Italian war entry - pros and cons

[Glabro]

I have to disagree with that solution. If you don't want Italian troops in other fronts, just hand over Trento and Trieste. But we're talking about balancing the option of getting Italy involved.

And pray tell where do you "just" get the 5 corps and a hq to carry out an offensive against Italy all of a sudden? where do you take them away and operate them (for 230+ mpps) - the west front, east front or the Serbian Front?

And no, it's not like the concept of National Objectives is anything new. Verdun is a NM, Przemysl is one. It's as if you're advocating removing these. And yes, Italy can be a special case because unlike others, you have a choice of whether to bring them into the war. And frankly, unless you're planning on carrying out that assault into Italy, there's no reason to get it involved when thinking about it in the "larger scale." However, in the national scale of Austria-Hungary, it wasn't so easy historically - so it was a selfish act to get Italy involved. So maybe the resulting war could be more "selfish" as well.

[Kommandant]

And no, it's not like the concept of National Objectives is anything new. Verdun is a NM, Przemysl is one. It's as if you're advocating removing these. And yes, Italy can be a special case because unlike others, you have a choice of whether to bring them into the war. And frankly, unless you're planning on carrying out that assault into Italy, there's no reason to get it involved when thinking about it in the "larger scale." However, in the national scale of Austria-Hungary, it wasn't so easy historically - so it was a selfish act to get Italy involved. So maybe the resulting war could be more "selfish" as well.

I agree with Glabro in one point, at least Trieste should be consider a NM objective for A-H if the CP player decide NO in DE to seed Trento and Trieste, and also, it should be a NM objective for Italy if the CP player decide YES in the DE and seed Trento and Trieste. This open a great deal of strategic possibility, A-H has a small NM, if Russia succeed in forcing the eastern front, then why not make Trieste a NM target, so Italy focus in it to drop A-H NM, around 1000 or 2000. That would not force Italy to take over the city, but it makes it much more interesting to assault and take Trieste.

I think it's the best option, Hubert should consider to make Trieste a NM objective because, as i just said, it opens the strategic possibility of Italy in the game, make things more spicy. :cool:

[Ivanov]

I have nothing against making Trieste and Trento NM objectives. I just don't like the idea of penalizing Italy with the NM drop for not taking any action towards capturing of the cities.

I like the point by Patrat about Alsace and Lorraine. Recapturing those provinces from Germany, was the key goal of the French politics ( foregin and domestic ) since the Franco-Prussian war. The French Plan XVII was aimed directly at capturing the provinces and immediately after the war started, the French started an offensive on their Southern flank. In the game, most of the Entente players would be happy enough simply holding the line and transfering the reinforcements to the North. That kind of posture is ahistorical and against the aims of the contemporary French politics. I think players should have a free hand and the game conditions shouldn't limit them too much, if all of us try to change the history and try various possible, alternative scenarios.

[Glabro]

Well, we're not really adding anything new to the discussion. I believe Italy shouldn't become the Entente's special reinforcement reserve straight away with no objectives of their own (and shouldn't be on equal standing with the other majors in this respect of freedom of choice) - the choice to transfer them to other fronts only becomes interesting if there is something to lose by doing that. I don't believe the "you can just attack them" argument is that, however - at least not in the context I'm talking about (Serbian front still open, west and east fronts active etc.)

So let's give it a rest until someone has something new to add. The arguments have been laid out and Hubert and Bill will decide based on those.

[Rabelesius]

I think that most of the responses in this thread point out to some changes needed to make historical war aims possible and make the misuse of Italian assets more unlikely.

Therefore, I propose the following changes to be discussed:

1) Make Alsace-Lorraine a NM objective for the French player by giving one or two spaces a NM objective. This would also keep them honest. However, this needs to be balanced out against an all-out Schlieffen attack by the Germans.

2) Make the Italian cities of Trento and Trieste a NM objective in case AH does not hand over those cities. This will encourage a strong Italian presence there and strong AH involvement as well.

[patrat618]

I have to disagree with that solution. If you don't want Italian troops in other fronts, just hand over Trento and Trieste. But we're talking about balancing the option of getting Italy involved.

And pray tell where do you "just" get the 5 corps and a hq to carry out an offensive against Italy all of a sudden? where do you take them away and operate them (for 230+ mpps) - the west front, east front or the Serbian Front?

.

who said all of a sudden. the italians arent going anywhere till they get some reinforcements.

irl the austrians had to make the same hard choices you describe when they lauched offensives against italy. why shouldnt the austrian player be faced with the same hard choices.

[ev]

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.

Glabro, I agree. I would do as you say... I just meant to say, for arguments sake, if the CP player has any nostalgic feelings about surrendering Trieste to Italy, the CP player can always attack Italy after finishing off Russia.

Yes, yes, yes, it makes no strategic sense. But, it is less stupid than getting into a war with Italy early in the war, when you are already fighting Russia, Serbian, and everyone else.

Besides, a little bit of retribution is always fun, as long as it is only a game. Remember, it is not V for Victory, it is V for Vendetta, like the movie. ) Don't you think Vendetta is a cute Italian word? ))

[Sharkman]

A later invasion of Italy could be an interresting option, Italy gets no money, research or reinforcements when they don't enter the war, if things go well in Russia Austria can set up an invasion later in the war with level 2 infantry and artillery, against an almost nonexistant and outdated Italian army, if the French or British don't send in troops fast Italy could be quickly overrun. I havn't tried this, maybe someone out there has.

[Glabro]

Well, more options on the table can never be a bad thing. It all depends on how well the Ottomans are doing, IMHO - if they've been able to hold on to all of Palestine, then sure...

[ev]

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.

What about a special penalty for Italian losses suffered in places other than Italy or Austria-Hungary? So losses incurred in France, Turkey, etc. have a larger NM penalty than Italian losses suffered in the Trieste front.

[patrat618]

while were on the subject of penalizing countrys for not following historical political goals, i got another one for you.

in real life the trigger that started the war was the asssasination of the archduke.

the austrian goverment and people were to say the least, upset with serbia. because of this, austria defied military logic (not to mention the german general staff wishes) to launch a major attack on belegrad.

in game, the austrian player is allowed to ignore this political goal without penalty.

since theres talk of penilizing italy for not trying to take treiste, i think its only fair that austria suffer a penalty for not attempting to punish sebia.

give me some time and i'll find a suitiable political goal for the germans, they shouldnt be left out either.

IMO if your going to put italy into a historical straight jacket, then you have to do something similiar for all the major countrys.

in the end, adding this kind of stuff will end up making most games follow the same old cookie cutter routine. maybe they should consider making historical political goals optional.

[ev]

We heard above that Entente players were sendin Italian troops to France while putting no preasure in the Trieste front. I have not seen post showing CP players taking all their units from the Serbian front and shippimg them elsewhere.

Furthermore, AH is usually under direct attack from Russia since the start of the war, so it makes sense to shift some troops to defend AH territory from invading armies. But, who is invading Italy?

An elegant penalty sistem could be developed along the following lines:

Combat losses should cause a variable loss in NM. The loss in NM should be lower when the combat loss occurs within the national boundaries of the unit. They should be somewhat higher if they occur outside, yet reasonably near the national boundary. But, they should be much higher when they take place very far away.

I propose combat losses inside your own country should have their effect halved when they take place inside national boundaries. So, Italian losses inside Italy would have a lower impact in their NM than Italian losses in France. But same thing would be true for Germans fighting in Italy, or Russians fighting

For purposes of computing NM reductions, disputed territories like Tieste could be treated by the diputing countries as their own. So Italians would only suffer 50% NM reduction for combat losses in Trieste, and AH would also suffer 50% NM reduction for combat losses suffered in the Trieste area.

[patrat618]

ive played games where the AH player left the bare minium of troops screening serbia and used the troops not to defend against russia, but instead to launch an assault on russia.

they didnt send ALL their troops to russia, but by the same token nobody sends ALL the italian troops to france either.

note: irl the italians also sent troops to greece. if the serbian front hadnt collapsed they probaly would have sent troops there as well.

futhermore while we are speaking about the supposed miss use of italian troops. ive also have had games where not only large numbers of austrians show up on the west front, but turks as well. if anything thats alot more unhistorical than italians showing up in france. iirc a few austrian units did serve on the west front, but not whole armies of them. i dont recall reading about any ottomans there, maybe someone else has info on that.

[Glabro]

in game, the austrian player is allowed to ignore this political goal without penalty.

since theres talk of penilizing italy for not trying to take treiste, i think its only fair that austria suffer a penalty for not attempting to punish sebia.

give me some time and i'll find a suitiable political goal for the germans, they shouldnt be left out either.

IMO if your going to put italy into a historical straight jacket, then you have to do something similiar for all the major countrys.

I couldn't disagree more, and that's not an argument for or against Italian / Austrian national objectives. You said it yourself, it would be a straightjacket to make the game like that - then why do you argue for it? If it's a bad idea, just don't do it. And no, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the Italy argument because it's completely separate from this. I know this type of argumenting had a name for it, I just forget what. "If X would be done, then Y and Z need to be done as well, and that's a bad idea. Hence X is a bad idea". That logic doesn't follow.

PLUS eliminating Serbia is a big deal for A-H for the entire war. Ignoring it means problems later on.

[patrat618]

im sorry, i just dont see what makes italy so special you have to penalize it for moving troops out of the country in ahistorical numbers, while allowing other countrys to ignore the historical political objectives (that were just as important to them as treiste was to italy) that constricted them from doing something similar irl. heck the war started because the austrians invaded serbia to avenge the killing of the archduke, but your willing to let them ignore without consequenses the real life political goal of avenging the archdukes murder by invading serbia.

at least irl italy sent some troops to france and also the balkans. like i said, i dont know of any ottomans being on the west front in real life, but in some games ive played they are sure showing up there.

of course the reason they are showing up there is because i left the ottomans free of any pressure on their homeland. if i attacked in force in palastine or iraq they would of stayed home, which is the same thing the cp player has to do to keep the italians at home.

[Rabelesius]

That's exactly, patrat, why the game should have the NM objectives as it does. The question is only: are the current NM objectives enough? We have seen with the addition of Budapest as NM objective, that changes can be made easily in the engine.

I for my part would like to see put more emphasis on Belgrade, the Italian cities and Alsace-Lorraine. The Russian front in Galicia and East Prussia works fine as well as the Middle East.

[patrat618]

i dunno if id call it working fine if masses of austrians as well as turks show up on the west front.

i myself dont see a problem with it because i know how to put a stop to it, attack their home countrys. i dont see why players cant stop the italians the same way.

[Glabro]

Mostly because of the mountains and the logistics of transporting. But again, the main reason is because Italy is an optional event, and we're trying to make that event more interesting and balanced.

We're still repeating ourselves, though...