waltero Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 why is it that the closer germans get to peris, Italy war readyness goes up? I would understand this to be true if not for the fact that France has four german cities and french units in warsaw or even next to berlin. Italy holds at 80% then germans move unsulpied units in the heart of france and woop there thay go! this is not right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Suppossed to represent the fact that the closer France gets to "falling", the Italians will DOW so they won't lose out on the "spoils of war". Same logic that has Spain not joing Axis, until UK gets invaded. Reflection of what they did historically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Waltero, How about giving the German player the option to DOW for Italy? On behalf of Italy, so they could enter the war sooner. Make it a big readiness penalty, which tapers down in value depending on the date & conditions in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltero Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 well should the converse not be true as well; If france stands at the door of berlin, would not the Allies join in the fun? Itialy would never join if the allies are going up in germany? It really hinders the french on what thay can do. I think there should be penalties for germany if thay get run up into! AM I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Hay Waltero This is what happened during the war, Mussolini was just waiting to see if France would fall. He was a coward, and his country was not ready for war. He wanted Hilter to wait until 1942 before attacking the weak decident democracies. Hitlers Generals and Admirals also wanted Hitler to wait until 1942 or later, around 1945. When Mussolini attacked France Roosevelt said, " the knife of the fiend has struck the back of his neighbor". The reason that Hitler started the war when he did, was because he was turning 50 years old. He said that he wanted to lead the fight before he got old. Churchill was trying at this time to pursuade Mussolini not to fight for the Germans, but ally themselves with their WW1 friends, England and France. So as the Germans get closer to Paris, the Italian persentage should go higher, because of Mussolini becoming more confident of France and England loosing the war. [ February 15, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 SeaWolf Great take on the historical situation. I've always felt Roosevelt's statement was a bit harsh but essentially accurate. Before the event Il Duce confided to his son-in-law, Count Ciano, "I cannot sit at the conference table with less than 10,000 [was that the figure, I'm not certain] Italian dead." He got his wish in aces and was among those eventually added to the multiplied casualty list. Hitler's discussions with aides during the winter of '39 and '40 regarding Italy are a riot. At one point they intercepted messages from Rome advising the Belgian and Dutch governments to prepare for the worst. At a strategy conference where Hitler sought grand assessments of Italy's potential, von Rundstedt gave the following appraisal: "If they remain neutral we'll need a mountain division to watch the Alps. If they join the British we will need two mountain divisions to guard the passes. If they join us perhaps twelve divisions to defend Italy." History proved him correct. Churchill's messages to Mussolini are very sincere and interesting. And accurately depict the ultimate consequences of the wrong decision. His trade offers in exchange for Italian neutrality if not alliance are themselves very convincing. Reading them now it's difficult to believe he spurned them. On the other hand, while Dunkirk and the Manstein trap were being sprung a German victory seemed assured and Mussolini was at heart an opportunist. In later speeches to Parliament there was always cold silence when Churchill mentioned the mad Hun, and scattered laughter when he added, almost mischeviously, "and that greedy Italian." [ February 15, 2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltero Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 I understand the reason why Italy goes to war. I am saying it is gamey when germans move unsplyed units in front of paris to bring italy in the war. with out paying heed to the fact that there are french units, along with britt, as well as four german citys as suply headed towrd berlin! what happens if berlin falls? Italy joins and all germans go to Italy befor germany surrendr! In both cases Italy would be the ****t! Italy should never be the ****t! Most my games consist of the fall of france and it is over. I don't know why but I hate loseing france! I think the game should be won in france! :cool: PS I think hitler did not believe the allies would declare war on the account of poland But there are many reasons why! to him it was to do or die!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Waltero I haven't said anything on the Paris/game issue because it hasn't come up in my games but what you're talking about is similar to things that have come up and I agree that such situations aren't realistic. Agreed also about Hitler and Poland. He wanted a "small" war just serious enough for him to show the world how powerful Germany had become again. That's whay he wanted against Czhechoslovakia in '38 and felt cheated when Mussolini arranged the Munich Conference. After he too the rest of Slovakia in March '39 and neither Britain nor France lifted a finger -- especially that France was supposed to be it's ally -- he became sure nothing but a direct attack would bring them to war. Having attacked Poland and getting into the war he still thought they'd agree on peace in the Spring. He was in a hurry to add Denmark and Norway before the whole thing fizzled into a peace treaty. Then he thought they'd negotiate after the fall of Belgium and Holland and couldn't believe England would fight alone after France surrendered and shrank to Vichy. At this point he still believed the British Empire should remain intact and never wanted it's Asian possessions falling to the Japanese. Even when he invaded the USSR he kept telling his inner circle that Britain would come to it's senses after they'd conquerred Russia! Would his plans have been different if he'd thought from the start that