GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Just as soviets have their useless order in CMBB – "Human Wave", Italians could also have one in CMAK. Of course, that would be "Surrender" order. HQs could have an additional one: "Surrender Platoon / Company / Battalion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culex Pipiens Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 congraturations!!!!! You had this good idea all alone or somebody give it to you?????? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Culex Pipiens: congraturations!!!!! You had this good idea all alone or somebody give it to you?????? :mad: No, nobody gave it to me... But why " :mad: "? This was intended as " ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Culex Pipiens: congraturations!!!!! You had this good idea all alone or somebody give it to you?????? :mad: [sarcasm on. Okay, here goes.] Didn't you know? In all of World War 2 the Italians were the only soldiers who ever surrendered. Everyone else fought to the death. I still haven't figured out what all those POW camps were really for. [sarcasm off] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimorocca Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Like Aussie at Tobruk, British at Singapore, Americans at Bataan, French everywhere in 40, Russian in millions 1941, Germans at Stalingrad. Confederates at Vicksburg, Austrians at Vittorio Veneto. Again it's an hero who fight into a Matilda versus M13-39 0r viceversa? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimorocca Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Like Aussie at Tobruk, British at Singapore, Americans at Bataan, French everywhere in 40, Russian in millions 1941, Germans at Stalingrad. Confederates at Vicksburg, Austrians at Vittorio Veneto. Again it's an hero who fight into a Matilda versus M13-39 0r viceversa? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Er, the Aussies held out very well in Tobruk until relieved in the early autumn of '41. It was the South Africans (mainly) who surrendered in wholesale lots in '42. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 What about a "Display bad taste and ignorance" order gor Gamax ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by massimorocca: Like Aussie at Tobruk...Not to take away from the point you are making, which I agree with btw, but it was the South Africans who surrenderd Tobruk following the battle for Gazala. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Getting back on topic, having the Italian morale a bit more brittle than others might not be a bad idea, but I fear that it might be seen as going against BFC's self-imposed rule of not trying to model in "national characteristics". I suppose it's something scenario designers could imply by lowering the fitness rating on Italian units, which BTW would also be justified since they were the poorest fed of the armies in the desert (they may have been a little better off in Sicily), and their troops were often less hardy to begin with. Michael [ September 30, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Also I think there should be a way for designers to set the initial morale for each side to model a situation where one side or the other is already demoralized and on the verge of total moral collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I fear that it might be seen as going against BFC's self-imposed rule of not trying to model in "national characteristics". I thought that national characteristics were modelled in. What about Russian 'Human wave' the Germans don't get that. Or the fact that early war Russians have a command penalty compared to the Germans. Also I think there should be a way for designers to set the initial morale for each side to model a situation where one side or the other is already demoralized and on the verge of total moral collapse.Is there a way to set the initial global morale to less than 100%? that would be a good idea if it asn't already in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I fear that it might be seen as going against BFC's self-imposed rule of not trying to model in "national characteristics". I thought that national characteristics were modelled in. What about Russian 'Human wave' the Germans don't get that. Or the fact that early war Russians have a command penalty compared to the Germans. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 The rumor that italians surrendered in droves at the first sign of combat is pretty much just that--a rumor. Now, they had horrible leadership and substandard equipment and little motivation to fight. These factors definitely showed in combat performance. But, when provided with decent leadership they fought hard. And I dont care what you are fighting, it takes a very brave man to go into combat in an M13 against any modern opponent. Sure they surrendered at times. I would too if my officers drove off with the mobile brothel, leaving me to die of thirst in the desert surrounded by brits in tanks I cant even scratch. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Thin Red Line: What about a "Display bad taste and ignorance" order gor Gamax ? Hey, I’m not underestimating Italians and I don’t have anything against them, but it is a historical fact that Italian soldiers in WWII surrendered a little bit too often. I’m sure that can be explained by poor leadership or lack of motivation or something else, but as Moon said, "it's a result of the command & control system". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimorodok Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 what, exactly, constitutes, "a little too often"? Zimorodok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Zimorodok: what, exactly, constitutes, "a little too often"? Zimorodok How many soldiers Italians had in Africa? How many soldiers (for example) British had in Africa? How many battles Italians won? How many battles British won? And finally, prisoners: How many of those soldiers ended in prisoner camps? And what about Sicily? Who fought allied troops attacking Sicily? Germans or Italians? If I'm not mistaking, Italy changed sides after defeat at Sicily. [ September 30, 2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Gamax ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 It’s just as with Russians in June / July ’41 in CMBB. They have increased command delays, longer artillery delays, they have only conscripts, greens and regulars, while Germans have regulars, veterans and crack troops. Simply, Russians are inferior to Germans in every way. The only things that saves them are T-34, KV-1 and KV-2 tanks. Without these tanks it would be impossible to play and win a battle with Soviets in CMBB in those early months. That is my experience. It is clear that Italians must be somehow weakened in CMAK, as they had similar problems in Africa as Soviets did in ’41. And I meant this "Surrender" order as a joke, not a serious thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Italian performance varied widely from unit to unit. As has already been mentioned, a lot depended on the leadership of the particular unit. But there also seem to have been class and regional differences (though I am no expert on the sociology of the Italian forces). Units comprised of the better educated, such as armor and artillery, were more motivated and usually fought well. The infantry, when comprised as it often was of semi-literates, frequently performed poorly. Its leadership was usually the worst in the army and the rank and file poorly trained and without esprit and motivation. Units drawn from the urban industrial north often fared better than those drawn from the rural agrarian south. But all these generalizations had exceptions. Michael [ September 30, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Gamax: but it is a historical fact that Italian soldiers in WWII surrendered a little bit too often. That's the second dumbest thing you've posted in this thread! The Italians really had the right idea, if you ask me. They got rid of their fascist warlord, surrendered the entire country when it was in danger of invasion, and joined the right cause. Just a shame they couldn't prevent the Germans from taking over so efficiently in Sep 1943. Today they're a land of milk and honey where porn stars hold high public office. Someone want to explain to me where they went wrong? I guess we're supposed to admire the Germans for being too weak-willed and/or stupid to surrender in February 1943 when they should have, ensuring the deaths of millions more people, the razing of thousands of acres of useable farmland, destruction of entire cities and rail networks, and etc. Given the choice between a bellicose blowhard who needs to fight all the time to feel big, or an abject coward who backs down from a fight, I think I'd feel safer living next door to the coward, thanks. Let's not forget the role Enigma played in Allied successes in the desert; starving the Italians of logistical support probably had as much to do with the victory as British tactical prowess or Italian unpreparedness.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: The infantry, when comprised as it often was of semi-literates, frequently performed poorly. Michael The Italian Army actually had a special rank created for long-term NCOs that were considered ineligible for promotion to officer rank; I have a feeling that literacy may have been one of the stumbling blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gamax: but it is a historical fact that Italian soldiers in WWII surrendered a little bit too often. That's the second dumbest thing you've posted in this thread! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Well whatever happens I've got confidence that BFC will get it about right, they haven't done a bad job so far. I do think that the Italians should have some sort of penalty though, similar to the Russian one in CMBB. It's a fact that the combat performance of the Italian army in general in WW2 was abysmal, they failed at just about everything they tried and couldn't even defeat the Greeks. That's not to criticise the average Italian soldier, there are many episodes of individual heroism. It's usually the fault of the command and/or equipment when an army performs so badly, just look at the British surrender at Singapore, or the French defeat in 1940 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Er, the Aussies held out very well in Tobruk until relieved in the early autumn of '41. It was the South Africans (mainly) who surrendered in wholesale lots in '42. Michael Yup, I'm South African and I know about that one, thanks for the reminder Michael. More specific, it was General Kloppers, the most inexperienced of SA generals in North Africa, with his first fighting command, that surprised everyone, including the South Africans, by giving up without a fight. But he had his reasons. Sincerely, Charl Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by massimorocca: Like Aussie at Tobruk...Not to take away from the point you are making, which I agree with btw, but it was the South Africans who surrenderd Tobruk following the battle for Gazala. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts