Italian surrender

[Cybvep]

ATM the Allies need to control 3 cities in order to cause Italy to surrender. Because Tunis counts as a surrender city, this means that Italy will surrender after Allies control Tunis and Sicily. This is not what happened historically and I think that it's too generous for the Allies. In my opinion including Tunis as a surrender city was a good decision, because it impacts the strategic dynamism in the Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa suddenly becomes very important. However, I think that Italy should surrender after losing 4 cities, not 3. If you think that it's too generous for the Axis, then for balance Reggio can be included as the surrender city, too. The point is that Italy shouldn't surrender after losing Sicily alone.

[Kragdob]

ATM the Allies need to control 3 cities in order to cause Italy to surrender. Because Tunis counts as a surrender city, this means that Italy will surrender after Allies control Tunis and Sicily. This is not what happened historically and I think that it's too generous for the Allies. In my opinion including Tunis as a surrender city was a good decision, because it impacts the strategic dynamism in the Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa suddenly becomes very important. However, I think that Italy should surrender after losing 4 cities, not 3. If you think that it's too generous for the Axis, then for balance Reggio can be included as the surrender city, too. The point is that Italy shouldn't surrender after losing Sicily alone.

Agree - with 'Sicily' including Reggio (in mainland Italy).

[zechi]

ATM the Allies need to control 3 cities in order to cause Italy to surrender. Because Tunis counts as a surrender city, this means that Italy will surrender after Allies control Tunis and Sicily. This is not what happened historically and I think that it's too generous for the Allies. In my opinion including Tunis as a surrender city was a good decision, because it impacts the strategic dynamism in the Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa suddenly becomes very important. However, I think that Italy should surrender after losing 4 cities, not 3. If you think that it's too generous for the Axis, then for balance Reggio can be included as the surrender city, too. The point is that Italy shouldn't surrender after losing Sicily alone.

Why do you think this is not historical? Italy surrendered after Operation Husky (invasion if Sicily) and before the invasion of mainland Italy had been launched (Operation Avalanche). Before Operation Husky the Allies captured Tunis and had driven the Axis from North Africa.

So where do you see any historical discrepancies exactly?

[Cybvep]

Operation Husky ended in August. Italy surrendered on 8th of September, 5 days after Operation Avalanche was launched (EDIT: I just checked - it was not really Operation Avalanche, but the Allies were already fighting in southern Italy - I think that including Reggio as the surrender city could represent this quite well). Of course, they were already broken after Sicily, so they should be probably get a morale loss for each Italian city lost or sth, but it's not terribly important, as the Italians are already weak in 1943.

[Kragdob]

ATM the Allies need to control 3 cities in order to cause Italy to surrender. Because Tunis counts as a surrender city, this means that Italy will surrender after Allies control Tunis and Sicily. This is not what happened historically and I think that it's too generous for the Allies. In my opinion including Tunis as a surrender city was a good decision, because it impacts the strategic dynamism in the Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa suddenly becomes very important. However, I think that Italy should surrender after losing 4 cities, not 3. If you think that it's too generous for the Axis, then for balance Reggio can be included as the surrender city, too. The point is that Italy shouldn't surrender after losing Sicily alone.

Why do you think this is not historical? Italy surrendered after Operation Husky (invasion if Sicily) and before the invasion of mainland Italy had been launched (Operation Avalanche). Before Operation Husky the Allies captured Tunis and had driven the Axis from North Africa.

So where do you see any historical discrepancies exactly?

You are right. Good to know something new

[zechi]

Operation Husky ended in August. Italy surrendered on 8th of September, 5 days after Operation Avalanche was launched (EDIT: I just checked - it was not really Operation Avalanche, but the Allies were already fighting in southern Italy - I think that including Reggio as the surrender city could represent this quite well). Of course, they were already broken after Sicily, so they should be probably get a morale loss for each Italian city lost or sth, but it's not terribly important, as the Italians are already weak in 1943.

The armistice was negioated directly after Operation Husky (in Portugal and Sicily). The armistice was signed by Italy on the 3rd of September. On the same day the first Allied small scale landings on mainland Italy began. The armistice was publicy declared on 8th September. The main invasion of the Italian mainland began on 9th September (Operation Avalanche).

