Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why the Allies need to invade Italy

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Why the Allies need to invade Italy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/18/2015 9:45:36 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I wanted to expand on a comment that Seminole made in another thread. I completely get that in game terms, as it stands, it may make sense to skip the Med in 1943, and move directly to Europe.

IRL, however, there is no way the Allies would do that. The reason Seminole aluded to, not because Allied planners thought that you could get to Germany through Italy. The reason it was invaded was POLITICAL; the Allies were already thinking ahead to a post-war Europe.

There was no way Churchill would leave the Med in 1943, not with large communist uprisings in Yugoslavia and Greece. This is why he pushed so hard for engagement in the Med, because the Brits had vital interests in the Med. This drove Italy, the landings in Greece, and the whole mis-guided Dodecanese campaign.

I think the game should reflect this political reality; the Allies should be forced to invade mainland Italy. Allies are not going to leave Italy to Communist insurgents and the possibility of the Red Army entereing through Central Europe. No chance.

VP conditions should be changed to mandate an Italian landing. If I am Germany, I would agree to EF Box off if Allies had to land in Italy, no problem.

That's my 2 Lire......

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/18/2015 10:11:19 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
The Americans had every intention of invading Europe as soon as possible and knew that Africa et al. was a sideshow that wouldnt end the war.

They were successfully talked into the Torch landings...and Sicily was an extensOion of that. It doesnt strain the realms of reality to think the americans could have had enough and move all assets to England for an early invasion of Europe.

As long as the difficulties of such an operation are modeled.. IE Garrisons releasing, and stay released. Perhaps stronger weather effects vrs invasion. Or maybe even less invasion sites... I have no problem with it.

Of course you also have to consider the fact that the Germans had no intention of defending Italy....They wanted to park there army in the Northern Italy and just fight a delaying action up the country....its just that the delaying action was so successful it turned into the main front.


< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 2/18/2015 11:12:11 PM >

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/18/2015 10:57:07 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		In my new game with NOSB we agreed that with the EF Box off, he couldn't invade outside the Med. before 44. This gives the axis time to get enough units to repel an invasion in the northern area, so there's no reason someone couldn't invade France in Jan. '44, but at least the axis will have an opportunity to repel them. If the EF Box is on, then the gloves are off since you can pull a lot of units out of it, and more than enough to repel an invasion. Personally I like the EF Box off now. I know what I have, and I know what I'm getting, and I don't have the temptation to pull from the cookie jar. Makes you play better.

< Message edited by meklore61 -- 2/19/2015 12:54:33 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 2:56:04 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
The danger I feel in outlawing European invasions in '43 is it allows the Germans to use all their resources to fight the allies in Italy.

When I play the Germans, my defensive strategy would start in making sure every port in Europe is covered. Every non-port hex has a unit to dig in. Most of my admin points will go to fortifying the Atlantic wall. After the allies land in strength in mainland Italy..then I will consider sending everything to its defence. Probably keep a lot of my mobile formations in Northern Italy so it can react either north or south.

While it is kind of neat to make your opponent surrender in '43 due to a botched Italian invasion, I feel you want the allies to invade Italy, so that you know his intentions for the next 6 months, and can plan accordingly. It also gives you a chance to wreck his transport fleet, and you still have a good chance of winning the game.

I seriously believe that against a prepared German...an early invasion of Europe would just be game over for the allies.



_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 4
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 6:22:44 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I agree that the allies should land in Italy in 43. And I absolutely agree its a bad move in game terms. That is something that has to be remedied by incentives and not penalties. We already have too many penalties. Clearly its the developers intentions WA players should land in Italy or we wouldn´t have the "no beachhead" penalty. Its a band-aid and a pretty poor one to boot.

As I said a couple of weeks ago: If you make Italy worthwhile for the WA player the WA player will go there. How to do that is another question. The problem lies with combat losses for the WAs. They are so outrageously severe the WA players do pretty much everything they can to avoid them. Like skipping Italy...Right now its a big VP loss to do Italy. Hence WA players don´t want to go there and that removes pretty much half the game.




