Italian war entry - pros and cons

[Glabro]

I accidentally made Italy enter the war. To me this seems like utter folly, with Italy lending her armies to France's trenchline, releasing 5 of her armies right away to attack the Germans, or alternatively mounting an attack on the Austrian Alps. Moreover, the battle for the Mediterranean is irrevocably lost the moment Italy enters, and in effect the Entente get all of Italy's MPP production, diplomacy capacity and such at their disposal, and as the years go by Italy will grow to be a formidable partner.

On the flipside: A-H doesn't get the 3 "free" corps in the Alps, NM drops by 10.000, plus the loss of Trieste's MPPs, along with some temporary losses in MPP from Vienna, some strength loss in the armies. Doesn't seem like a hard choice.

But am I missing something? Does the loss of 10.000 NM permanently render A-H's troops worse? The morale of the units plummets, making them incapable of any offensives, but it does recover over time - but does it never recover above a certain point, making the troops permanently worse? In other words, does National Morale level set a maximum for unit morale, and thus readiness, or is it just the fluctuations of it that matter - temporarily?

Shed some light on this for me. To me it seems like a no-brainer to hand the cities over.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Interesting thought, honestly.

To me Italy always was an interesting playground.... once you take Udine and Italy is wide open, the AI uses to operate units from France to Italy, and this helps a lot. I use to invade southern Italy (literally undefended) with turkish troops, and this brings the Entente troops into deep trouble. Any unit that is taken away from the frontline in northern France makes it way easier for Germany to advance to Paris, so I like playing in Italy.

Has anyone ever tried Glabro´s idea? What are the effects in the long run? Does Italy really stay calm?

[Glabro]

AI? Well I'm sure the AI is no problem with Italy, I'm talking about a real live opponent - this is a much different proposition, as I don't think the AI is capable of using Italians to supplement the west front. I used this in my previous game, and the effects were devastating - five Italian corps relieved five french corps, which were promptly upgraded and sent to assault the Germans, breaking the line eventually.

Plus this is just the initial units, in time they'll have built their entire complement with their own upgrades.

I see that the effects of ceding the territory have been made more severe in 1.03 - cities other than Vienna now suffer strength loss - but it still isn't quite enough in my mind, again it's temporary vs. permanent. The main question is again, the morale and readiness question. After half a year, will everything be fine again with the A-H army? They've got mountains to defend, so no real fear of breakthrough.

In the previous long game when I ceded the territory, Italy stayed calm, at least until the end of November 1916 when my opponent conceded. It stayed at the same % all the time, I think only diplomacy (at 200 per pip!) can help it.

[Ivanov]

It is a hard choice indeed. When I played as CP, it was the most difficult decision of the entire game. First, I was seriously thinking about handing over the cities to Italy, but finally decided not to do it. If A-H is seriously pressed by Russians on the Galician front, handing over of the cities may cause a defeat, due to the drop of the morale of your frontline units. The key is to eliminate Serbia out of the war before Italy enters, so then you can deploy your Balkan armies against Italy. I attacked Serbia in the spring of 1915 after the Austrians received a free arty unit and Bulgaria had joined the war. The Serbian campaign was over just in time, more or less when Italy was joining the Entente. The right timing is essential here for the CP. You need to eliminate your enemies one by one. Serbia first, then Greece and finally Romania. If you won't manage to achieve that, A-H will be forced to fight on three fronts at the same time, everywhere against numerically superior enemy...

If Serbia is still active in your game, I'd probably hand over the cities to the Italians, but then you need to pray, so the Russian stay quiet for some time and your units have sufficient time to recover from their morale loss...

[Bill101]

After half a year, will everything be fine again with the A-H army? They've got mountains to defend, so no real fear of breakthrough.

I have had the Italians break through against me, but only if the Austro-Hungarians are hard pressed elsewhere.