The reason that Italy surrendered were the loss of its Armies in North Africa. The successful invasion of Sicily and the immediate threat of the invasion of the Italian mainland as wells as the fact that Italy could now be bombed by Allied bombers at will.

Italy did not surrender because any invasion of its mainland, but because it feared the invasion of the Italian mainland. This is correctly represented in CEAW GS from my point of view.

[Cybvep]

I know that they signed the armistice on 3th of September, but it was declared on 8th of September (as you said yourself), when the Italians stopped fighting and then the German takeover of the Italian mainland and territories occupied by the Italians in the Balkans happened. This is what I call a "surrender" in game terms. Operation Husky ended on 17th of August and the period between 17th of August and 8th of September is about a one in-game turn. If Reggio is counted as the surrender city, I think the situation will be realistically represented.

[zechi]

I know that they signed the armistice on 3th of September, but it was declared on 8th of September (as you said yourself), when the Italians stopped fighting and then the German takeover of the Italian mainland and territories occupied by the Italians in the Balkans happened. This is what I call a "surrender" in game terms. Operation Husky ended on 17th of August and the period between 17th of August and 8th of September is about a one in-game turn. If Reggio is counted as the surrender city, I think the situation will be realistically represented.

That is true, but does not change the reasons for the armistice. The decision by the Italians to surrender to the western Allies had been taken before any Allied soldier had put a foot in the Italian mainland. Italy agreed to surrender after Operation Husky. This is correctly represented in the game. It was not necessary for the Allies to capture any city on the Italian mainland to force the surrender.

[Cybvep]

Well, if you want Italy to surrender because of the bombing threat to the Italian cities, then e.g. Marseilles should be a surrender city, too, because the Allies could reach the northern Italian industrial heartland from there And judging by the performance of the Italian army during Operation Husky (thousands of POWs), maybe they should surrender after losing Africa? :]

I'm not saying that it's incredibly important, but I just wanted to bring the issue. It's relatively minor, but I guess that it would also be quite easy to implement the proposed change.

[zechi]

Well, if you want Italy to surrender because of the bombing threat to the Italian cities, then e.g. Marseilles should be a surrender city, too, because the Allies could reach the northern Italian industrial heartland from there And judging by the performance of the Italian army during Operation Husky (thousands of POWs), maybe they should surrender after losing Africa? :]

I'm not saying that it's incredibly important, but I just wanted to bring the issue. It's relatively minor, but I guess that it would also be quite easy to implement the proposed change.

The threat posed by the Allied bombers was one of the factors which lead to the armistice. In fact Eisenhower had to stop 500 bombers flying to Rome after signing the armistice on 3rd September . Of course the losses inflicted on the Italian Army in North Africa as well as Sicily were also one of the main factors for the Italian surrender. From my point of view this is correctly represented in the game. A third Italian surrender city would from point of view not historical.

[Cybvep]

I still think that it's a bit too generous for the Allies, as they should be more motivated to make an effort against Italian mainland before the Italian surrender. Hmm, perhaps a sensible compromise would be a "cooldown" of 2-3 turns before the surrender happens IF the Allies only control Sicily and Tunis and don't control any hexes on the Italian mainland. This could give Germany more time to prepare, too, which would represent the fact that they were already ready for the takeover of Italian holdings when the armistice was publicly declared.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Italy was actually in negotiations about surrender when the fighting was still going on in Sicily. The treaty was signed even before the Allies landed in southern mainland Italy.

The Axis player knows what is at stake when he loses Sicily so he will defend it well with Italians. We see now that the Axis put units in every hex on Sicily trying to force the Allies to bypass Sicily and land in mainland Italy. So it's often after heavy fighting that the Italians surrender when Tunis, Palermo and Messina are taken.

I think that this part of the war is functioning pretty well. It takes awhile to take all of Libya and Tunisia and then Sicily. The landing in mainland Italy isn't that easy because you face German units and they defend in the cities and the Gustav line. So th advance towards Rome is a very slow one.

The Axis player should prepare for the surrender of Italy by sending non-Italian units to the mainland cities prior to the fall of Italy.

