Kuniworth Posted September 12, 2002 Share Posted September 12, 2002 Is it just me or do Italy always seem to last longer than Germany? It seem that it´s to difficult snd takes to much time to launch an amphibious assault on Italy so instead most players choose france at once. Thereby first takin out Germany and end up with finishing off the italians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastan Posted September 12, 2002 Share Posted September 12, 2002 Well, I'm always worried about Germany and have most of my forces aimed at them, so I take them out 1st. Italy never has any air power, so once the Germans are gone, you can demolish them easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWarlock Posted September 12, 2002 Share Posted September 12, 2002 Two somewhat contrasting comments and one question: 1) One unrealism that just about all WW2 European strategy games seem to have is an unhistorically strong Italy. As I recall a lot of my Third Reich and Clash of Steel games also ended with Italy unconquered. The reason for this is that if you glance at Italy's terrain, weaponry, available troops, etc. it seems like it should be a tough nut to crack, and that's the way it is in most games. It's actually easier to take Italy in SC than in some other games, because SC makes naval bombardment relatively easy and effective. Italy's big problem historically was morale; they were exhausted after being at war more often than not since 1935 and their hearts weren't into WWII, which didn't have a lot to do with them. This attitude is hard to portray without creating arbitrary historical triggers (like the boardgame Hitler's War), or some sort of national morale system (like Europa Universalis or the bg Guns of August). 2) On the other hand, I hear that Italy falls too easily to a preemptive strike by the Allies in 1939-40. This shows the other side of the problem: if you take away stuff to prevent Italy from being too strong in 1943, she becomes too weak in 1939. In 1939 the Italian army probably would have fought against an unprovoked invasion with some spirit; in 1943 despite having more men under arms they were waiting for an opportunity to surrender. Q) Is a strong Italy really a problem? Unhistorical, but I think the game is more strategically interesting with Germany having a junior partner rather than a sick aunt. And if players are allowed to play individual countries [What a great idea!] a relatively strong Italy makes multiplayer more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankWWIIOnline Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 I'm playing a game right now where I decided to invade Italy as soon as the USA joined the war. I sent some of UK's ships down there along with the US ships, and the UK ships in the Med to try and take out the Italian fleet. Once I did that I landed troops on the island right off of Italy and began moving my troops inland. It's still a work in progress, but this tactic has allowed me to put sizeable pressure on the Axis early on instead of building up a huge army in the UK and hoping the Russians hold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts