Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Italian Surrender

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Italian Surrender Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/14/2017 4:16:16 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Or, is it reasonable to Transfer Italy to Germany when Italy surrenders ? Or would that create more nightmares ?


The trouble with Italy is that when it surrenders, the exact frontline will vary from game to game, and having territories transfer either to a new country (e.g. the Salo Republic) or Germany would have to depend on these frontlines.

It's a scripting nightmare, particularly as we would have no way to prevent other scripts from firing at different times, e.g. if Bologna is transferred to Axis control when Italy surrenders, and the Axis advance and liberate Milan, then another set of scripts would fire.

This could carry on ad nauseam, and Rome would also have to transfer to become part of Germany if it is to remain in Axis hands when Italy surrenders, preventing Italy's potential liberation, and the whole thing would fiercely detract from the playing experience.

I have spent many hours wracking my brain trying to come up with a workable situation, but so far I have not worked out a robust solution that would feel right and also lack unwanted side-effects. My mind still returns to this every now and again, but the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders so that they can seize local control when it does surrender.


PS I am carefully watching the whole discussion over Italy and we'll see how the new National Morale settings work after more experience.

What will be handy is knowing what Italy's NM level is in your games when the Allies capture Sicily and have a foothold (north or south) on the mainland. Along with knowing of any other factors that could be considered important, if applicable.

Through comparing results it will help to assess the change, and whether any further changes are needed.


Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943. For instance, if the Axis were winning against the Red Army and had victory in sight in the east, with Italy knowing that massive German assistance would be available in the event of an invasion, could we have expected Mussolini to have been overthrown so soon?

I'm in two minds about the answer, because even if the Axis were winning in the east, allowing one's country to be invaded by sea hardly reflects being in a position of strength. It also feels to me that any intelligent observer could have seen that by the summer of 1943 the Axis were not going to win the war, so looking for a way out would not be a silly thing to do. But even so, losing in the east cannot have boosted Italian faith in victory.

< Message edited by Bill Runacre -- 3/14/2017 4:21:59 PM >


_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 31
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/14/2017 4:30:01 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1431
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
I have spent many hours wracking my brain trying to come up with a workable situation, but so far I have not worked out a robust solution that would feel right and also lack unwanted side-effects. My mind still returns to this every now and again, but the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders so that they can seize local control when it does surrender.


Feasible to the Human player, harder to pull for the AI. Maybe have the AI get free garrison unit in all non-allied occupied Italian cities before the surrender kicks in. It will give the AI an opportunity to operate stuff in the theater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943. For instance, if the Axis were winning against the Red Army and had victory in sight in the east, with Italy knowing that massive German assistance would be available in the event of an invasion, could we have expected Mussolini have been overthrown so soon?


This could be done by having a requirement tied to the national morale of Germany. You could have something like if Germany national morale dips under a certain threshold, Italy morale takes a dip.

Either that or have a combined 'Axis' and 'Allies' national moral that kind of reflect how the war is going on a macrolevel. Italian surrender can start happening after dipping under '70%' or something.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 32
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/14/2017 7:38:06 PM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 358
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

Incidentally, I have also been wondering what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender when the Allies landed in 1943.


As KorutZelva points out, the loss of a captured objective - Stalingrad in the example - should affect the morale of both sides.

It does not have to be the same, predictable objectives. Instead, the Axis player may have to specify a pivotal objective in the USSR with the declaration of war (Barbarossa). The morale implications of that objective is then multiplied when its ownership changes. The objective specification expires at the end of March every year, and has to be re-directed by the Axis player at that point ... in the USSR if there still is some vital Axis presence; or anywhere on the map is there is no longer a vital Axis presence in the USSR.

... oh, I forgot; this about Italian surrender.

I also forgot: The Allied player should not know what that objective is. It is Fuehrer privilege.