(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 5
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 6:34:55 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Actually, you miss my point. You make Italy more lucrative to invade by putting more vp's on invading Europe. The Germans will have to defend the Atlantic wall in order not to lose. The allies will be rewarded if the German player decides to go all out and defend Italy to the detriment of the game. Italy itself is rather pointless, as many allied generals said at the end of the war. They only needed the Foggia area for launching raids on Ploesti, they didn't need to bash themselves for months against the mountains. Rome is an insignificant military objective that does nothing to help win the war...

Invading Italy should be for the reasons it was done historically..not because of some bag of vp's waiting at Rome.

As for losses vps....I like the way they make me think twice about launching attacks. It helps slow the tempo of the attack to something approaching reality. I haven't found the values to be too excessive yet, but then I haven't had to attack mountains. But that goes back to above...what is Italy really worth?

1) Airbase to bomb southern Germany. Or the Ploesti Oil fields.
2) A way to tie up large number of German troops for a smaller amount of allied divisions.

The first point is not to be taken lightly...you can get a lot of VP's for bombing. Oil especially is slow to repair. Munich...Vienna...they have some large factories. And German fighters cannot be everywhere.


The second point...once you reach a line of Germans....dig in..build fortifications as well...use the French to guard them. Maybe a bunch of the brigades. You can fight for Rome, but then the city points you get for it have to be greater then the casualty points. You can't really take Peltons game with you to be typical, as he has basically used every single unit he can scrape off the Atlantic Wall against you.

You need the threat of invading from the Atlantic to prevent that.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 6:54:58 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
Given it some more thought....suppose this.

Taking Rome is an auto victory up to end of 1944.

Now...knowing that, as the allies....I would assume that every german airplane/mobile division and every unit not needed for garrison would be in Italy. Every admin point would be spent defending the landing areas around Rome. In other words..not much different then any game I've seen to date on the AAR's.

Still the allies would lose most games since they would fail in their initial landings to get near Rome...or maybe spend the whole game fighting and getting it sometime early '45.


More carrots doesn't make Italy easier for the Allies to take, it makes it harder.

Instead...spread the carrots around. Give extra vp's for ports. So Antwerp/Rotterdam and the other big ports are worth taking. Which means they are worth defending. Anything defending the Atlantic wall is not down in Italy sitting in mountains for lack of a better place to be.

Perhaps give the allies vp's for Atlantic coastal hexes that don't have a fortification unit on it.

The no beach head rule is kind of silly...unless you think you can win by sheer bombing alone, you are going to have to invade somewhere. And I still believe the Germans want the allies to be in Italy anyways. Just not in Netherlands


EDIT:

Historically the Germans planned to only defend northern Italy. Increase the garrison value of that area, but halve it when the allies put a unit in southern Italy. That would also give a more historical feel to the game. Basically I feel what is most broken about the whole thing is the ferocity of the German defence in both aircraft and units in southern Italy.


< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 2/19/2015 7:58:22 AM >

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 7
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 7:21:53 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I wanted to expand on a comment that Seminole made in another thread. I completely get that in game terms, as it stands, it may make sense to skip the Med in 1943, and move directly to Europe.

IRL, however, there is no way the Allies would do that. The reason Seminole aluded to, not because Allied planners thought that you could get to Germany through Italy. The reason it was invaded was POLITICAL; the Allies were already thinking ahead to a post-war Europe.

There was no way Churchill would leave the Med in 1943, not with large communist uprisings in Yugoslavia and Greece. This is why he pushed so hard for engagement in the Med, because the Brits had vital interests in the Med. This drove Italy, the landings in Greece, and the whole mis-guided Dodecanese campaign.

I think the game should reflect this political reality; the Allies should be forced to invade mainland Italy. Allies are not going to leave Italy to Communist insurgents and the possibility of the Red Army entereing through Central Europe. No chance.

VP conditions should be changed to mandate an Italian landing. If I am Germany, I would agree to EF Box off if Allies had to land in Italy, no problem.

That's my 2 Lire......


I agree with your conclusion but not your logic (I think).

Churchill had a tricky relationship with reality during the war and no shortage of personal ideas that the British General staff had to spend a lot of effort squashing. One was to bomb Baku in 1940-1 (pre Barbarrosa), another was an enduring fixation with an invasion of Norway. Invading Greece was another.