Britain, once at war, would never negotiate with him? Maybe he'd have tripled his U-boat fleet instead of invading Russia. Britain might have been starved into at least ending the war if not outright submission. Then he could have turned east without looking over his shoulder. [ February 16, 2003, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: At a strategy conference where Hitler sought grand assessments of Italy's potential, von Rundstedt gave the following appraisal: "If they remain neutral we'll need a mountain division to watch the Alps. If they join the British we will need two mountain divisions to guard the passes. If they join us perhaps twelve divisions to defend Italy." LMAO never heard this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Mr H. Glad you like it, one of my favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piumarcobaleno Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Well, after this Runstedt quote it seems like i'll have to go back to Roman Empire to feed my italian pride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Piumarcobaleno I'm sure Rundstedt meant it in the very best sense and said it respectfully. Aside from which, we've (yes, we ) have always got Verdi and Michaelangelo and Marchoni and Leonardo da Vinci and Galelao and Toscannini and Valentino and DiMaggio and Vivaldi and Caruso and Pavarotti and Fermi and Botticelli and Rafael and Machiavelli and Lucrecia Borgia and . . .. [ February 17, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve C Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Piumarcobaleno we ) have always got Verdi and Michaelangelo and Marchoni and Leonardo da Vinci and Galelao and Toscannini and Valentiono and DiMaggio and Vivaldi and Caruso and Pavarotti and Fermi and Botticelli and Rafael and Machiavelli and Lucrecia Borgia and . . .. Getting further off topic, but don't forget: Ferrari, Lamborghini, Ducati and Aprilia. Anybody else find it most curious that it's the three former Axis powers which now make the coolest cars and bikes on the planet ? [ February 17, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Steve C. An interesting view of things. No real answer as to the auto question except I think most of those companies were started before WW II and the Europeans have a different view of automotives than Americans. I think they tend to give more control to the field experts than American firms. Perhaps in the back of their minds is always the desire to create a masterpiece whereas in most American projects the creative implulse is curtailed to suit the next board of director's meeting. Which is why I like working alone, even if it means doing something small and mundane; at least it's my own small and mundane! As for the Japanese, they also seem more interested in the product than the spreadsheet. I've found that when these forums meander off topic it's usually because the topic's been covered to everyone's satisfaction. Next they sit a while, then they begin the slow drop into the old forum abyss. [ February 17, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Steve C: Anybody else find it most curious that it's the three former Axis powers which now make the coolest cars and bikes on the planet ? No... They have a good industrial potential... Especially Japan, since it didn't suffer a full scale invasion... Instead of building war material, they build Cars, TV, etc... I learn recently that Mitsubishi (my VCR!) built the Zero fighter that Japan used in WW2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Well, the fact is People join the Winners. Ever heard of Findilization? I think that Italy was a small case of that disease A larger power was over him, he either joined or if he was very lucky Hitler wouldn't invade. Now Mousillini wasn't the most powerful nation in the World. However in my last game by 1943 I had tech 3 fighters. 1 hq and an army the size of all the United States and UK combined in N.Africa and Russia and defending the FatherLand. Completely Ahistorical but hey, my arguments about how weak Italy have been in the past have gone unheeded. Just like the capability of French defenses to pull a Rabbit out of their hat is truely unrealistic. By the point the Germans invaded France the French were in no position to defend against the onslaught. German Readiness<relatively high> and French Readiness<nearly nill> should further reflect this as it does VS Russia. If you want counter these advantages for the Axis get rid of Italy as a factor<make her the minor she was>. That the French and Brits would ever get together and decide to invade the low countries<together> is even more farfetched. That'd taken about awhile for Churchill to Swallow! Look at all the other puppet regimes in the World that were born from Early German Luck/Victory! Japan/Italy/Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary/Findland Austria & Czech annexed<puppet pieces> Possibly Yugoslavia and in other places around the world. Dissidents, i.e. Iraq/S.America/etc<sympathizers>..REMEBER none of Hitler's early victories would have been as easy without all the Allied concessions to avert war. It's the Politicians fault...as much as anyone's... The German Generals I've heard wanted him gone, just his early success made it hard to get rid of him, since he was so popular. Not many of them believed he'd of done so well, later in 1944 they finally attempted to take over<failed but SO CLOSE> Shame more people died after then before the attempt on Hitler's life combined!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Look at all the other puppet regimes in the World that were born from Early German Luck/Victory! Japan/Italy/Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary/Findland Austria Finland wasn't a puppet regime. It was the only true democracy on the Axis side of the war. Although you are correct that the early German victories was the reason - Germany was viewed as the only country with enough power that could help us protect ourselfs against Stalin's maddness. Western allies failure to protect Poland, France, Holland and especially Denmark and Norway wasn't really convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I correct myself the version I meant was after WW2 during the beginning of the Cold War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts