Sicilian Silliness

[Diplomaticus]

I agree with Borger's proposal. It is good not to add Cagliari and Reggio to the surrender cities. I also like forcing the Allied player to capture a city on mainland Italy if they want to skip Tunis. But you can still follow the historical approach and take Tunis, Tripoli, and Sicily.

Yes--I think we're headed in a good direction. This may add a bit more dynamism to the Med theatre. More options, more flexibility, more strategy.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree with Borger's proposal. It is good not to add Cagliari and Reggio to the surrender cities. I also like forcing the Allied player to capture a city on mainland Italy if they want to skip Tunis. But you can still follow the historical approach and take Tunis, Tripoli, and Sicily.

But Benghazi and Tobruk have production too, and we don't want them to be surrender cities in addition to Tripoli. So you'd have to have a "special rule" anyway.

No, because Tobruk and Benghazi are Libyan cities, not Italian. Tripoli is the capital of Libya and Tunis the capital of Tunisia. So you need fewer surrender cities if you capture these capitals.

[rkr1958]

I agree with Borger's proposal. It is good not to add Cagliari and Reggio to the surrender cities. I also like forcing the Allied player to capture a city on mainland Italy if they want to skip Tunis. But you can still follow the historical approach and take Tunis, Tripoli, and Sicily.

But Benghazi and Tobruk have production too, and we don't want them to be surrender cities in addition to Tripoli. So you'd have to have a "special rule" anyway.

No, because Tobruk and Benghazi are Libyan cities, not Italian. Tripoli is the capital of Libya and Tunis the capital of Tunisia. So you need fewer surrender cities if you capture these capitals.

I'm on the fence about including/not including Cagliari as a surrender city; but let me make one last appeal on it's behalf.

1. Historically, if Italy surrendered after Sicily fell because the it didn't want it's cities bombed and strafed would the same not apply to the loss of Sardinia?

2. The designers of AH's 3rd Reich made the loss of Sardinia the same as the loss of Sicily with respect to Italian surrender. That is, Italy surrender if the allies completely controlled (Sicily or Sardinia) and one hex in mainland Italy.

3. Making Cagliari a surrender city would have a real impact on diluting the Sicilian blob. That is, the allies could force a surrender by capturing Tripoli, Tunis and Cagliari. So the axis player better not ignore North Africa and just retreat in 1940 to Sicily and mainland Italy. In fact, this would give the allied player significant incentive for Torch (i.e., the capture of Tunis) and for the axis player to fight "at all costs" to hold onto Tunis and Tripoli.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think we need to look into the entire area here. Italy would have had several reasons for surrender. One is loss of forces, another would be loss of North Africa and the final would be fear of being bombed.

Losing Libya was a big moral blow to Italy and probably made them realize that the war would eventually be lost for the Axis. Losing Tunis was even worse because it meant that the Allies now had range for paradrops and bombardment of Sardinia, Sicily and even mainland Italy. It also meant that the Axis was defeated for good in Africa.

So losing Tripoli and Tunis would not have caused Italy to surrender immediately, but losing these cities would certainly have impacted the Italian morale and will to fight.

So instead of having Tripoli and Tunis as surrender cities we could make to the following instead.

Each Libyan city in Allied hands would drop the Italian max morale by: 5 (15 for all of Tobruk, Benghazi and Tripoli)
An alternative is to only count Tripoli and drop the max morale by: 10

Losing Tunis would drop the Italian max morale by a further: 10

So losing Libya means 15 morale loss. Losing Tunis another 10. That should be a good reason for the Allies to invade Vichy France. The reason is that Italian garrisons on e. g. Sicily would have a much lower morale and that means they will more likely retreat if attacked by a sea invasion.

Then we could change the surrender rule to include ALL Italian cities (regardless of production). Italy will surrender if 3 Italian cities are controlled by the Allies or Rome is captured.

This means the Allies can force a surrender by taking Cagliari and both Sicilian cities or the Sicilian cities and Reggio.

A side effect is that when the Allies push Italy out of Libya then the Italian max morale drops 5 per city so Italian units in e. g. Russia will become less effective. This means that holding out in Libya becomes more important. If Tunis is lost too then the Italians would become really ineffective so an invasion of e. g. Sicily would be easier (even if filled with garrisons).

When the Allies break through in Libya then the Axis player might have to withdraw the Italian units from the second line in Russia and send the units to e. g. Balkans for partisan duty. That includes the air units too.

