Italian Surrender

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

Please change this back to the old values.

I've tried the new patch and the new rules suck. I'm used to having Italy surrender when Naples falls.

That's not happening anymore and I'm practically having to fight all the way up the peninsula to force a surrender, and this is frankly not even worth the bother as the Allies. Under the new rules it is much better to invade France in 1943 and let the Mediterranean hang. Just knock out Libya and call it a day.

For the record, in my latest game Italian morale is at 29% as of August of 1943 and the peninsula is stuffed to the gills with Germans making it extremely difficult to gain any ground. That would be fine, if Italy had surrendered.

Right now Italy is a bitter ender country in a way it never was in real life.

The original rules were fine and worked to force the surrender right around the time and place it happened in real life. Go back to these.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Steely Glint »

+1. This needs to be restored to what it was.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by DeriKuk »

I've tried the new patch and the new rules suck. I'm used to having Italy surrender when Naples falls.

That's not happening anymore

I am FOR the new rules. As I type this, my game AI is playing in a game where Italy surrendered at the instant that NAPLES WAS OCCUPIED. I suspect that it goes hand-in-hand with the level of Italian morale at that time. Make an effort to beat up on the Reggia Marina BEFORE you invade, so as to reduce Italian morale.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

Okay, I finally got an Italian surrender. I had to take EVERY city south of Rome to do it. This is really too much. Was a hell of a grind, since every one of these was occupied. I also had to hunt down a few Regia Marina units and kill more or less the entire Italian army in the Soviet Union to do it.

By the time Italy surrendered, she didn't have a single unit on the map save the garrison in Albania.

C'mon.

The old rule was better.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
I've tried the new patch and the new rules suck. I'm used to having Italy surrender when Naples falls.

That's not happening anymore

I am FOR the new rules. As I type this, my game AI is playing in a game where Italy surrendered at the instant that NAPLES WAS OCCUPIED. I suspect that it goes hand-in-hand with the level of Italian morale at that time. Make an effort to beat up on the Reggia Marina BEFORE you invade, so as to reduce Italian morale.

Yeah, except that I shouldn't have to destroy the entire navy and more or less everything else to get a surrender here.

The Italians threw in the towel while still having much of their navy and millions under arms.

The way things stand now you have to destroy them almost to a man and grab half the peninsula to force a surrender. This is pretty close a bitter ender rule. It's to the point where I really question if it is worth the trouble as the allies. I think you're better off going for an early D Day with this bitter ender Italy.

The old rule was fine and worked fine and I don't understand why this was changed.
WitE Alpha Tester
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Capitaine »

That's better than Britain. I'd destroyed the RN, the RAF and occupied the entire island and still no surrender. If the NM wasn't 0% by that time what the heck would it take?

I don't know about the new Italy rules, but surrender "theory" should really be considered and standardized to some degree.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by sPzAbt653 »

The old rule was fine and worked fine and I don't understand why this was changed.
+1
However, at this point I only play the 653H Mod, and that does not include the latest change to Italian surrender so I don't have to deal with it [;)]
surrender "theory" should really be considered and standardized to some degree.
I don't think I agree at all to this. I think each country should be looked at for its individual motivations for entering and leaving the war. In the case of Britain, it was the United Kingdom, and this Kingdom wasn't reliant on the island of England to remain in being.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Capitaine »

A pleasant fiction.
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by DeriKuk »

... surrender "theory" should really be considered and standardized to some degree.

I agree, but it should not be entirely predictable. Once minimum surrender standards have been met, there should be a fuzzy "barrier" of probability ... but no certainty until another barrier of inevitability has been crossed.

Example: The previous standard of Sicilian occupation could be the Italian minimum, while the inevitability comes when either 1) Rome is taken, or 2) Two of Naples, Genoa, Venice, Turin, Milan or Bologna are occupied and held.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
... surrender "theory" should really be considered and standardized to some degree.

I agree, but it should not be entirely predictable. Once minimum surrender standards have been met, there should be a fuzzy "barrier" of probability ... but no certainty until another barrier of inevitability has been crossed.

Example: The previous standard of Sicilian occupation could be the Italian minimum, while the inevitability comes when either 1) Rome is taken, or 2) Two of Naples, Genoa, Venice, Turin, Milan or Bologna are occupied and held.

That is far too high of a requirement.

Naples should be enough by itself. Italy was looking for an out by the time Sicily fell, I certainly don't see how they stay in until Rome or some northern Italian cities fall. Again, these are near bitter end conditions. They weren't going to hold out that long.

The whole point of the Italian campaign (or one of the big ones) was to force an early surrender. Absent that and the clear indications that Badoglio and company were looking to bail, it might not have happened at all.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by DeriKuk »

That is far too high of a requirement.

Naples should be enough by itself.

What I am proposing is the Inevitability of surrender limit. Depending on the existing morale - affecting the probability - surrender could very well take place at the minimum level: the occupation of Sicily.

We should avoid a predictable, mechanisticbarrier. There should be an element of uncertainty.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
That is far too high of a requirement.

Naples should be enough by itself.