The Austro-Hungarians will always suffer from a slight performance decline due to handing over the cities, but you are right in thinking that the main effect wears off pretty quickly.

Ivanov gives some good advice on when to cede the territory, and when not to. I've done it both ways quite a few times and there's no right or wrong answer, it all depends on the situation and how capable you feel of dealing with Italy.

In the previous long game when I ceded the territory, Italy stayed calm, at least until the end of November 1916 when my opponent conceded. It stayed at the same % all the time, I think only diplomacy (at 200 per pip!) can help it.

Correct, only diplomacy can activate the Italians if the territories have been handed over. This is because they've already achieved any potential war aims so they have little to gain from entering the war.

[Glabro]

Indeed, Serbia is key, however, I've never seen anyone break Serbia in 1914 - I think it's only doable with serious reinforcements in addition to the decision event army or bad play on the Serbian defenders' part.

The choice, I don't think, is still quite balanced, me and Kommandant believe that Trento and Trieste should be National Morale objectives for Italy after Italy's DoW. Historical Italian war aims should be encouraged and stuff like Italy manning the French trenchline against Germany should be somehow discouraged, the best way is with morale (but I don't know how).

[Glabro]

I have had the Italians break through against me, but only if the Austro-Hungarians are hard pressed elsewhere.

Oh, I meant the Russian front. Very hard to break through those passes even in the best case.

[Kommandant]

The choice, I don't think, is still quite balanced, me and Kommandant believe that Trento and Trieste should be National Morale objectives for Italy after Italy's DoW. Historical Italian war aims should be encouraged and stuff like Italy manning the French trenchline against Germany should be somehow discouraged, the best way is with morale (but I don't know how).

Just to complete Glabro's observation, the idea is to force the entente player to use Italian forces against Trento and Trieste when A-H takes a yes in the DE to not lend Trento and Trieste to Italy.

I think that it can be done by setting a NM script to trigger at late 1915 if Trento and Trieste are not in Italian hands. Let's say NM will drop 50 points to Trento and 75 NM points to Trieste. Therefore, as long as these two cities are in A-H control, Italian NM will drop 125 per turn.

The number i used are random, they need to be evaluated of course. I think this will force the entente player to press in the alps, and not move italian armies elsewhere like france albania or egypt.

[Rabelesius]

Very good suggestion!

[Ivanov]

I'm not sure if that would be such a good idea. First of all, it is very difficult to capture Trento and Trieste if Austro-Hungarians decide to take seriously the italian threat. Usually 5-6 corps and 2 HQs' are sufficient enough to stop the Italian advance completely. If the Italians were to suffer NM penalty for each turn that the cities are not in their possession, we could have a surrealistic situation, that Italy surrenders after some time, just because of that... The Italian NM pool is quite small and could be easily affected.

Secondly, I don't see a reason why Italy couldn't sent her troops to the other theatres of war. It was a country with big colonial ambitions, so it's involvement in the Med and North Africa is quite natural. Also, the Italian troops did take part in the fighting on the Western Front in France. A 2nd Italian corps took part in the Second Battle of Marne of 1918 and suffered heavy casualities there.

http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_chemin_33.htm

If Italians decide to deploy their units on the distant fronts, far away from their Northern border, the CP player reaction should be to press them hard there, which could be very dangerous and potentially disastrous for Italy. For every action, there should be a reaction ( especialy in this game )

[Glabro]

The very reason Italy went to war had a lot to do with those cities, so making them completely redundant is not a good solution. And what happens in 1918 is completely different from early 1915, as the aims and outcomes of the war have changed so much. However, initially Trento and Trieste should be the goal.

Attacking Italy in early 1915 is a nice theory, but in practice this is very difficult to accomplish due to the terrain and the demands of other fronts. Plus operating costs MPPs.