< Message edited by hjalmar99 -- 3/14/2017 7:40:06 PM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 33
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/15/2017 7:30:10 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

preventing Italy's potential liberation

In my mind, I am thinking this is unnecessary, as Italy would not have surrendered, and then rejoined Germany if the Germans had occupied Rome. Historically the Germans did occupy Rome, and it was a bit messy as some Italians continued to fight for the Axis, some switched sides, and the rest went home. But I have been thinking of making Italy similar to Poland, in that the territory would transfer to Germany and that way avoid the liberation process. This is what I think happened historically [Italy surrendered and Germany occupied them].

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 34
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/15/2017 7:35:18 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

the best solution still seems to be for the Axis to place a good number of German units in Italian territory before Italy surrenders

This is absolutely true and fine for a human Axis player, but the computer doesn't execute it well. As can be seen in the post 28 screen shot, the only thing he garrisons with Germans is the Casino Line. As most games are played solo [and all of mine], I would rather see the situation focus on the solo aspect

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 35
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/15/2017 7:50:38 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

What will be handy is knowing what Italy's NM level is in your games

I said earlier that I thought it was fine as it was, so much so that I did not incorporate the latest NM change into v653H. However, it might of relevance that in some of my Allied games against the computer Axis that these were played after I had played the German side until 1944, then switched sides. In these cases, the German NM has reached around 160, the Italian around 130, while the UK is around 30 and the USSR around 60. Playing the Allies at this point is a real handicap and challenge to get a win [and it's fun]. However I have noticed that the retaking of NM Objectives has little or no effect, while positive NM values seem to go up 1 each turn and negative go down 1 each turn. This may be due to other factors, but it makes wonder if it is coded to do that.
Anyway, in the example of my latest game of switching sides after Germany does quite well against the computer, the Italians were at about 130 NM and playing as the Allies I had to take back all of Africa, get Sicily, and then advance up the boot to Naples before the Italians surrendered. A little longer than I would expect, but not a game killer. Meanwhile, the UK NM continued to go down each turn, with minor positive increases due to enemy units destroyed. Sealion had been successful but after switching sides I had retaken England, and even recapturing London did not add to the UK NM total. I have decided to look at the NM scripts soon to see if I should or could do something about this, but I think it is obviously a limited situation as I don't recall anyone else saying that they play this way [switching sides].

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 36
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/15/2017 8:09:06 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

what impact the Axis defeat at Stalingrad had on Italy's decision to surrender

Well, [opinion warning] from a war motivation perspective I don't think Italy was much interested in Russia. Mussolini attacked France because he wanted a place at the surrender table. Italy [and many others] expected Britain to accept terms. Once it was obvious to Italy and Germany's other Minor Allies that Germany would not win, they all were looking for ways out. However, they all also feared Germany [except for Finland] and had to be very careful of a brutal occupation. In Italy's case they wanted the Allies in a strong position on the mainland in order to counter the German occupation forces and guarantee Italy's safety. I'm not giving a history lesson as I know you don't need it, I'm just outlining my main thoughts on how to deal with Minor Surrenders, which is 'once the Germans don't win, the Minors will fold at the first safe opportunity'. Building this into a game is quite difficult, but I intend to work on an outline and post it in the 653H thread for everyone to critique [when I ever get the time ].

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 37
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/16/2017 5:16:03 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1024
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Italians were doing nightmarish on all fronts, Egypt+Russia+Med Navy+Greece... Everything had been bad for them. I watched a psychological profile on Mussolini and they debated things like this. Italy joined the War cause he saw that an Axis Victory(Grab a hold of the German coat tails) was inevitable and though unready for war he thought he could get some cheap and easy gains all around the place. Of course that was one theory! There were fierce debates pre-WW2 between Italy and France/UK that actually pushed Italy away from them, like Ethiopia and what happened with Austria made Italy jump deeper in bed with Germany.

Why they surrendered so quickly goes into the internal culture, politics and inevitably what what was coming. In CEAW you get a auto-surrender with select cities. Libya, Sardinia, Sicily and I do not even remember if Naples is required. It made Sicily packed with endless units and Southern Italy. Plus any other region almost unreachable. Though here Italy is much larger. To reflect history she shouldn't be too tough but neither should giving her up be well, a forgone conclusion. Some randomness in it would be nice, I think? Or if we go rigid history will it be a typical Allied to Strategy to Blitz the Toe to get an auto surrender much like CEAW?

