Why the Allies need to invade Italy
Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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.
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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.
- NotOneStepBack
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:30 pm
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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.
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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.
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.
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
"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
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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...
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
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
So the plan is to band-aid some more rather then fix the actual problem? [;)]
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
I am not speaking for 2by3 so nothing I say could be called a plan.ORIGINAL: JocMeister
So the plan is to band-aid some more rather then fix the actual problem? [;)]
And I just threw an idea or 2 out there... your turn!
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
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
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
That may hurt the axis doing a good attack, which is okay. It's just hitting allied units with little regiments just to generate vp's that's the trouble. Not sure how you could fix that, except raising the value threshold.
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
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!
My comment was for Red Lancer who´s immediate reaction was to think up more penalties. [;)]
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
Sorry. didnt twig. However, Red Lancer was commenting on my post above it. As he was specifically adding to my thought on how to penalise the WA for frivolous or gamey withdrawl of landings (which some GE players have complained at), I think it is a bit harsh to observe that the proposed penalty is ... a penalty!
Over to you for ideas on how to address the game balance/effects. However are you sure you are not mixing game balance with game constraints... You seem to want the WA not to be penalised for anything and have a reason to invade Italy. More VP in Italian cities? The snag with that is either there aren't enough VP to win the game and so It remains a distraction (it might pay for itself but if it makes a much of a profit, it tends to my 'or'), or there are, and it becomes unrealistically important and we have the 'why go for Berlin' thread...
You could argue that it could be set to take the VP pressure off the Allies (slight profit), but basically I think it should not be a game decider.
And on your other issue 'game' vs RL, I am afraid I am totally and completely opposed to viewing WA as a game and hence anything that makes it fun is valid. I have innumerable other games (some pure fun. some historically valid). I want a game of the war in the west 43-45. We must make it fun, but within the constraints of what it is. I know great fun games. I do not have any WitW games half as good as this.
If the game deviates too far from the subject, I'm out of here I am afraid. However, I hope that a few tweaks will make it fun for you too without needing to deviate. I wonder if you are just opposed on principle to anything that penalises you trashing the WA forces by attacking without thought and care, but maybe that is unfair of me.
Over to you for ideas on how to address the game balance/effects. However are you sure you are not mixing game balance with game constraints... You seem to want the WA not to be penalised for anything and have a reason to invade Italy. More VP in Italian cities? The snag with that is either there aren't enough VP to win the game and so It remains a distraction (it might pay for itself but if it makes a much of a profit, it tends to my 'or'), or there are, and it becomes unrealistically important and we have the 'why go for Berlin' thread...
You could argue that it could be set to take the VP pressure off the Allies (slight profit), but basically I think it should not be a game decider.
And on your other issue 'game' vs RL, I am afraid I am totally and completely opposed to viewing WA as a game and hence anything that makes it fun is valid. I have innumerable other games (some pure fun. some historically valid). I want a game of the war in the west 43-45. We must make it fun, but within the constraints of what it is. I know great fun games. I do not have any WitW games half as good as this.
If the game deviates too far from the subject, I'm out of here I am afraid. However, I hope that a few tweaks will make it fun for you too without needing to deviate. I wonder if you are just opposed on principle to anything that penalises you trashing the WA forces by attacking without thought and care, but maybe that is unfair of me.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
My immediate reaction was to support a sensible suggestion - as Joel has already stated re-doing the whole VP setup is not on the cards.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Sorry. didnt twig. However, Red Lancer was commenting on my post above it. As he was specifically adding to my thought on how to penalise the WA for frivolous or gamey withdrawl of landings (which some GE players have complained at), I think it is a bit harsh to observe that the proposed penalty is ... a penalty!
Over to you for ideas on how to address the game balance/effects. However are you sure you are not mixing game balance with game constraints... You seem to want the WA not to be penalised for anything and have a reason to invade Italy. More VP in Italian cities? The snag with that is either there aren't enough VP to win the game and so It remains a distraction (it might pay for itself but if it makes a much of a profit, it tends to my 'or'), or there are, and it becomes unrealistically important and we have the 'why go for Berlin' thread...
You could argue that it could be set to take the VP pressure off the Allies (slight profit), but basically I think it should not be a game decider.