[Ivanov]

Trento and Trieste are no irrevelant for the current game. A-H refusal to give them up is the reason why Italy enters the war. What happens later, should depend on the overall strategic situation and the Entente player will need to act act accordingly. It just seems wrong to me, that some preset condition should determine the Italian posture during the initial stages of the war. Italy is a key player on the southern flank, so I don't think that we should limit her goals to capture of two strategicaly irrevelant cities.

Historicaly, the case of Trento and Trieste were the casus belli for the Italian nationalist, but as we all now the political objectives are always very relative and may change quite often. I can easily imagine a situation, when the treacherous British agents bribe corrupted Italian politicians or generals for the exchange of Italian involvement on the Western Front or against Ottoman Empire:p

As if to A-H involvement against Italy, if you manage your forces right, you'll be able to stop your southern enemy in 1915 and then launch a powerful offensive the following year, so the Italian forces will be at least forced to defend their Northern border.

[Kommandant]

My idea is somewhat worth saving it... It can be changed, think this way, Italian main goal is Trento and Trieste, let's say that by the end of 1915 this two cities are not in Italian hands, it don't loose NM every turn, but looses 1000 or 2000 one time, for not have conquered the cities. The deal is that the government promises to take the cities, but is unable to do so, causing revolt in the people. So it's not about politics between Italy and the other entente nation, is about popular unrest.

[Ivanov]

I get the point, but as I stated before, if A-H decides to defend her Southern border seriously, it is quite impossible for the Italians to capture the cities.

What really affected Italian morale during the war, was the senseless slaughter on the front, not some nationalistic, empty slogans. Because the Italian NM pool is quite low in the game, the casualties alone can have a serious effect on it.

[Kommandant]

What really affected Italian morale during the war, was the senseless slaughter on the front, not some nationalistic, empty slogans. Because the Italian NM pool is quite low in the game, the casualties alone can have a serious effect on it.

Well... thats true indeed

As you said it would be somewhat unhistorical too... You made your point, it makes much more sense than my opinion...

[Ivanov]

I guess the whole idea came after playing few, difficult campaigns as CP, didn't it?

It is really difficult to counter the Entente and even achieving results simmilar to the historical is extremely hard in the game. But I still think, that you could defeat Italy. If you conquer Serbia, then you will be able to send roughly two A-H armies ( around 7-8 corps ) with an arty support against Italy. Usually Austrians are better experinced and their units are on the higher tech level. Italians have quite good HQs', so it's worth replacing your A-H generals before the upcoming offensive

[Glabro]

No, actually the idea is that the choice is simple every time: don't get Italy involved. To me at least. But I misclicked in my current campaign and got Italy involved, catastrophically. Oops. And yeah, perhaps if you're done with Serbia and want to mount and offensive against Italy, the perhaps it might make sense to allow them to join. But then you're doing REALLY well as CP anyway, and it's a risky move - why not hold out against Russia and later mount a campaign there? I should mention that I usually go for Russia First in my games, so I'm talking from that standpoint.

What I'm trying to say is that the overall strategic situation and national war goals are entirely two different things. In the real war, Italians cared much more about their own gains than defending foreign soil for a "noble cause". In my mind at least, they weren't looking for a Casus Belli just to go to defend France - they didn't need that. Italy has always been about trying to come out ahead diplomatically or territorially in the World Wars.

Later on in the war, ensuring an Entente victory became important, because an overall defeat of the CP ensures they get the territory in the aftermath.

Yes, we are in overall command of all nations, but the scenario should ensure that nationalistic aims and independent acts are encouraged in favour of operating as one great "hive mind" for the common good.

The cities may be irrelevant to the Entente war plan, but they're not irrelevant to Italy, and they're not thinking about peace treaties in early 1915 when all is in the air.

[Ivanov]

I like your arguments, especially the part about the goals of the Italian politics and diplomacy during both World Wars;) I have to agree with that.

