Surrender of Italy

[Panzerkeil]

Hello to all the folks here. This is my first day in this forum. I preordered the game and downloaded it the day after it was made available and haven't been able to keep my hands off of it. Sure, it has a few glitches, but I'm sure they will be worked out. This is my first BF game, but I've heard good things about their support of their games, which gave me the confidence to buy this new game.

I've played several campaigns from 39 to victory, only as the Allies so far. One thing that bothers me is how Italy never surrenders until you conquer it like any other country. Historically, Italy was a very reluctant belligerent and ally of Germany. This was demonstrated by their mostly ineffective land campaigns and their capitulation as soon as the Allies landed in Sicily. I have found similarities between this game and the old DOS game, Clash of Steel. It was the same in that game, you had to conquer Italy, and yet even then in that game Italian units still fought on.

Is there any way that this could be resolved? Italy should bail on the Axis when the conditions are right: Germany on the defensive, Allies ascending, North Africa lost and the Allies landing in Sicily or the mainland in force. Perhaps there could be a time stipulation, so that a pre-emptive early strike at Rome that catches the Axis player by surprise should not force Italy out of the game.

[Timskorn]

This is one area I haven't checked in the editor, but theoretically it could probably be done. You could set a bunch of conditions for this to be true, such as specific cities that need to be in Allied hands. Personally I'd like to add one that automatically surrenders them after Germany surrenders.

[Blashy]

Panzerkiel, what you describe is exactly what occured.

German on the defensive, Allies in Sicily, NA lost.

Still the Italians stayed on for a little more, in this game you need to take Rome and this takes out Italy.

But with scripts you can have it so Italy surrenders if Sicily on the other city south of Rome is taken.

[Tancred]

Italy, though a reluctant belligerent, actually did not automatically surrender after the allied conquest of Sicily. It was Mussolini's dismissal that triggered off the Italian government's negotiation with the allies and Italy's subsequent exit from the Axis camp. Had Mussolini stayed as leader, it is quite likely that Italy would have carried on fighting for at least another year, as the Italian armed forces were still considerable in mid 1943. After Italy's surrender the allies were surprised to find ample stocks of oil, ammunition and over 3,000 brand new, factory fresh unused modern fighter planes.

[Fire]

They found 3000 unused plane? What is your source for that?

Fireball

[Panzerkeil]

Is that so? Never heard of that, but if true, it is one more proof that Italy had no heart for the fight. By 43 they knew it was over for the Axis and they wanted out. Too bad the game does not reflect this. I guess an Italian surrender could be scripted to achieve this?

[Timskorn]

Yep, this can definitely be scripted and I think it's a good idea. With the right factors I'd like to add in Mussolini's death and the surrender of Italy when it looks like the end for them (and Germans not faring well in Russia).

[Guest Mike]

I'd suggest a small-ish chance of surrender each turn after any city in Italy is captured might be a suitable "main" trigger - say 10%.

Also you could have Italian partisans operating against het axis immediately after the surrender too

3000 aircraft is not an unreasonable number - but not all modern fighters!!

The Italians produced about 11500 a/c of all types up to the armistice in 1943, and about 4500 of those were fighters, including about 1600-1700 Macchi 202's and 205's.

[ May 02, 2006, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Blashy]

Imagine the gamey tactic of only concentrating on getting ONE Italian city ASAP as allies and hoping this triggers the 10%.

I like the current setup, get Rome, the dreams of rebuilding the Roman empire dies quick and so does the rest of Italy.

[jon_j_rambo]

Agreed, Organ's roulette is lame. If you don't want to require the capture of Rome, just copy 3R board game.

[TaoJah]

Taking Rome is a good surrender rule, IMHO. Else the game gets very gamey because you'll just ignore Italy.

No, that part is fine.

What I don't like however is that if you already have Paris and London, the game is over the turn you take Moscow.

If you don't have London yet, the USSR doesn't surrender when you take Moscow, it moves it capital twice. It should ALWAYS do that, IMHO.

[Tancred]

Hi guys,

I don't exactly remember where I read this, but it was in a history of WW2 by a very reputable historian. I wish I could find it again!

Apparently, soon after Italy's surrender, the British were amazed to find an enormous underground storage depot, full of newly manufactured fighters. It stated that they were all brand new, the latest models, and well armed. Around 3,000-3,300 in total. A lot of ammo and countless barrels of fuel oil were also discovered. The writer was making the point that the Italian high command was traitorously hiding the truth from Mussolini, especially regarding oil, and deliberately painting a gloomy picture in order to get Italy out of the war as soon as possible and save weaponry for the future.

[Tancred]

I also recall that the author of that WW2 history stated that the Italian Navy had plentiful fuel and ammo stocks, unlike what they told Mussolini, and also the firepower to hit the allied invasion fleets badly in July 1943. The Italian navy still had strong capital ships in service and several subs; had these been used to maximum effect, the allies would have suffered grievous losses and maybe even scuppered the invasion of Sicily. The navy's idleness was proof that they wanted peace with the allies.

[hellraiser]

'The next wars' loser will be the one who allies himself with Italy' - von Runstedt, pre ww2 approx. quote

[Fire]

Poor Italy. Well at least they still keep up the "fight" in Iraq.

Fireball

[Tancred]

Not much fighting to do in Iraq, though, just police work.