Italy was one instance where his personal bugbears and military reality coincided. It suited the Royal Navy to take out Italy, even if the Italian navy by 1943 was no longer a real threat it was tieing down a lot of vessels 'just in case'. It suited the army who wanted a safe testing ground to try out their ideas for how to conduct a naval landing after the disaster of Dieppe and the unopposed Torch experiences. It also suited those in the British military hierachy who were a bit sniffy about the combat capability of US troops when up against the Wehrmacht. It also fitted the deployment of the British army in N Africa and that the Australians and New Zealanders were very unwilling to let the British deploy their units to France (where memories of the British using them as shock troops in battle and hanging them for stealing when out of the line were very raw from WW1). Also the more independent S African govt refused to let its units be used outside N Africa at all.

Politically, the Allies knew by early 1943 the Italians were looking for a route out of the war.

So I think that was the underlying logic.

In early 1943 the Italian Communist Party (PCI) had an underground membership of around 10,000 and was completely ill-prepared to move from political actions to armed revolt. I doubt its latent strength was understood by anybody (including the Party's own exiled leadership). More generally the British had an odd relationship with those parts of the overall European partisan movement that were dominated by Communist Parties. In France, it was the link up between SOE and the Communists that gave the British the means to start industrial sabotage within factories (including 'guest' workers in Germany). In Yugoslavia, the British rather liked Tito (read Fitzroy MacLean's Eastern Approaches), not least they had worked out he wasn't that enthusiastically pro-Soviet. In Italy, the Allies took the CLN (the broad resistance movement) as they found it, not least as Togliatti (the PCI's leader) made it clear that war against fascism would not become a civil war. Greece was the exception and for very specific reasons.

Sorry long way to say there was a combination of politial and military reasons that argued for 'Italy first', but I don't think in 1943 it was particularly shaped by competition for post-war Europe (it was in 1945 when the British for example raced to take Trieste ahead of Tito's forces).

How to handle this is difficult. The problem with rules that are not organic to the core game system is that is where our fellow players with an obsession with winning tend to find fertile ground. WiTE suffers from this mostly driven by a few specific mechanisms. The ideal is a strong bonus to the allies that makes the logic of 1943 very obvious. But, if the Germans know that Italy is the only target in 1943 then we'll see more of Pelton's trick of stripping down their forces everywhere else - which the Germans didn't do historically as they didn't know the Western Allies in 1943 only had the capacity for one major focus. Add on the FZ-unit spam and you get walls of level 3 forts in a region where the main historical defense was the terrain and a few strong points.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 2/19/2015 8:28:35 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 8
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 8:13:26 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline 		Alot of myths to why the Allies invaded Italy the four principle *military* reasons given by Alanbroke CIGS. (AlanBroke never believe the Lubjana Gap strategy feasible btw)

1/ The Railway network in Europe ran West to East not North to South so any troops deployed in Italy the Balkans or even the South of France would have difficulty getting to any beachhead in France quickly

2/ Italy garrisoned the much of the Balkans, South of France, Corsica Sardinia and the Greek Islands. Knocking Italy out of the war would weaken the German position more than any military defeat the Allies could inflict on them by making them find the troops to replace the Italian garrisons.

3/ In Italy you could once landed becasue of the nature of the Italian boot and Allied seapower the Germans would have to deploy more troops there than the Allies weakening the defence of Northwest Europe

4/ Clearing the Med would free 1 million tons of shipping

Italy was invaded for sound military reasons here is the man himself explaining it with crayon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhx4z4jGroA



< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/19/2015 9:14:58 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 9
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 8:23:58 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I know I speak of this so often I probably bore you guys to death with it... but you have to differentiate the war from the game.

While skipping Italy may very well have some bearings on the real war it should be done in the game. If you don´t do it half the game is removed from play. If most people skip the Med they could just as well have made a "D-day to Berlin" game rather then what we have. The problem right now is that landing in Italy doesn´t make any sense however you look at it. Real war OR in the game. Its a design flaw in the game that needs to be fixed. And NOT by more penalties. Going down that road will only lead to more problems in the long run. They need to look at WHY people don´t land in Italy and fix it. Because the game will be a lot less without an Italian campaign and all the work put into that area will have been for nothing.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 10
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 9:48:56 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

OUT OF GAME:

There are two opposing views. The Americans favoured a knock out blow. Invade the through Northern France and head straight for Berlin.
The British disliked the idea of invading Northern France period. They would rather fight the periphery. Invade Sardinia/Sicily. The Greek islands. Then knock Italy out of the war or even invade the Balkans.

The British realized they could never talk the americans out of D-Day. So modified their position to using less divisions, and just knocking Italy out of the war. The rest being used for a build up for French Invasion.

In the end (at Trident) all they decided to do was to invade Sicily with the troops in theatre (less a few going back to England). And any further plans to be opportunistic. So at the start of the invasion of Sicily...there is no plan to invade Italy.

IN GAME:

The allies have three choices after Sicily (which is pretty much a fait accompli)

a: invade Italy all in. (British plan)
b: invade Europe (American plan)
c: go half and half (historical)

The Germans have three choices:

a: Defend Italy all in (Pelton plan)
b: Defend Europe (my idea)
c: Defend half and half (reserves in Northern Italy, panzers near possible landing sites) - historical

Which does give this game a bit of Rock, Paper, Panzer.

Note: I have said nothing about vp's. What vps will do is make the choosing of a,b,c be biased.

Sadly this may mean that the game will be decided by a luck of the draw. Or at least the skill in reading your opponent as to his intention.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 11
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 10:13:17 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I know I speak of this so often I probably bore you guys to death with it... but you have to differentiate the war from the game.


agree fully.

The problem with all games the complexity of WiTW is you effectively have 2 rule sets.

The first is the core game engine, well integrated (which it is drawing on the experience of WiTE) and pretty much working well now (some issues like the relative effectiveness of night bombing but certainly nothing game ending). Lets say for the sake of some numbers that this accounts for about 85% of the plausibility in the game. By that I mean if there were no special rules (VPs or whatever), you'd have a game that did a good job of reflecting the operational ebb and flow of the war in the west from 1943 onwards.

The second are rules designed to fill in the gaps. In effect take that broadly working framework and ground it more effectively in the context and wider dynamics of the period.

The ideal of course is to have the two perfectly integrated. An alternative is the Paradox approach of concentrate on the first part and then declare its a 'sandbox' game (for eg the difference between Pride of Nations vs Victoria). At least, you want as much in the first group as you can.

WiTE suffered from several rules designed to fill in the gaps. The odd supply system (especially the widely abused Build Up routine) and the Soviet +1 rule for attacks are two that come to mind. The rules designed to reflect the ebb and flow of the war (first winter, lower Soviet morale in summer 1942, the way Soviet morale increases and German morale decreases as the game goes on) fits into this 'filling the gaps'.

The problem is they are arbitrary (and I don't think making them conditional would help a lot) and can be (and are) abused by those so minded.

In WiTW, the Italian issue is currently the obvious area this affects - suspect as most people are starting with the 1943 scenario.

There is nothing in the core game engine to force an invasion, even the mindset of gain some morale/experience is not really that dominant. So there are a few game design decisions, but none ideal;

a) allow the sandbox, scrap the Italian invasion (maybe take Sicily 'because you can'), at least then both players have similar uncertainty, though odds most Axis players will simply cede Sicily and see what happens next. But at least the threat of LiquidSky's trick of the Netherlands in 1943 might stop a Pelton from ahistorical concentration of forces in Italy;
b) have a rule that means if the Allies don't go for Italy they suffer a bad VP hit (know you love negative VPs). Lots of ways to rationalise this, the diversion of assets not in game to the Med, that the Italian airforce remained potent even in mid-1943, that it would have hampered the partisan war in Yugoslavia etc etc. The problem of course is then Pelton (I'll use him as the example of a player I know min-maxes his responses and will use any rule to his benefit) can simply put his entire mobile army in Italy and wait for the inevitable
c) does this lead to another rule? Fix some of the German mobile reserves in France till an invasion of France or N Europe?

The ideal is that the logic (and uncertainty) facing the two high commands is organic to the game. The reality is its not (and probably will not be). The problem is that it is the intersection of special and regular rules that our fellow players looking for every advantage find their fertile ground.