P.S. In all this does anyone figure the possibility of Op Valkyrie actually working? :P sorry but nobody ever brings that up even if Germany is winning what kind of situation figures in there to all these history lovers?



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 3/16/2017 5:41:53 AM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 38
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/17/2017 8:17:24 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7724
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson.

In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis.

And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism.


I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.

A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.

Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 39
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/17/2017 3:22:58 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson.

In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis.

And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism.


I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.

A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.

Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.

You seem to have a very political view of WWII. If you are missing the opportunities the Axis had early on had they been more "prescient" then I can only believe you're too blinded by ideological beliefs to examine things objectively. This wasn't a deterministic conflict; there were a lot of variables. In a wargame, with the benefit of hindsight, there are a lot of strategies for the Axis that could've yielded a much stronger position. For example, consider the German switch from airfield bombing to terror bombing in the Battle of Britain. That was fatal when truth be known they had the RAF on the ropes from the former.

I seem to recall that you make similar arguments in the War in the East folder as well, insisting there was no way the Germans could've won, and any avenue that allows it should be foreclosed (my own recollection and impression). That's a very odd viewpoint to my way of thinking. Which is not to say that ultimately the Allies hadn't developed and accrued many advantages. But Germany was ascendant through about 1942 I'd say. Allies probably favored 70-30, but that 30 still persists.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 40
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/17/2017 5:28:07 PM   
Petrosian

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
I feel this is a wargame, not a historical replay and that either side should be equal to win. If not outright winning for the Axis then some sort of scale for holding out. I was not aware of he Naples thing and if Italy surrenders when Naples is taken then that should be in the rulebook as an objective.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 41
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/17/2017 5:47:26 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1024
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Capitaine,

throughout history villains have won and with fewer numbers and in situations with not such an advantage.

When one looks at production figures of 10 to 1 later they don't look at what was in the field and available at a particular moment. It's a broad view and the forest is basically obscuring the view. The Confederacy in the American Civil War managed some victories that were far more mismatched and with some hindsight could have likely tipped elections to their own ends.(ultimately becoming exactly what it all turned out to be anyway)

Thing is one side couldn't afford the repeated errors as the other side could.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 42
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/18/2017 2:43:26 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Capitaine,

throughout history villains have won and with fewer numbers and in situations with not such an advantage.

When one looks at production figures of 10 to 1 later they don't look at what was in the field and available at a particular moment. It's a broad view and the forest is basically obscuring the view. The Confederacy in the American Civil War managed some victories that were far more mismatched and with some hindsight could have likely tipped elections to their own ends.(ultimately becoming exactly what it all turned out to be anyway)

Thing is one side couldn't afford the repeated errors as the other side could.

Yes. Very true.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 43
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/18/2017 3:20:51 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1923
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.


I think you're ascribing political affinity to what is really appreciation of military prowess. The early accomplishments of the Germans in WW2 is truly remarkable, and can be acknowledged as such without taking on any political baggage. That has no role in this game, and in my experience no role in why people like to play war games.
I love punching nazis and commies, but I wouldn't let that stop me from playing WITE, for example. Would an affinity for playing the Soviet side make that individual a Stalinist sympathizer, or even fan? How do those shoes feel?

quote:

A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.


War itself is a moral obscenity, but that isn't why we like to play these games.
Even chess isn't balanced, because white goes first.
I would agree the game is currently tilted in favor of the Allies, as was the war. But even the side with all the advantages can still screw it up. History is replete with examples.

quote:

Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.




(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 44
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/18/2017 4:39:56 PM   
wie201

 

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline
We’ll never agree on this – one side wants a “game” and one more of a “simulation.” Hard to do both.