I think the above suggestion will make the surrender terms more acceptable for people (only Italian cities counted), but at the same time make the Axis player pay for losing Libya and Tunisia.

A consequence of this is that maybe the Axis player should build Italian units for Libya and Tunis so the fall there would be delayed. That would be better for them than build hordes of garrisons on Sicily. It also means that once Libya and Tunisia fall then Sicily would be quite easy to invade as it was in the real war. The Germans would have to spend resources trying to delay the fall of north Africa or Sicily would fall too early. Now a good Axis player would think it's better to just ignore Libya after the initial forces near Tobruk are destroyed. Making the Sicilian blob seems more efficient than sending units to Tunisia and Libya. The real Germans fought hard in especially Tunisia and delayed the Americans there for quite some time.

What do you think about my proposal?

[ncali]

Although I like it as far as modelling the real war, I think you are pushing for too much of a historical approach. If the Axis had abandoned North Africa and brough their troops home after defeat in 1942, without much cost, I'm not so sure Italy would have been out of it quite so easily. It's always hard to judge things by hindsight, but I think it was partially the fact that - despite the big investment in Africa by Germany and Italy (and all those troops lost or surrendered) - that helped facilitate the coup against Mussolin and surrender to the Allies. Notwithstanding that, large amounts of Italians fought for the puppet state he later created in Northern Italy.

It makes more sense to me not to give the Italians such big morale losses for North Africa. One idea would be to modify Stauffenberg's proposal by substantially reducing the morale losses for the Northern African cities, and adding a max morale loss of something like 1 for every Italian unit destroyed (or some other formula, maybe counting 1/2 for garrisons).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We have to make rules that work and would inspire players to follow the historical path. With the current rules we have the problem with Sicilian blob. So it's actually beneficial to the Axis to abandon North Africa when it's inevitable that the Allies would eventually win and get the units back to Italy before they're destroyed.

So losing Libya has little consequence to the Axis. This is not how it was historically. Mussolini wanted to create an empire and tried to invade several places with little success. Eventually his dreams were crushed. Abyssinia, Italian Somaliland, Egypt and later Libya and Tunisia. Greece was also invaded by Italy and they failed so the Germans had to intervene in the Balkans and save Italy. Germany held Greece for quite some time.

So losing Libya would have been a morale blow to Mussolini and the Italian forces. The same with Tunis. That would have destroyed the reason for Italy to actually be in the war and their will to fight. They would still not surrender, but would fight with even less inspiration than before.

Italy didn't join the Axis just to support Hitler. They joined because they wanted to create a Mediterranean empire.

To lessen the blow initially for Italy we could just count Tripoli and Tunis for morale loss (10 each). Losing 20 max morale means that Italy would have morale in Sicily of about 40-50 without a leader and maybe 50-60 with a leader. That's not so bad, but the units would quickly drop down to orange and red if bombarded and invaded and that's exactly how it should be.

A smart Axis player would invest in general labs for Italy to both boost production and organization. With tech 2 organization then Italy can get maybe up to 80 morale. That's actually quite good. Dropping 20 from that means they can still perform in some combat.

The British lose much more morale from losing England and they still manage to be in the fight. So I therefore think that a morale drop for Italy from losing key areas is a good thing.

We need to make the morale drop high enough for the Axis to invest in preventing it from happening and the Allies from trying to make it happen. E. g. without it then the Allies can easily bypass Libya and make a direct landing in Sicily. They don't have to take Tunisia either.

On the other hand we don't want to force the players to follow a certain path. With the proposed change we make new options. You can withdraw from Libya as the Axis, but at 10 Italian morale loss when Tripoli falls. Maybe that's better than losing many units. The Allies can bypass Libya, but have to invade Sicily without the 10 morale loss on the Italians. Maybe it's worth the earlier invasion. The same about Vichy France. Going after Tunis means airbases close to Sicily and also a 10 Italian morale loss. You have the option as the Allied player. The Axis too because they can decide to defend Tunisia to delay the morale loss or fortify Sicily instead.

If we make the morale loss too low then people won't bother with it and you can just ignore adding it at all. So the options we make should be enough for people to actually consider the options, but not so strong so you feel forced to use these options.

[ncali]

Good points. But I still favor a somewhat modified approach. One suggestion would be to drop Italian max morale by 3 per Libyan city (adding up to 9, somewhat close to your max of 10). Then an additional 5 for Tunis. I still like the idea of subtracting for each Italian unit destroyed. This approach would also punish the Axis a bit for sending a huge Italian expeditionary force to Russia (assuming a bunch of the units are ultimately mauled) and ignoring the Mediterranean.