A typical mistake by the Axis player is to forget to garrison every mainland city after Sardinia and/or Corsica have fallen. That means the Allies can paradrop directly into a city. If it's done before Sicily has fallen you can enforce an Italian surrender that way. It's almost like forgetting to garrison Rome and lose it to an Allied landing by the garrison in Malta.

[zechi]

I still think that it's a bit too generous for the Allies, as they should be more motivated to make an effort against Italian mainland before the Italian surrender. Hmm, perhaps a sensible compromise would be a "cooldown" of 2-3 turns before the surrender happens IF the Allies only control Sicily and Tunis and don't control any hexes on the Italian mainland. This could give Germany more time to prepare, too, which would represent the fact that they were already ready for the takeover of Italian holdings when the armistice was publicly declared.

Interesting idea, but I fear that would result in massive suicide attacks by Italian units in the "cooldown" phase. Nevertheless, it could be considered to give the Axis one more turn before the Italian surrender takes effect after Tunis/Sicily have been captured. To prevent suicide attacks by Italian units a new Axis minor ally could be formed and at least some of the remaining Italian units become available to the Axis as units if the Italian Social Republic (RSI). The RSI was only a puppet state but nevertheless not completely insignificant for the Italian theater.

Cheers Zechi

[Cybvep]

So it's often after heavy fighting that the Italians surrender when Tunis, Palermo and Messina are taken.

Yes, heavy fighting using the Italian units. IRL their performance was TERRIBLE in Sicily. More than a hundred thousand Italians soldiers became POWs after Operation Husky.

The Axis player should prepare for the surrender of Italy by sending non-Italian units to the mainland cities prior to the fall of Italy.

Yeah, I think that's sensible. However, in order to give the Germans a bit more time, at least a cooldown period of 1 turn could be introduced.

To prevent suicide attacks by Italian units a new Axis minor ally could be formed and at least some of the remaining Italian units become available to the Axis as units if the Italian Social Republic (RSI). The RSI was only a puppet state but nevertheless not completely insignificant for the Italian theater.

Now this is a nice idea...

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The main problem with that idea is that you need to store a new variable when the conditions were met and then count turns. That will invalidate all existing beta games. It's simple to do, but we try to avoid doing changes that means people will have to start over all their games.

The end effect won't matter much either. If you really want to make a change then it's better to make a rule saying that it's 50% chance of Italian surrender each turn the conditions are met. That will delay the surrender date some times, but won't need a new variable. The reason is that I only have to check for the conditions and roll 1d100 and compare the result with the surrender percentage.

The main reason to NOT do that is that we don't usually have surrender terms that are not absolute. I'm sure that we will get Allied players complaining because they get unlucky with the surrender rolls and Italy survives long enough for the major landing in Italy to be delayed to the bad weather. People tend to accept bad results from poor strategies, but they tend to complain if they get bad results from not being friendly with the dice. Combat results are so frequent so they will average out, but surrender rolls, tech rolls etc. could have a big impact on the game balance. E. g. if we had a variable US entry (e. g. 25% chance from October 1941) then a string of bad rolls or a very lucky roll can mean a diffence of 6+ months in the US entry. That can be enough to swing the entire game. The surrender of Italy isn't that important, but if you can hold out an extra 3-4 turns because of luck with the die roll you can harm the Allied effort quite a bit. E. g. you can start to sacrifice your Italian units because you know they won't last long anyway. This is what was the main problem with France prior to the armistice offer rule. You saw French units everywhere attack German units on the last turn before Paris fell.

[Cybvep]

You could always introduce a cap of sorts, so that the Italians would always surrender after e.g. 2 turns.

You can start to sacrifice your Italian units because you know they won't last long anyway

If RSI was introduced, then the player would have more incentives to avoid suicidal attacks. Also, since historically the Germans confiscated TONS of equipment and used thousands of former Italian soldiers in the labour camps, they could get a percentage of the PP value of the remaining Italian units.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You could always introduce a cap of sorts, so that the Italians would always surrender after e.g. 2 turns.

Doing that means we need to store a variable about when the event happened and that will invalidate all save games.