For what it's worth, I prefer "historically accurate" versus a "game." No offence to anyone, as I like and play both types, but if I want to play a “game” I would go for Panzer General or Axis and Allies. The advertisement does say “refight WW2 in Europe,” and I don’t think you can really refight WW2 if the Axis has a 50-50 shot at winning because they didn’t (unless they do not go to war against Russia but, in this game that is not a possibility). But, from what I understand, the game is highly moddable allowing, to some extent, for both preferences to adapt.

OK, so you don’t want to have to do that, but as a former programmer the best you can do is allow for modifications, unless you say something like this is a “hard-core simulation” of WW2 or “this is a game set in WW2 Europe.”

I am deep into my first HTH (against a long-time board game opponent) and we have solved the problem thusly (FYI - we both prefer simulations)

(1) We take into consideration political/historical aspects as applicable for the time period, for instance sending a much-needed Tank Unit (not the slower infantry) to Paris to liberate France when it is desperately needed in the drive to Berlin/Munich to win “the game;”

(2) We agree on house rules, often on the fly. For example not reinforcing units more than one time once they are deep within enemy territory and fairly far from their own front lines (plus NO upgrades when isolated or when not appropriate (no upgrading a British Battleship in a Greek port)); and

(3) We have a third-party referee

NOTE - I understand that this is not a solution for anyone else and I am in a unique situation, but I have found others (not neighbors) who are more interested in learning about the War (or other conflicts) and the effect certain decisions would have rather than just “winning the game.” In my game we simply switch sides and try to beat each other’s score. And yes, whoever takes Germany first is probably at a distinct disadvantage.

It works for us as playing a 50-50 game works for you. I’ve done both. But, frankly, I would not want to engage anyone in this game that simply wants to “play WW2.” I completely understand your position and I like to play games as well. It is just, for this game in particular, we have a wonderful opportunity to allow for both in an intuitive, smooth, and excellent environment.

NOT EASY!

So for me, let’s try a simulation that doesn’t take years to play. For others, you paid for it so play it as you want. It is a great game we can all enjoy!

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 45
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/18/2017 8:33:24 PM   
IrishGuards


Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
Italy never surrender's, remember tunis, libya n cairo'
once spain joins and Gib is gone, dominate the seas so much even turkey is in the sphere to invade into southern russia via dardenelles.

IG

(in reply to wie201)
Post #: 46
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/19/2017 3:16:43 PM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 358
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

throughout history villains have won


No, the good guys ALWAYS win ... and then they write the history.

(in reply to IrishGuards)
Post #: 47
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/19/2017 4:51:49 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
Back the the main point, the biggest issue with Italy remains that the AI deploys an abnormally large number of IT forces east. When it surrenders the AI lacks any precognition so it blows a huge hole in the German lines, also the Germans usually don't have anything in Italy so the Allies land in the south, force surrender and then are North if Rome the next turn. If the AI managed the Italian surrender better it wouldn't be an issue. I would think it would be fairly simple to have the Germans deploy units to Italy when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold. How to handle the Eastern Front units seems like a bigger problem. Maybe the AI could be setup to not send Italian units east other than the IEF.

(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 48
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/19/2017 11:17:51 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold

I am trying to learn as much as I can, but so far I have not seen anything that will do this. There are events that will trigger as Morale goes up, but not down. As far as I know, so far.

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 49
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/20/2017 1:24:58 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1431
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online
The more I think about it, the more I think maybe any Italian surrender would surrender it (mechanically) to Germany. Basically, once they did they were never going to be an independent force in that conflict. Let's say the German got the upper hand and kicked the allies out of Italy they would have ran the show occupied-france style.

Germany gets a small boost of MPPs but loses the manpower limit on unit from the lost of an independent ally.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 50
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/20/2017 4:33:29 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

when Italian morale falls below a certain threshold

I am trying to learn as much as I can, but so far I have not seen anything that will do this. There are events that will trigger as Morale goes up, but not down. As far as I know, so far.


This line in the DECISION Event files is available for setting events to happen when National Morale falls below a certain %:

;Set National Morale Trigger (dummy value)
#NATIONAL_MORALE_TRIGGER= 0 [0]


_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 51
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/20/2017 5:18:58 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
Will that work for an event for Germany based on Italian national morale?

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 52
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/20/2017 5:31:15 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Yes, it can be done.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 53
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/20/2017 9:34:56 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
#NATIONAL_MORALE_TRIGGER= 0 [0]

for a value less than or equal to the 'national_morale_percentage'

Certainly can come in handy, in the right circumstances

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 54
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/21/2017 11:54:07 AM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline
Hi,

Going back to KorutZelva's post, I too am beginning to favour the idea that, once surrendered, Italy should be incapable of being "Liberated" by the Germans and returning to play as a full-fledged Major Power.

In one early game against the AI, I managed to knock Italy out in September of 1940 (this was before the higher NM was put in place). It was a fluke, and I had so few British units available that I couldn't hold any positions on the mainland. Had to retreat to Sicily while the Germans put Il Duce back in power and the Axis proceeded to raise a pretty large Italian army for use in the Balkans and Russia. I still won because losing North Africa and the Allies gaining access to Albania lured the Axis into a long drawn-out Balkan adventure that ruined any chances of a strong Barbarossa.

But, although I am definitely on the "game" side of the game/historical simulation debate, it felt extremely ahistorical to see the Fascist regime in Italy revive from completely ignominious defeat almost as if nothing had happened.

So, in the event of Italian surrender I'd like to see hexes in Italy and Albania not under Allied control go over to Germany (North Africa should go Allied though), maybe a few German garrisons could deploy automatically in 2-3 N. Italian cities, and the Germans would get the opportunity to form a few RSI units. But no liberation would be possible

Leadwieght

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 55
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/21/2017 12:51:17 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9424
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
To add some info on the game mechanics for those of us that aren't as familiar as the developers, I ran a test a couple days ago where Italy surrenders to Germany, and as with other cases of surrender/liberation, the result was the same or worse as Italy surrendering to the USA or UK [Libya, as part of Italy, also went all German except for Allied occupied hexes].

So this has me pondering the last couple of days why hexes transfer ownership upon surrender/liberation. I can't control it so I can't run any tests, the only thing I can do is monitor when these situations come up and then take a minute to peruse the map and see what effects there are and what effects there would be if hex ownership did not change. My thought is that the normal routine for hexes automatically changing ownership would take over and be sufficient. In some cases this would have a similar effect as what we have now, but in reverse. Example - Germans take Paris and France surrenders, but all of France does not automatically transfer to Germany. This would mean that until the Germans occupy all the resources that the UK could Transport units into France.

I think this could or might be reasonable because the game uses only two forms of hex ownership, Axis or Allies. Therefore when Italy surrenders all hexes remain as they were, with normal end of turn ownership calculation taking place. Resource allocation may be an issue.

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 56
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/21/2017 5:51:27 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44993
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson.

In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis.

And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism.


I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.

A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.

Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.
warspite1

quote:

morally obscene.


quote:

The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.


Well each to their own but I must confess I was a little taken aback by these comments Flaviusx!

I think this is far too broad brush in its approach, and to say that ‘much’ of the wargaming community are soft on fascism because they like playing the Germans or they want to play a game where the Germans can win is extremely unfair.

I have no doubt that there are some knuckle-dragging Neanderthals amongst the wargaming community (just as there are in wider society) who subscribe to Hitler’s world view, but I would think they are in the minority.

So ADG* is a ‘morally obscene’ company because its strategic game World In Flames is designed for either side to win? No – it’s a bit of fun (and happens to be a bloody brilliant game). For the Axis to win World In Flames, liberties have been made in terms of some of their units quality – otherwise a win would be impossible – but in so doing the game does not glorify the Nazis or Hitler, or his Axis schmucks; it’s nothing more than a game mechanic to create a fun game that can be won by either side.

Yes I prefer to play the Commonwealth more often than not, but when I play the Germans I want to win – for the simple reason that I am playing the Germans, not because I secretly harbour a wish that those scumbags had won the war. And what about the Soviets? When I play the Soviets I want to win purely because I am playing the Soviets and not because that paranoid psycho Uncle Joe does it for me (not clear from your post but is the wargaming community too soft on Communism too)?. Ditto the Japanese, ditto the Italians.

