. So it is already giving me all the flexabily that I wanted in the other game and that anyone could expect. So these must be better troops than the other battle.

so excuse me for jumping to some questions as to the logic in the game, since it was not giving realistic command control to the units. But my suggestions were no where along the lines of your comments.

But why would I be suprised by your post. About the same tone as 5000 others.

[eltorrente]

Damn, people.. some of you spend so much time arguing and should just play the friggin game. It is what it is and they have their reasons for it being like that. They aren't going to change it for you. Learn how to play with them the way the game is designed, and have some fun.

[Battlefront.com]

There is a certain conflict always right below the surface when someone says they feel they should have more control. Very often the request for more control is an unrealistic request. Which is understandable because this is also a game and people like to win. In order to win people want the most amount of control as possible since less control means less influence over the outcome. Or so goes that line of logic when it's extended. The problem with that, of course, is if the line of logic is over-extended then we get into some pretty dicey territory for CM since realism is a central focus.

The fact is Italian units should be clumsy and extremely difficult to use on the move compared to any other nation seen in CMx2 so far (including the Syrians, I might add). This sets us up for discussions like this because, inherently, the game is deliberately making it more difficult to play as the Italians. The alternative, as discussed, is to harm realism. I don't mind explaining that to folks, especially because the Italian forces are the "worst" organized so far.

But slysniper, I don't think your original comments were as constructive as they could have been. I suspect you wrote them with a bit of haste after some frustrating gameplay. Because saying "I am just glad I am not italian or I would consider it a insult as to how they allow them to play." doesn't really add anything positive to the discussion. Right?

Your original request was to allow "squads" (game terms, but really it is a "team" in real world terms) to split into 2 units. After some discussion you seem to accept that isn't really a good idea from a realism standpoint and are now more aimed at the problems the TacAI sometimes has in getting everybody efficiently into firing positions. Some of that is justifiable criticism, some of it isn't (i.e. tactical perfection isn't realistic).

I think we're in a good place with the discussion now. Let's not get distracted from it.

Steve

[Glubokii Boy]

I love the new terrain !!

The maps are absolutely beatiful...i have looked at quite alot of the QB maps...VERY, VERY well made...will for sure be fun to play on...love the way you can manuver the troops and find observationpoints and base of fire possitionsamong the the small hills, ridges and gullys..

[TrailApe]

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.

Does it have to be a capercaillie - would a black grouse not do?

(helluva a lot smaller )

Actually this discussion highlights how brave many of the Italians units were. They were using obsolete tactics with some crappy equipment, yet when the circumstances favoured the employment of their doctrine, they gave a good account ofthemselves. Their defence at Keren (Eritrea 1941) springs to mind where they gave the 4th and 5th Indian divisions a torrid time.

Their achilles heel seems to have been anything remotely approaching manouvre warfare.

[Mitra76]

Don't forget that in Sicily the italian divisions was mainly coastal defence divisions of very very low quality. The bulk of trained divisions was lost in Africa and almost complety destroyed in Russia. Only Livorno,Napoli,Aosta and Assietta divisions was combat divisions, but they never see combat during the war just to Sicily invasions.

[slysniper]

There is a certain conflict always right below the surface when someone says they feel they should have more control. Very often the request for more control is an unrealistic request. Which is understandable because this is also a game and people like to win. In order to win people want the most amount of control as possible since less control means less influence over the outcome. Or so goes that line of logic when it's extended. The problem with that, of course, is if the line of logic is over-extended then we get into some pretty dicey territory for CM since realism is a central focus.

The fact is Italian units should be clumsy and extremely difficult to use on the move compared to any other nation seen in CMx2 so far (including the Syrians, I might add). This sets us up for discussions like this because, inherently, the game is deliberately making it more difficult to play as the Italians. The alternative, as discussed, is to harm realism. I don't mind explaining that to folks, especially because the Italian forces are the "worst" organized so far.

But slysniper, I don't think your original comments were as constructive as they could have been. I suspect you wrote them with a bit of haste after some frustrating gameplay. Because saying "I am just glad I am not italian or I would consider it a insult as to how they allow them to play." doesn't really add anything positive to the discussion. Right?