The Italian foreign policy has always been one of trying to gain the most reward for the least effort. They even gave this a name: "Sacro egoismo", which, predictably, means 'sacred egoism'. Unfortunately this approach doesn't make you win many friends and admirers!

[Panzerkeil]

I must ask this of the veteran players. Are you more in favour of playing as the Axis? From what I've been reading in this forum it seems the game "as is" is biased toward the Axis. Judging from the AAR's, it seems that with two equally skilled people the Axis usually prevails. Any suggestions I have made to hobble the Axis as they were in real life [strength losses in Russian winter; morale loss instead of strength loss for naval units in storms, which mainly hinders Allies; an Italian surrender rule; give Britain the American destroyers in 1940; lame US industrial production] are shot down and referenced as perhaps "gamey." I'm not egotistical enough to say "Adopt all my ideas" but I do perceive this game is tilted the Axis way. Spain almost always comes into the war on the Axis side. There is no Hitler meddling with operational decisions.

Come on people, lay your cards on the table and tell us where you stand. The Axis is "supposed" to lose over the long haul. I'm not saying rig the game for the Allies, but make the Axis endure the real life limitations they had. Then perhaps we'll have a game that is equally challenging for both sides.

[Fire]

Well. Travel back in time to the year 1939 and place yourself in charge of the Germany Army instead of Hitler. What would have been the result?

Most likely no escape for the british Expedition Force, most likely a victory in Africa, most likely Spain would have joined the Axis.....and so on

The best weapon on the allied side was Hitler.

Fireball

[Panzerkeil]

Exactly! Hitler intervened on numerous occasions, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He stopped Guderian at the canals when he was closer to Dunkirk than the British. He forbade von Paulus from retreating or attempting a breakout; earlier in Barbarossa he shuttled 2nd Panzer Armee south to encircle Kiev when the road to Moscow was open. With his "intuition" he pulled U-boats from the Atlantic because he "knew" the Allies were going to invade Norway. He was certain that the landings would be at Calais, not Normandy. He denied Rommel a few extra tanks when he had a chance to take Egypt, then, when defeat was near in Africa he sent division after division to Africa, only to have them captured in Tunisia, with a captured personnel equivalency to Stalingrad. On and on and on we can go down the list.

Ironically, in terms of this discussion, if he had listened to his generals, there probably would not have been an attack on Poland. It was the military who were conservative in the beginning and Hitler daring. When prudence dictated that he should be conservative, Hitler could not pull back. He had that fever that he could not shake, the desire to meddle and the unswerving conviction that he knew more than the professional soldiers. Stalin was the same, although probably to a lesser extent.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

What I don't like however is that if you already have Paris and London, the game is over the turn you take Moscow.

Good catch and I've made an adjustment here so that an early Axis Major Victory requires (additionally) Stalingrad as well as Cairo.

I've also added a new Axis Major Victory event for the end of the campaign (1947) that will only check for Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TaoJah:

What I don't like however is that if you already have Paris and London, the game is over the turn you take Moscow.

Good catch and I've made an adjustment here so that an early Axis Major Victory requires (additionally) Stalingrad as well as Cairo.

I've also added a new Axis Major Victory event for the end of the campaign (1947) that will only check for Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Imagine the gamey tactic of only concentrating on getting ONE Italian city ASAP as allies and hoping this triggers the 10%.

What's gamey about it?

It's what happened.

If they collapse then the Germans get to march into all the Empty Italian cities and use their resources to produce German units.....gosh...isn't that what happened?

Or perhaps the allies can be better prepared and do a coup de main themselves - which they didnt' do historically.

Elsewhere people are saying that it's OK that the game is "biased" towards the Axis because players can avoid making hte same mistakes as Hitler did, and that's fine - so I don't see what's "gamey" about this at all!

I like the current setup, get Rome, the dreams of rebuilding the Roman empire dies quick and so does the rest of Italy.

It's fine - apart from teh bit that it didn't happen like that in real life!

[JerseyJohn]

What kills me is that Marshal Bodaglio announced Italy's withdrawl from the Axis and left Rome without saying a word to the over 50 divisions under his command about what they were supposed to do next. So, they were disarmed without a fight by the Germans. In the Balkans they simply left their posts, often leaving their weapons behind, which were then taken up by partisans.

Originally posted by hellraiser:

'The next wars' loser will be the one who allies himself with Italy' - von Runstedt, pre ww2 approx. quote

I've also read that at a winter 1939-40 Hitler asked his top generals "How many troops should we assign to Italy?"

Rundstedt said, "If it remains neutral, 2 divisions to the Alpine passes. If it declares war on us, 6 divisions to defend the borders. But if they declare themselves our allies, we'll need to send 20 divisions to defend the Italian penninsula!"

Very prophetic. In the actual event, Italy cost them many times more than that.

Tancred

Hitler went on record with a statement about all the new aircraft and military stocks the Italians never used and never even reported as existing.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TaoJah:

What I don't like however is that if you already have Paris and London, the game is over the turn you take Moscow.

Good catch and I've made an adjustment here so that an early Axis Major Victory requires (additionally) Stalingrad as well as Cairo.

I've also added a new Axis Major Victory event for the end of the campaign (1947) that will only check for Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow. </font>

[jon_j_rambo]

Where's the Bob Dole Anzio brigade? I'd also like to slap a coward with Patton in Sicily.