I don't feel the Sicilian blob is much of a problem, personally. The Allies can land despite it with sufficient effort, thanks to the amphibious rules. (They can destroy a garrison with some amphibious attacks plus bombardment.) Or they can bypass it entirely, wasting a lot of Italian troops that may be needed elsewhere.

[Morris]

We have to make rules that work and would inspire players to follow the historical path.
.

I think all present efforts by the whole team is to make this game perfect for a player to play . The player should have a chance to create the history if he play well with perfect strategy which is different from the historical path . If the player have to follow the rules to follow the historical path , it will ruin the fun which player can create their history by their effort !

[Morris]

y. Mussolini wanted to create an empire and tried to invade several places with little success. Eventually his dreams were crushed. Abyssinia, Italian Somaliland, Egypt and later Libya and Tunisia. Greece was also invaded by Italy and they failed so the Germans had to intervene in the Balkans and save Italy. Germany held Greece for quite some time.

.

Actually ,you are quite right for what Mussolini wanted , but the fact is the player is the commander of Axis & Aliies , not Hitler ,Mussolini , & Stalin . We should give them more choice .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

y. Mussolini wanted to create an empire and tried to invade several places with little success. Eventually his dreams were crushed. Abyssinia, Italian Somaliland, Egypt and later Libya and Tunisia. Greece was also invaded by Italy and they failed so the Germans had to intervene in the Balkans and save Italy. Germany held Greece for quite some time.

.

Actually ,you are quite right for what Mussolini wanted , but the fact is the player is the commander of Axis & Aliies , not Hitler ,Mussolini , & Stalin . We should give them more choice .

That is exactly what we are doing by making it a bigger consequence for losing Libya and Tunisia. Up to now we see most Axis players abandon Africa as soon as Tobruk is overrun. We don't see the Germans reinforce Tunisia and fight there.

With added consequence we can see some Axis players fight on in Libya and Tunisia and some abandon the area as before.

That is MORE choice, not less choice.

[Diplomaticus]

y. Mussolini wanted to create an empire and tried to invade several places with little success. Eventually his dreams were crushed. Abyssinia, Italian Somaliland, Egypt and later Libya and Tunisia. Greece was also invaded by Italy and they failed so the Germans had to intervene in the Balkans and save Italy. Germany held Greece for quite some time.

.

Actually ,you are quite right for what Mussolini wanted , but the fact is the player is the commander of Axis & Aliies , not Hitler ,Mussolini , & Stalin . We should give them more choice .

That is exactly what we are doing by making it a bigger consequence for losing Libya and Tunisia. Up to now we see most Axis players abandon Africa as soon as Tobruk is overrun. We don't see the Germans reinforce Tunisia and fight there.

With added consequence we can see some Axis players fight on in Libya and Tunisia and some abandon the area as before.

That is MORE choice, not less choice.

I disagree. This isn't "choice"--it's forcing the Axis into actions that they might otherwise not want to take. As was pointed out before, the huge Italian morale drop isn't an historical inevitability. If the Italians hadn't lost hundreds of thousands of troops in North Africa, and if the Axis was doing well elsewhere, they might have more or less shrugged off the loss of Libya.

If we don't like the development where many Axis players are choosing not to fight in North Africa, I suggest a different approach--make victory in Egypt/Iraq really mean something. I'm afraid that this present approach is just going to create a WWI style stasis in Libya, where the Axis player reluctantly sends Germans to hunker down in Libyan strongholds because he feels he has no choice. I'd rather see something more dynamic emerge, where a victorious Desert Fox could be involved in something more than an oil-wasting side show.

Finally, I would point out that we're not really sure that the Sicilian gar blob is such a big problem. First, we're seeing in the AAR that it is still possible to land, with proper preparation. Second, as has been pointed out above, all those units represent a very real drain on Axis defenses (and on the rail network). Sicily is big--that's a lot of hexes to cover. Playing Axis I've never been able to find enough units to completely carpet Sicily, and if I had I'm not convinced it would be a winning strategy.

[Morris]

Actually ,you are quite right for what Mussolini wanted , but the fact is the player is the commander of Axis & Aliies , not Hitler ,Mussolini , & Stalin . We should give them more choice .

That is exactly what we are doing by making it a bigger consequence for losing Libya and Tunisia. Up to now we see most Axis players abandon Africa as soon as Tobruk is overrun. We don't see the Germans reinforce Tunisia and fight there.

With added consequence we can see some Axis players fight on in Libya and Tunisia and some abandon the area as before.

That is MORE choice, not less choice.

I disagree. This isn't "choice"--it's forcing the Axis into actions that they might otherwise not want to take. As was pointed out before, the huge Italian morale drop isn't an historical inevitability. If the Italians hadn't lost hundreds of thousands of troops in North Africa, and if the Axis was doing well elsewhere, they might have more or less shrugged off the loss of Libya.

If we don't like the development where many Axis players are choosing not to fight in North Africa, I suggest a different approach--make victory in Egypt/Iraq really mean something. I'm afraid that this present approach is just going to create a WWI style stasis in Libya, where the Axis player reluctantly sends Germans to hunker down in Libyan strongholds because he feels he has no choice. I'd rather see something more dynamic emerge, where a victorious Desert Fox could be involved in something more than an oil-wasting side show.

Finally, I would point out that we're not really sure that the Sicilian gar blob is such a big problem. First, we're seeing in the AAR that it is still possible to land, with proper preparation. Second, as has been pointed out above, all those units represent a very real drain on Axis defenses (and on the rail network). Sicily is big--that's a lot of hexes to cover. Playing Axis I've never been able to find enough units to completely carpet Sicily, and if I had I'm not convinced it would be a winning strategy.

At first , If there was a mistake which Axis or Allies had made in the history , Shall we have to follow the same mistake sothat to follow the historical path ?
At second , to make victory in Egypt/Iraq really mean something is really attractive . If Egypt's fall will cause allies surrender in the middle east or Irac will become neutral , I will try my best to take Eygpt !

[Morris]

.[/quote]

Playing Axis I've never been able to find enough units to completely carpet Sicily, and if I had I'm not convinced it would be a winning strategy.[/quote]

Of course it is not a winning strategy , it is just creative & interesting

[Kragdob]

Same as with Sealion - increase playability by lowering historic reality. I would vote for artificially increase attractiveness of Egypt and Middle East for Axis.

For starter maybe -5% of effectiveness for UK when Cairo falls and another -5% effectiveness when Suez falls. This is not huge but some incentive for both Players to consider it. On top another -5% could be added for Baghdad and Basra which totaled together could add to-20% if Axis Player executed Middle East strategy.

For GAR blob - looks like it is ok as for now.

Hi,

as this is from my game with Supermax, I have to say that I was intimidated by the GAR blob on Sicily and tried to land elsewhere (southern France), but the last turn I noticed that this was a mistake. Landings despite the GAR blob are not really such a problem in 1943, as I easily managed to land a unit in Sicily and get a foothold there the last turn. After bombardment with a TAC and an US CV the German GAR southwest or Messina had 7 steps left (2:0 with the TAC and 1:0 with the CV). Expected results for my amphibious transports were then 4:0 and 5:0 after the air strikes and the German GAR on Sicily has been easily destroyed with such good odds. After all it was a much easier landing then thought. The GARs can be rather easily dispatched.

Cheers Zechi

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't think such an option forces the Axis to send units to North Africa. You get some kind of max morale loss for Italian units doing so, but you get most of your army intact. The Sicilian garrison blob will delay the Allies quite a bit even with slightly less Italian max morale.

So you have to decide whether you want to keep Italy as an active and usable fighting force or just use them as cannon fodder before they surrender. With the former you need to delay the Allies in North Africa by sending some German units there. With the latter you abandon Libya as soon as Tobruk is overrun and not send any units to Tunisia once Torch is launched.

That is a choice. I'm not sure what is the best Axis strategy and both have to be tried out.

At the moment there is no choice because you don't gain anything at all from sending Axis units to Tunisia / Libya. You waste your units in a area where the Allies can have air superiority. You buy some time, but lose that time because you don't have forces to garrison Sicily and southern Italy. So it's stupid to send units to Tunisia.

With a consequence for losing Libya and Tunisia you might want to invest in delaying the Allies for some months because the alternative is that the Allies can get to Sicily early and have an easier invasion than now.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We have an obligation as game designers to look at situations where almost all players select only one option where other options should be available. Especially if most players select non-historical options.

We had the same issue with Norway. Most Axis players ignored Norway so we made changes to make it more lucrative to take Norway and more risky to keep Norway neutral (easier for the Allies to interdict the iron ore etc.). Now many Axis players actually invade Norway to get the extra corps in Finland and bases to prevent Allied interdiction of the Swedish iron ore.