Your original request was to allow "squads" (game terms, but really it is a "team" in real world terms) to split into 2 units. After some discussion you seem to accept that isn't really a good idea from a realism standpoint and are now more aimed at the problems the TacAI sometimes has in getting everybody efficiently into firing positions. Some of that is justifiable criticism, some of it isn't (i.e. tactical perfection isn't realistic).

I think we're in a good place with the discussion now. Let's not get distracted from it.

Steve

I will admit that now looking at the discussion and all the insight given on the two threads about Italian squads, their organization and tactics. That I should have held my thoughts, since I was not knowledgeable about the Italians. So I did want it explained to me as to why and it surely has been.

As for how these things relate to the game play, I can also accept that. From the sounds of it, maybe they have too much flexibility at the moment, per some views given.

As for how action spots work when the game provides multiple adjacent spots for a unit, I will just hope someday you get to that task where we have some flexibility as to what players might be able to select. (Which really has nothing to do with the Italians)

As to pointing out that bunching up occurs in real life, that this is not just a game situation. That was insightful also. All that training in the service will teach you to avoid it, but as you point out, when the bullets fly; it is amazing how much of that is ignored. And instincts take over which leads us to the opposite end.

I appreciate the fact that not only do we have this forum to be able to discuss these things, but that you, the designer will at times come and give us input as to some of the decisions that are being made and as to why the game is presently as it is.

As to how I addressed the comment originally. You are correct in that my approach as not worded in a manner that showed proper restraint. So my apologies. (But it did get a response, but I still should not have done it in such a tone) .

[cool breeze]

What is this anti paratrooper platoon for the Italians? It seems to be just a regular platoon... am I missing something? This is in the Quick Battles.

[Fernando]

They are NAP (Nuclei Anti Pparacadutisti). Independent units, usually platoon-size , formed of reservists armed with light weapons only. Their task was to fight enemy paratroopers while they were still dispersed.

[cool breeze]

Ah! Great, thanks for the answer, explains it completely.

Oh and that wasn't really a first impression, so here are two first impressions. I like having the Italian squad leaders in the separate section HQ unit, I have been keeping them a little safer this way and it feels realistic to me to have the Italian officers staying back a tiny bit and being a little aristocratic with respect to the lowly privates. "you guys run first and ill run 20 seconds later to the slightly safer spot". lol. I like how I don't care as much about them getting shot because A) Most of em are just bolt action riflemen so its usually one of them taking the hit you have so many so losing a rifle ain't a big deal and C) they are on the wrong team and lost anyway so its to be expected. On the other hand I felt kind of bad when I massacred a bunch of Americans one one of the objectives of the second scenario in the Italian campaign. Isn't the "get your whole force for the last 4 missions of the campaign" idea brilliant? Oh and I only managed a draw on the first scenario of it, didn't keep up the pace. But the briefing on mission to made it seem like a achieved a victory. anybody know whats up?

Thanks!

[slysniper]

Ah! Great, thanks for the answer, explains it completely.

I like how I don't care as much about them getting shot because A) Most of em are just bolt action riflemen so its usually one of them taking the hit you have so many so losing a rifle ain't a big deal !

I am noticing the same thing, because of how they play, I expect to take losses. no big deal. That is not a problem as long as you have enough of them to do that. Not so good if you do not outnumber the enemy by a good percentage.

[Charles Foulkes]

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but I'm having a blast with the Italians! And I have indeed learned to love the Brixia - its high rate of fire and accuracy is just about the only bright spot in the Italian TOE.

[ridethe415]

On the other hand I felt kind of bad when I massacred a bunch of Americans one one of the objectives of the second scenario in the Italian campaign. Isn't the "get your whole force for the last 4 missions of the campaign" idea brilliant? Oh and I only managed a draw on the first scenario of it, didn't keep up the pace. But the briefing on mission to made it seem like a achieved a victory. anybody know whats up?

Thanks!

I just finished the second scenario and devasted the US troops. I didn't feel bad, I was proud of my Italians. Besides, it looked like the AI had designed the US to exit off the map. They did an okay job falling back, but retreating in open fields cost them dearly.

I do think this campaign is amazing; no reinforcements, no ammo resupply, take what you have and do your best.

The first scenario was great, close right down to the finish.

I am loving using the Italian engineers, the Semovente and the R35 are great as infantry support tanks...as long as there is no enemy armor lurking around.