If you want to win as CP in the game, you need to eliminate Serbia first. Obviously Russia is the main objective for A-H, so you should have about 60% of her forces poised against the armies of Tsar. Still, in order to defeat Russians, you would need a "help" of about 3 German armies ( that is round 12-15 corps )...

I really get your point about directing the Italian war effort towards capturing of the cities. I would just prefer to give the players a free hand in where and how to deploy best the Italian troops. Anyway I was thinking, that sending troops to France is not such a good idea. If you want your units to be effective, you need to sent them with a supporting HQ unit. There is no point in sending one corps with one HQ, so you'd need sent to France at least 3 Italian corps and one HQ. That would be roughly at least 40% of the whole Italian army. In my opinion it would be a very risky move, leaving Italy very vurnerable to a potential A-H attack form the north or some amphibious assault along her long coastline.

[Kommandant]

In my opinion it would be a very risky move, leaving Italy very vurnerable to a potential A-H attack form the north or some amphibious assault along her long coastline.

Amphibious assault in italian lands can be halted by joint operation of brit-franco and italian navies to destroy the A-H navy and prevent amphibious assault. Then you can move th italian armies else where. I whould say that deploing the Italian armies in albania is a good idea, as it will be cheap and you can reinforce the serbian front. Or you can send them to france too, but having vontrol of the adriatic sea is extremely important to Italy.

[Glabro]

Oh yeah....a nightmare in Serbia, with Italian armies entering there...I didn't even think about that.

In my last game I sent a full complement of 5 corps and HQ there to relieve the entire southern flank of the French line (the Belfort-Nancy line). But yes, I had first targeted the A-H navy with a joint assault and then guarded the ports with detachments and ships, where a detachment wasn't required (some are accessible only from one sea area).

Interesting debate, by the way, much more refined than what you'd get at other games' forums. The same can be said about the gamers themselves - I haven't had to worry about unexplained disappearances mid game - although none of my campaigns 5-6 so far have gone the distance, it's because my opponent has conceded gracefully at some point, and I've accepted.

[Sharkman]

The Austrians giving the cities to Italy can be an interesting strategy as well, it takes the whole Italian army, navy, mmp's, and diplomacy chits away from the Entente, and allowes the Austrians to concentrate on Russia and Serbia, of course they have to deal with the morale problem, but all in all it's not a bad trade.

[Ivanov]

Anyway, the discussion had it's conclusion, when Kommendant challenged me to play a game, so we will be able to test our different approaches and strategies on the real Battlefield!

The good think is that I was finally forced to upgrade to the 1.03

[ev]

The Austrians giving the cities to Italy can be an interesting strategy as well, it takes the whole Italian army, navy, mmp's, and diplomacy chits away from the Entente, and allowes the Austrians to concentrate on Russia and Serbia, of course they have to deal with the morale problem, but all in all it's not a bad trade.

...and, after CP beats Russia, AH can always turn around and declare war on Italy.

[Glabro]

...and, after CP beats Russia, AH can always turn around and declare war on Italy.

There really is no need for that. Italy is neither lucrative or defenseless enough to warrant opening up another front just for that. If Russia is dead, beating France means game over.

Any "extra creds" could be stolen from Britain by assisting the Ottomans, I think.

[patrat618]

im against artificial constraints on italy.

if as the cp player, you dont want large a number of italian units showing up in serbia or france, just put some pressure on italy.

in real life it wasnt just political goals that kept most italian strenght in italy, it was also austrian offensives like that in the trento and the threat further attacks is what kept the italians mostly at home.

irl the austrians also had goals in italy, thats why they launched offensives like in the trento and later corporetto.

to allow the austrian player to just sit on the defensive in italy while the italians slowly lose morale because they cant take the citys is imo more historically incorrect than the present situation.

if your going to force historical poltical goals, you just cant single out italy. you would have to force austria to attack also.

and if your going to do that, why not force the french to attack in alsace lorraine in august 14, that was a historical political goal also. i could give more examples, but you probaly get my point.