What I am proposing is the Inevitability of surrender limit. Depending on the existing morale - affecting the probability - surrender could very well take place at the minimum level: the occupation of Sicily.

We should avoid a predictable, mechanisticbarrier. There should be an element of uncertainty.

Why?

Things are pretty mechanistic for everyone else. Why is Italy so special?
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by DeriKuk »

Things are pretty mechanistic for everyone else. Why is Italy so special?

Italy should not be special. It only serves as the example for the general case: Limited uncertainty after the minimal (lower) standard for surrender has been met and is maintained. The probability of surrender on each turn where the condition exists, could be the inverse of the prevailing morale level. Of course, when the maximal surrender standard is met, the probability becomes 100%.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Capitaine »

Not a bad concept hjalmar.
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by James Taylor »

Correct me should I be wrong, but wasn't this to stop a gamey move from the Allies to force an early Italian surrender using its Med assets?

It seems you could get an early Italian DoW by moving the Allied Med units while positioning them for an invasion at the moment the Italians enter the war.[&:]
SeaMonkey
User avatar
Leadwieght
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Leadwieght »

Hi Seamonkey (or is it James Taylor?),
Yes it's been my experience that the Allies could both trigger an early DoW by Italy and take advantage of it by making an early invasion as you say. The higher Italian surrender threshold should make this gamey move less attractive.
LW
User avatar
FF_1079
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Bluffton, South Carolina

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by FF_1079 »

In my game as the Brits - I thought that the way Italy surrendered was a bit easy - the entire nation suddenly turned into my territory, allowing me to transport - not amphib invade - any Sicily troops directly to Northern Italy. There were few German troops in Italy, 1 Heavy Tank, 1 Corps and 1 Fighter, so only a tiny bit of territory south of Rome stayed German controlled. I had not taken Rome when it fell, though I was close to it - I felt that for me to get all the territory flipped to my nation - I should have had to take Rome, not just Naples.

Perhaps there is a compromise here where a Decision Event allows the Germans the ability to garrison Northern Italy with some troops based on Italy surrendering the next turn.
Fondly remembers SSI's "Clash of Steel"
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

In real life, Italy flipped entirely, but was also rapidly occupied by the Germans, who anticipated their defection.

If your Germans are having problems dealing with this, that's an entirely different issue than Italian surrender per se.

In may games, Germany generally has already flooded Italy with units and can respond to the flip, although it has a tendency of not dealing quickly with Northern Italy.

It certainly puts up a strong line of units (including engineers building fortifications) directly north of the Allied forces, and makes things quite a slog. Landings in Sicily should trigger a strong German reaction (including pulling units from the Eastern Front.) It's not ignoring the Med. I would tweak this script a bit to place some garrisons/corps in Northern Italy to make sure the entire country can be dealt with when it flips, but otherwise, there is no problem here.

Italy itself should surrender rather easily and if this is a response to the gamey exploit of suiciding the French fleet against the Regia Marina, it is the wrong one. The right one? For starters, weaken the French navy. And make the Adriatic an exclusion zone prior to Italian entry, so as to make prepositioning more difficult. Or, perhaps, lower NM morale worth of the Italian navy.

In actual real life Italy surrendered with much of its navy intact, which promptly sailed into Allied hands. (You could say it flipped.) So I don't buy this notion that sinking the Regia Marina should have such an impact on Italian surrender one way or the other. Italy threw in the towel for good solid, sensible reasons and was never going to go down in flames to the bitter end in German fashion.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Leadwieght
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:51 am

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Leadwieght »

I agree with FlaviusX that Italy was never going to be a "bitter ender" like Nazi Germany, but, in the interest of game balance I'd like to keep the higher threshold for Italy's surrender in the game. It was just a bit too easy to knock it out early in the game under the old rules. (BTW, does killing the Italian fleet really lower its NM? Manual Part 1 6.6.3 seems to suggest that destroying a unit raises the NM of the country that destroys said unit--different from SC2). Or, if you lower the threshold back to its old level, then give Italy a few more garrisons at the start, to hold a few of its ports.

I like the idea of giving the Germans a chance to put some units in Italy via DE, but it might work better as an automatic script that kicks in when Italy surrenders. I'd advocate for a SMALL German force--maybe 3-4 garrisons that pop up in Rome, Genoa, Milan, Bologna only if those cities are not occupied by Allied units at the moment. That way, the main decision is still left to the Axis player, whether he wants to commit serious German resources to fighting the Allies as far down the Boot as possible.

IRL, I think the German High Command seriously considered abandoning most of the peninsula right after the surrender and Badoglio's coup and instead fighting it out at the Gothic Line. Since this is a game, and not a pure historical simulation, I think this is the kind of decision that should be left to the players as much as possible.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Italian Surrender

Post by Flaviusx »

If this is going to be done in the interests of game balance, then the allied response is simple: D Day in 1943. Only put in enough in the Med to take out Libya and otherwise plan on an early landing in France from the getgo.

I'm not that interested in game balance. I don't consider the ETO a 50/50 proposition. The majority of the time, the Nazis should lose. If the idea of this game is to make both sides equal, than I'm out, because that's not the way it was.
WitE Alpha Tester
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”