This is long way to say 'don't know', but at least at the moment an Allied player is not forced to Italy and I think without some equivalent straight jacket for the axis that is for the best. I think what I am getting at is a fear that if WiTW gets more special rules then the only consequence will be even more fertile ground for the 'win at all costs' school of gamers.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 2/19/2015 11:15:31 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 12
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 10:24:14 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

As the allies at Trident I believe that a compromise can occur.

Put in a heavier garrison in Northern Italy for the Germans. At most, they should only have a few units to play with.

Release half the garrison if allies enter a hex north of Taranto. Including the entire map. Release the rest if Italy surrenders.

You can give a vp bonus for Italian surrender (as that was the whole point of the sicily invasion et al.) However make it harder, hinged on owning so many port points in Mainland Italy and Messina. I know they technically surrendered before Naples fell, but its a game...lets give them some fight.

This should give an allied player a leg up in the invasion of the boot (ha!)

If the allies enter Germany...all garrisons should be released.

Once released, no garrison should be forced back. Its a game. The allies have to pay a price for failure...enough to make them not do half assed invasions. Or to make Italy surrender then leave.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 13
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 11:45:23 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I don´t pretend to have the solution but rather then adding a lot of special rules wouldn´t it be better to try and sort out the reasons people don´t go to Italy?

There are several reasons for this.
-Naval interdiction is completely out of whack. This will hopefully be fixed in the upcoming patch.
-VP losses for ground combat is making any move into Italy a loosing affair. Losses are probably higher then the "no beachhead" VP penalty of -400 VPs. Don´t get me started...
-WA shipping losses are also out of whack. Not sure if this is fixed in the patch?
-There is no need for the allies to land in Italy. Ploesti can be reached from Sicily. Doesn´t seem Germany will run dry of oil/fuel in any event?

This equals:
- The VP loss for landing + fighting in Italy is currently greater then the VP gain = no one wants to go there.


(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 14
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 2:58:36 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		The house rule wasn't outlawing anything. It only made a choice between having the EF Box on or off.

There is no honest way that anyone could have enough troops in early Sept. 43, in game, to stop or even have a chance to repel an invasion from England. I was onshore without much resistance till D+3. He pulled so many units out of Italy that it surrendered this past turn, and I bet I can take Sicily with a division, if not further. Honestly if feels like a cheap win, if I do win. If the EF Box were on, I would have been hard pressed, so if the WA want to invade early (which is broken atm too), EF Box on. If they want the EF box off then they stay in the Med. It's a choice, not a law.

This is just a suggestion until Italy becomes more profitable to invade.

I did forget the bug with taking your TF's out of Africa (wasn't that a movie?) on turn one of the campaign. The next turn they arrived in English water's with full PP's still. They didn't lose their prep, although the combat units did. When I retargeted those TF's I had 18points, or three turns of prep already, although the combat units still had to get 30 before they could invade. I invaded the first turn of Sept. 43. He didn't have time to even mobilize those units in France, much less have a response force. Yes, I've made a bug report.

< Message edited by meklore61 -- 2/19/2015 4:05:20 PM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 15
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 3:17:49 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Ahh...I wasn't able to invade until October. And I had to dance with the weather as bad weather would prevent me from Para dropping.

Those three turns may have been quite the difference between being able to land or not.

I don't think you will be able to 'win' yet though. You won't have enough divisions to spread out and handle a front as large as France. Although you do have all those brigades.



_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 16
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 6:06:10 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		I invaded Sicily for one, very important, all powerful reason.

It was there :)

Well, OK, a minor second reason.I didn't want to bother picking new targets for 5 of the 6 Amphip HQs....

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/19/2015 7:07:02 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 17
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/19/2015 6:14:14 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		I'm in no hurry to go anywhere. I have other plans hatching while he's so weak. Even with the three extra turns I'd have invaded the third week of Sept, instead of the first. Had to be on before Oct. and bad weather, and he gets a crap ton of reinforcements in Nov. When the snow hits, I'll have no major rivers till Paris, and good tank country, but I won't move till I'm ready. It works for me, so far.

I already told Pelton I haven't won and it was a long way to Berlin still. When I move there won't be an active port or railyard on the way to Berlin. Weather is why he's getting supply and replacements last turn.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 18
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 2:33:26 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Yeah..the ports are important...and no Mulberries either. However Brest is big enough to supply your whole army all by itself. Once it is repaired. The rail lines..I don't know..I never got very far from my supply sources. They will probably be what limits your supply..not the ports.

I am going to have to sit down and figure out if the Germans really can fortify the coast fast enough before an early invasion can occur. Then play somebody to see if it matters.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 19
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 2:53:18 AM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		Without the extra 18 pps when the TF's moved from the Med. to England, you can at the earliest be in France by the third or fourth week of Sept. No way you have enough admin. points to mobilize and build forts before being hit. Only counter to this is to have the EF Box on, and if you don't see a major invasion in the med. in a reasonable time, it would be obvious they have changed areas.

What I meant about him not having any rail yards or ports on the way to Berlin, I meant his trucks will be dragging supply by the time I start a move. Only time rail repair is tough is when chasing across France it has a hard time keeping up. I'll shoot out every rail yard and port so he has to pull from Germany by truck if I can help it. lol

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 20
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 4:00:44 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
Perhaps the Germans should get an admin boost when the allies enter an Atlantic. Something like 50 minus the turn number. One problem I see is that the German reinforcement schedule assumes a somewhat historical game.

I am not sure if the EF box is the answer. It may be a short term solution, but will cause a long range problem. I know nothing about the effects of removing units from it and it is something I mean to explore....however, it seems to me that if you have to remove units from the box to defend....you aren't exactly going to be able to replace them anytime soon...which will mean a vp boost long term.

In fact in any game that the Germans are using the EF box, I would endevour to make them remove units from it as much as possible to win the game.

But I am just speculating. Perhaps the penalty for removing a dozen divisions from the EF box is not that severe and the gain you get for defeating an early allied invasion in France is worth it...along with the negative vp's for over garrisoning.


< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 2/20/2015 5:02:07 AM >

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 21
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 12:04:29 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		I think it depends a lot on what you pull. NOSB pulled mostly mountain and infantry units and never lost a point to EF box. In another game with Qball, he's lost 80 points from it, but he's pulled some high powered armor divisions. He's having to put them back now, but he gave me another 20 points last turn. The EF box is a temporary fix, and I haven't really thought about what would help this problem.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 22
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 1:07:25 PM   
NotOneStepBack


Posts: 915
Joined: 6/17/2011
Status: offline 		That's correct, I only pulled INF and MTN. The panzer divisions are truly what is holding the east. I would refit panzer divisions in the east round the clock. The infantry divisions are what you need in the west, speed bumps and bodies in front of the allied onslaught.

< Message edited by NotOneStepBack -- 2/20/2015 2:07:58 PM >

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 23
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 5:34:08 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline 		Hello, I am just lurking, i do not own WitW yet, just WitE,

I think invading Italy is worth it in game terms, you get rid of the Italian army, navy, and airforce and strongly weaken Axis this way. It weakens Germany indirectly. If looking from an european perspective, you put pressure on Germany which is almost tied up to send reinforcements in Italy/Sicily, weakening other fronts.

The game begins just after the end of the Africa campaign, so the allies have a lot of forces available in the Med. It is quite logical to use them and attack Sicily, which is really near Tunisia.

I would like a game of this level, where other options could be regarded though. Like the british returning to Greece in 1943, or invading Yougoslavia, for example, maybe partisans there could help. However i do not know if it would have been realistic for Greece, especially with Crete under Axis hands. There are no bases near Greece. Same for Yougoslavia, but if you occupy southern Italy you are near Yougoslavia.

Michel.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 2/20/2015 6:36:54 PM >

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)
Post #: 24
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 5:38:00 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		The way to 'encourage' a realistic Med strategy (whatever that is) is to ensure that the WA player has some of the same constraints that were present in RL, and the risks/penalties are also present. Why did the Allies invade Italy?
Well, because it was there - but in reality because of a fear of being massacred in France (particularly on the British side)
Because there was an advantage in knocking the Italians out of the war
because they didn't realise how hard it would be to progress, and how easy it would be to defend without huge German forces
because (and maybe this is a key) Uncle Joe was screaming (and had been since at least 1942) for a second front.
Bases for bombers
Any more?

The snag is we know the perils, and do not have the pressures. We also seem to be coming to the conclusion that Germany is weak in France in 1943. I am not sure what we can do about the perils - although an 'economy' Italian defence can be countered to some extent by a more active amphibious policy by the WA (doing 'end arounds'). Maybe a rule allowing 'local' landings 20-30 miles from any port, with 1 div, without needing an amphib unit?. The obvious approach for the others is to increase incentives. Forcing Italian surrender should have a value somehow. Award VPs for it (but decrease the reward the later it happens). Ditto the second front... Currently we have big chunks, such that failing is almost an instant game loser. But before that point it is zero. What about a constant small VP loss per turn if there is no second front? Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica could count as lightweight second fronts, and being present there could cut the penalty some. Mainland It could cut it completely on its own until July 1944. Northern Europe would take it to a 'bonus' per turn say. Or maybe make it zero, and give a bonus only in turns where a net positive number of extra hexes in France become Allied.

The effect to aim for would be to avoid 'forcing' behaviours (which people dislike); rather it should be more like a bidding or buying system. WA can ignore the Med completely, maximising assets for the Channel, but it would tend to cost 3 months of X VP per week (3 months because thats how long it takes to shift north). Alternatively the Historical option could effectively be free. A Med light option would give less channel assets, but cost 3 months of X/2 VP per week (or something). The historical option could thus have most VPs available to offset casualties, but other options exist (with higher risk of -VPs)

The German gets complete freedom to respond as today... and for example could react very strongly to Med light, by exploiting the weaker WA forces to contest the islands properly, but at the risk of being wrongfooted. The only change on that side may need to be an accelerated reinforcement schedule if France is invaded in 1943 (if no EF box). Hitler would have rushed forces west and gambled on the Russians not being able to exploit the change rather than be outfought in France. If the EF box is on, the German gets to choose. I believe that, had it been possible to invade N France in early summer 1943, Kursk would have been scaled back/cancelled and a barn door would have landed on the WA... It might actually have helped the Germans.

Finally, I really do not see a need for special penalties for 'failed' WA invasions. The Casualty count should be enough, and (under my system) the instant loss of second front VPs for the next turns should suffice. At worst, there might have to be a review of the effect of evacuating a unit from a port in an enemy Zoc (especially the last unit). A likely loss of 1000+ men (or something) due to casualties would make such a move not something done frivolously.

I have not really thought through all the details of the above, and throw it out there for discussion...




_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)
Post #: 25
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 6:08:30 PM   
RedLancer


Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Finally, I really do not see a need for special penalties for 'failed' WA invasions. The Casualty count should be enough, and (under my system) the instant loss of second front VPs for the next turns should suffice. At worst, there might have to be a review of the effect of evacuating a unit from a port in an enemy Zoc (especially the last unit). A likely loss of 1000+ men (or something) due to casualties would make such a move not something done frivolously.



or a penalty for loading units in a temporary port.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 26
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 6:23:42 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		So the plan is to band-aid some more rather then fix the actual problem?

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 27
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 6:41:22 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

So the plan is to band-aid some more rather then fix the actual problem?

I am not speaking for 2by3 so nothing I say could be called a plan.

And I just threw an idea or 2 out there... your turn!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 28
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 7:04:07 PM   
marion61

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline 		Allies have enough penalties as it is. Casualty number should be raised some imo. 600/1000 are way too easy to get with little crap attacks. Axis can kick most allied units around one on one. Especially after their TOE upgrades in Nov.

I like the idea of getting additional reinforcements for a 43 invasion from England. In one game, the axis are struggling in Italy because the Italians surrendered, and he's scrambling to cover what he can before I snag it. It has really unhinged his ability to put fires out for now. I honestly feel this is too much to ask of any player with what little you have to protect, and the amount of area you have to protect, and maintain garrisons.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 29
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy - 2/20/2015 8:22:15 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Hows about WA lose VP for losses in their turn only? I.e. reflecting the public fear of attritional warfare but not rewarding Ge counterattacks?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to marion61)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Why the Allies need to invade Italy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719