And on your other issue 'game' vs RL, I am afraid I am totally and completely opposed to viewing WA as a game and hence anything that makes it fun is valid. I have innumerable other games (some pure fun. some historically valid). I want a game of the war in the west 43-45. We must make it fun, but within the constraints of what it is. I know great fun games. I do not have any WitW games half as good as this.
If the game deviates too far from the subject, I'm out of here I am afraid. However, I hope that a few tweaks will make it fun for you too without needing to deviate. I wonder if you are just opposed on principle to anything that penalises you trashing the WA forces by attacking without thought and care, but maybe that is unfair of me.
I think you missed one of my posts where I specifically said I strongly believe the WA should Invade Italy? (Post #10). [:)]
The game would make little sense without an Italian campaign. They need to sort this out or their next module (Africa) will make even less sense. Are people to skip Africa and Italy all together and go straight for Europe because the VP system leaves them no other option?
The only band-aid I can think of is indeed to slap more VPs onto Italy. Or make it less costly in VP terms of VPs to land and make war in Italy for the WAs. It might actually not be a bad idea to pretty much guarantee the WAs a slight positive VPs from an Italian campaign as by all accounts the WAs need a VP boost overall. If "everyone" knows you gain VPs from Italy I can promise you "everyone" will go there.
I don´t want the game to deviate too much either. That people pretty much have to land straight into Europe (VP wise) in 43 is not desirable for a game perspective as you are missing a big part of the game. That people feel forced to do this is a design failure. I know Joel said they won´t redo the VP system. While I can understand a total rewrite from scratch is too much to do at this stage they need to look at it and sort out all the problems. Its the VP system creating all this "unwanted behavior". Until they admit that (at least internally) and fix it the basic problem will remain.
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
My immediate reaction was to support a sensible suggestion - as Joel has already stated re-doing the whole VP setup is not on the cards.
I wasn´t too serious with the comment. It was supposed to be a jest. Hence the smiley at then end... [;)]
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
Could I ask for the Italian scenario to get a bit of attention. Some people can't commit to the bigger scenarios so Italy is ideal. The scenario could use some attention with regards production and could use more aircraft in theatre made available specifically patrol planes and Bombers.
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
I haven't played Italy on its own, but that sounds sensible (and within the constaints as I understand). The issue will be getting the right aircraft tweaked rather than a blanket...
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
Sounds easy but is both difficult and time consuming as you have to amend at the factory level which is balanced to the Campaigns. If you want it done I suggest you start another thread and list what aircraft you shouldn't be getting and those you need more of - ideally with an indication of by how much.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy
RE: re-doing the VPs... while a wholesale revision is off the table, how would this tweak affect the game: make the WA casualty VPs *graduated*, either by date, or by percentage of casualties.
Meaning, WA can take more casualties earlier in the game without as bad a VP hit. It is, after all, earlier in the war, well before war-weariness and political calculations are taking effect. (Similarly, you could have U.S. casualties be worth less than UK-- the Brits, after all, were taking more of a toll by this stage of the war). As the war goes on, taking more casualties hurts VP more.
Similarly, you could do it by percentage. The more casualties you take, the more VP they cost. WA would still have incentive not to "spend" casualties in the early game in order to "save" them for later, but *if needed*, they could go a "high cost" route earlier in the game in the hopes of dealing a knock-out blow.
Basically: don't make it so costly to invade Italy in 1943 because the war wasn't that costly yet-- morale, particularly American, was still high. But by the end of 1944/45, the WA are probably looking to avoid costly battles as the cost of each casualty increases exponentially.
Anyway... just thinking out loud.
Meaning, WA can take more casualties earlier in the game without as bad a VP hit. It is, after all, earlier in the war, well before war-weariness and political calculations are taking effect. (Similarly, you could have U.S. casualties be worth less than UK-- the Brits, after all, were taking more of a toll by this stage of the war). As the war goes on, taking more casualties hurts VP more.
Similarly, you could do it by percentage. The more casualties you take, the more VP they cost. WA would still have incentive not to "spend" casualties in the early game in order to "save" them for later, but *if needed*, they could go a "high cost" route earlier in the game in the hopes of dealing a knock-out blow.
Basically: don't make it so costly to invade Italy in 1943 because the war wasn't that costly yet-- morale, particularly American, was still high. But by the end of 1944/45, the WA are probably looking to avoid costly battles as the cost of each casualty increases exponentially.
Anyway... just thinking out loud.