[Albe Pavo]

I'm fighting the second scenario of italian campaign.

The most difficult thing playing italian is the bad artillery support you have.

It is difficult to advance in open field against machine gun and if you stop, US mortar fire come down on you. Really engaging!!!

[Battlefront.com]

We're very pleased to see people enjoying the challenge of commanding Italian forces. Too often we hear from players who think the only forces worth playing with are Crack SS with all the latest and greatest toys at their disposal. Sure, it's fun to command a King Tiger platoon every so often, but from a challenge standpoint it is a bit less of one compared to other options.

Speaking as someone who LOVED playing CMBB as Romanians and Hungarians

Steve

[Childress]

The most difficult thing playing italian is the bad artillery support you have.

And the limited range of their mortars, around 400m. That caused an unpleasant surprise in a recent battle.

[ridethe415]

I'm fighting the second scenario of italian campaign.

The most difficult thing playing italian is the bad artillery support you have.

The only way to overcome this is to put the guns so they have direct LOS to targets, which; exposes them to enemy fire. Almost Napoleonic in nature...

[Bison]

So is there a cap on the number of squad members who can fire out of a window at any one time? I ask because it looks as if all of them are lined up in the room firing some in line with the window and others the wall.

[Charles Foulkes]

We're very pleased to see people enjoying the challenge of commanding Italian forces. Too often we hear from players who think the only forces worth playing with are Crack SS with all the latest and greatest toys at their disposal. Sure, it's fun to command a King Tiger platoon every so often, but from a challenge standpoint it is a bit less of one compared to other options.

Speaking as someone who LOVED playing CMBB as Romanians and Hungarians

I haven't even played the Germans yet in CMBN or CMFI, haven't played the Americans much either, for that matter - I bought the CMBN/CF bundle specifically to play the Brits and Canucks, and got CMFI with the sole intention of playing the Italians while I wait for a Commonwealth module :cool:

I'll get around to playing those crack SS eventually - they get themselves into sticky enough situations to present a challenge, toys and all, anyway - but I'm primarily interested in playing the 'clunkier' forces, and Italy fits the bill perfectly

I never played any of the CMx1 games (been meaning to try them out though), but I'm very much looking forward to playing some Axis minors if/when you get around to the eastern front in CMx2!

[JonS]

The only way to overcome this is to put the guns so they have direct LOS to targets, which; exposes them to enemy fire. Almost Napoleonic in nature...

Well, that weird 65mm gun looks Napoleonic, so I guess it makes sense

(oh, there was an "attack" on Gela with the Italian infantry formed up in a very Napoleonic way. That worked about as well as you'd expect.)

[Sublime]

I have to admit I love playing the Italians in the few Pbems I've played so far. And I actually didnt really like playing the Romanians, etc in CMBB..

It's just very rewarding to win or make your opponent catch hell. Especially because the Americans are 'armed to the teeth' (as the Italian campaign's first mission brief warns) at least compared to the Italian troops. Still the Brixia mortar does do a lot of damage, and is surprsingly accurate. and with the new target briefly command I get way more legs out of my on board mortars, even my american 60mm mortars do about double the damage per battle now because I can be more miserly with my ammo.

Im not very impressed with the machine guns, the rifles are just rifles but the large amount of them does give the squads some teeth. Better in my experience further out. The closer you get in the more your helping your American opponents.

[Russkly]

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".

@ slysniper.

Please can you post how on earth you won "Avanti!" as the Italians?!

R

[cool breeze]

I got a total victory as the Italians on Avanti!. I know I didn't do it right but apparently I didn't do it that bad either. I think I ended with 114 men ok vs. not many. But at one point it felt a little hopeless and I almost gave up, the Americans put down so withering firepower. SPOILER ALERT the turning point of this battle for me was when the assault guns showed up. I recommend trying to keep your force in good order until then. I started it by clearing the forests with my guys in there, while I moved up most of the guys by the river to the walls by the road going up the hill an right. But I think this was a mistake, or mainly just too early, cause they got cut up badly. In hindsight I think you want to either try to attack the center with all 3 forces at once, early, before they get the reinforcements, or be really cautious with your infantry until you have your french tanks and the assault guns, and then attack from all sides. But they way it worked out for me was super fun cause I thought I lost it but then the momentum swung hard and all of a sudden I was winning and then I won hard.