[rkr1958]

Operation Husky ended in August. Italy surrendered on 8th of September, 5 days after Operation Avalanche was launched (EDIT: I just checked - it was not really Operation Avalanche, but the Allies were already fighting in southern Italy - I think that including Reggio as the surrender city could represent this quite well). Of course, they were already broken after Sicily, so they should be probably get a morale loss for each Italian city lost or sth, but it's not terribly important, as the Italians are already weak in 1943.

Husky was the invasion of Sicily. The Italians surrendered when the allies were on their way to land in the mainland.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=53

The Surrender of Italy- 3 Sep 1943
The fall of Sicily in Aug 1943 affected the Italians so tremendously that a coup d'etat materialized. Italian leader Benito Mussolini was deposed from power, and the new government under Marshal Pietro Badoglio accepted a "Short Military Armistice" with the Allied powers on 3 Sep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... rld_War_II

On 3 September, British troops crossed the short distance from Sicily to the 'toe' of Italy in Operation Baytown. Two more Allied landings took place on 9 September at Salerno (Operation Avalanche) and at Taranto (Operation Slapstick). The Italian surrender meant that the Allied landings at Taranto took place unopposed, with the troops simply disembarking from warships at the docks rather than assaulting the coastline. Because of the time it took for the new Italian government to negotiate the armistice, the Germans had time to reinforce their presence in Italy and prepare for their defection. In the first weeks of August they increased the number of divisions in Italy from two to seven and took control of vital infrastructure.[58] Once the signing of the armistice was announced on September 8, German troops quickly disarmed the Italian forces and took over critical defensive positions in Operation Achse.

So I don't see how anyone can saw that the way we model it now is not historical. It seems very historical to me. What am I missing?

Unless I'm badly missing something I really don't see that we need to change anything with regard to the Italian surrender.

Also, since historically the Germans confiscated TONS of equipment and used thousands of former Italian soldiers in the labour camps, they could get a percentage of the PP value of the remaining Italian units.

The Germans already get a lot of PP's and rail capacity when the Italians surrender. They get control of all cities and territory under the control of the Italians at the time of their surrender. So I also think that part is currently represented well too.

[Cybvep]

The Allies were already making small-scale attacks in the mainland and again, the armistice was declared on 8th of September. The Italians ceased fighting that day and Germany proceeded to capture Italian cities and arrest Italian soldiers (many ended up in the labour camps, while their equipment was confiscated). This is what the in-game "surrender" is IMO. The "delay" between the end of the Operation Husky (17th of August) and the Italian surrender (8th of September) is an equivalent of one in-game turn.

EDIT:

They get control of all cities and territory under the control of the Italians at the time of their surrender. So I also think that part is currently represented well too.

This would be in place in order to make suicide attacks with the Italians less tempting.

[rkr1958]

The Allies were already making small-scale attacks in the mainland and again, the armistice was declared on 8th of September. The Italians ceased fighting that day and Germany proceeded to capture Italian cities and arrest Italian troops (many ended up in the labour camps, while their equipment were confiscated). This is what the in-game "surrender" is IMO. The "delay" between the end of the Operation Husky (17th of August) and the Italian surrender (8th of September) is an equivalent of one in-game turn.

The armistice was agreed to on September 3rd and officially announced on September 8th. From 17 August to 8 September is 22 days, which is one game turn. So in game terms the allied player completes the capture of Sicily on August 31, 1939 and Italy surrenders and the allies can land uncontested the next turn September 20, 1943 in Reggio and southern Italy (if unoccupied). Seems very historical to me. In fact, I'd wager that Tranato would likely be occupied by a German unit as it was not historically. So in fact, the allied landings in southern Italy will be more difficult than they were historically.

Again, what am I missing?

This would be in place in order to make suicide attacks with the Italians less tempting.

My understanding was that the Italians were ready to get out of the war. Were there any corps size units that still fought with the Germans after Italy's surrender? From an allied perspective, I'd rather face a few desperation (or suicide) attacks and have all the Italian units disappear than not. Clearing the board of Italian units, in my experience, forces the axis player to over rail to stabilized their defenses in Italy.