Just my GBP £0.20

* I have not mentioned SC3 here because I don't know if the ultimate game plan is to allow equal chance of victory for both.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/21/2017 6:11:51 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 57
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/22/2017 12:36:14 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1024
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I wish that in 1938-1939 the French/British sat down and ran proper war games on the possible outcome of situations at hand. A board game of this, Strategic Command with even the most remote and simplistic values could have given their Generals less a rigid point of view and the foresight to stop a war from lasting more than a few months. German High Command sues for peace terms and hangs their leadership. Game over...

Oh but people say the variables? We're human computers, run as many as humanly possible. I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at West Point(or any Military Academy) and isn't he who wrote something like, "Know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will never lose?" I don't know but these games actually can be education in the right light.

Watching Char-1 Bis facing off against Panzer IIIs in a simulated 3-D model of history. World's Great Tank Battles. Seems like things were just so very close.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 58
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/22/2017 2:04:31 AM   
FF_1079


Posts: 87
Joined: 12/26/2007
From: Bluffton, South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I wish that in 1938-1939 the French/British sat down and ran proper war games on the possible outcome of situations at hand. A board game of this, Strategic Command with even the most remote and simplistic values could have given their Generals less a rigid point of view and the foresight to stop a war from lasting more than a few months. German High Command sues for peace terms and hangs their leadership. Game over...

Oh but people say the variables? We're human computers, run as many as humanly possible. I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at West Point(or any Military Academy) and isn't he who wrote something like, "Know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will never lose?" I don't know but these games actually can be education in the right light.

Watching Char-1 Bis facing off against Panzer IIIs in a simulated 3-D model of history. World's Great Tank Battles. Seems like things were just so very close.


Knowing how to win and having the will to win are two separate things. France should have fought harder but they did not have the will to. Thank God that there was no landbridge from France to England because there is no doubt in most historians minds that England would have fallen quickly as well. I'm not going to blame the French for their lack of desire to fight after the horror of the WWI - I don't fault the United Kingdom either for not rushing a second front either - we simply don't recall how heavily the manpower of a generation of those two nations was wasted in a meat grinder of war.

Flaviusx: I think you are a little over the top, while history identifies the outcomes of wars, we are the ones that determine the good guys and bad guys. The World War had multiple players and many of the actions taken by those players are more gray than Black or White.

< Message edited by FF_1079 -- 3/22/2017 2:08:02 AM >


_____________________________

Fondly remembers SSI's "Clash of Steel"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 59
RE: Italian Surrender - 3/22/2017 3:38:43 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1024
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
FF_1079, it makes me a little curious that you have a country like Germany rearming out the rear and the United Kingdom is very shell shocked no doubt from WW1 and doesn't want to participate in WW2 at any cost, unless they have to. All is relying on the French and an unfinished Maginot Line that is costing a mint. Also France is all fractured politically ... Still manage to field an impressive army between the French and British. The equipment isn't even that bad! Just about as much as the Germans!(Germany had a heck of a lot of Panzers Is and IIs going into Blitzkrieg) Some of those are paper tanks. It's really the tactics and not so much the 'will to fight' or the 'equipment entirely'.

Blitzkrieg was a lucky gamble and didn't work so well in the backwater supply constrained East. Just well for nice relatively flat plains in Western Europe with great roads and rail to bring up the supply. The Russians fought but they were given an alternative = the devil you know or the devil you don't. French didn't have that harsh an alternative nor did the English.

So why did the Italians throw it in? Probably just like the French, the terms were pretty good. Look at Wilson and Post WW1 peace. Maybe they expected things would better if they did quickly. OF course it was true!

(IF Poland would have been a disaster the Regime in Germany would have toppled as fast as the one in Italy, and I think faster and in France, double that, so Will is a matter of winning, by Stalingrad that will was as battered as France in '40 ... )

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 3/22/2017 3:44:50 AM >

(in reply to FF_1079)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Italian Surrender Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.473