Balkans was another area we had to alter so the Axis would consider going after Yugoslavia and Greece. Extra Axis minor corps units are released early if Yugoslavia and Greece are conquered. So now you get a choice whether you invade these countries or not. Before the change it was a no brainer to ignore these countries and instead go just for Russia. Then these 2 countries could work as a buffer against and Allied invasion there.

Sealion was a third area we tweaked because at one time most Axis players did Sealion and succeded every time.

Earlier Allied players ignored Vichy France and invaded Sardinia and Sicily directly from USA. We changed that by adding Tunis as an Italian surrender city. Then you didn't need a mainland Italian city to force a surrender. Because of that we instead created a Sicilian garrison blob. And that's the current problem we try to solve.

If we decide to not make a morale consequence for the Italians to lose Tunisia and Libya then we should let Cagliari and Reggio become surrender cities as well. This way the Allies can take Tunis, Cagliari and Reggio instead of Sicily to force a surrender and the Sicilian units can just stay there and rot. The problem is that it makes it even harder for the Italians because if Cagliari falls then the Allies can take just Palermo OR Messina and that will force the Axis player to make a Sicilian blob.

We can easily put into general.txt the morale loss for each Libyan city and Tunis as well. The number of 5 / 10 can easily be changed to 3 / 5 as one beta tester suggested.

We can increase the number of cities needed to 4 and include Tripoli in the surrender cities.

[peterjfrigate]

I second Zechi's assessment - look at my AAR in late 43 where Morris tried a GAR blob defense of sicily reinforced by elite mechs. It took a LOT of backup force but the only really hard part was the SS mech entrenched in Messina.

Same as with Sealion - increase playability by lowering historic reality. I would vote for artificially increase attractiveness of Egypt and Middle East for Axis.

For starter maybe -5% of effectiveness for UK when Cairo falls and another -5% effectiveness when Suez falls. This is not huge but some incentive for both Players to consider it. On top another -5% could be added for Baghdad and Basra which totaled together could add to-20% if Axis Player executed Middle East strategy.

For GAR blob - looks like it is ok as for now.

Hi,

as this is from my game with Supermax, I have to say that I was intimidated by the GAR blob on Sicily and tried to land elsewhere (southern France), but the last turn I noticed that this was a mistake. Landings despite the GAR blob are not really such a problem in 1943, as I easily managed to land a unit in Sicily and get a foothold there the last turn. After bombardment with a TAC and an US CV the German GAR southwest or Messina had 7 steps left (2:0 with the TAC and 1:0 with the CV). Expected results for my amphibious transports were then 4:0 and 5:0 after the air strikes and the German GAR on Sicily has been easily destroyed with such good odds. After all it was a much easier landing then thought. The GARs can be rather easily dispatched.

Cheers Zechi

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think an alternative solution is also possible. We can let ALL Italian cities including Cagliari, Reggio and Tirana become Italian surrender cities and also include Tripoli and Tunis to the count.

Then we could let the number of cities needed to control be 5.

This means that if the Allies bypass Tripoli and Tunis they need quite a bit of cities to force an Italian surrender. If they take Tunis and Tripoli they just need 3 and can take e. g. Sardinia, Reggio and one on Sicily (or Tirana). So you can actually bypass Sicily if you're faced with a blob.

By adding Sardinia, Reggio and Tirana to the count we make the Italians have to spread their forces to protect from invasions so it will be harder to do the blob. On the other hand it also makes it harder for the Allies to succeed if Libya and Tunisia aren't secured.

[rkr1958]

I think an alternative solution is also possible. We can let ALL Italian cities including Cagliari, Reggio and Tirana become Italian surrender cities and also include Tripoli and Tunis to the count.

Then we could let the number of cities needed to control be 5.

This means that if the Allies bypass Tripoli and Tunis they need quite a bit of cities to force an Italian surrender. If they take Tunis and Tripoli they just need 3 and can take e. g. Sardinia, Reggio and one on Sicily (or Tirana). So you can actually bypass Sicily if you're faced with a blob.

By adding Sardinia, Reggio and Tirana to the count we make the Italians have to spread their forces to protect from invasions so it will be harder to do the blob. On the other hand it also makes it harder for the Allies to succeed if Libya and Tunisia aren't secured.

I like it but I would make the number of cities to control 4 and not 5.

[zechi]

Just my 2 cents.

As I already pointed out, I do not think that the Sicilian GAR Blob is a real issue as the GARs stand no chance against amphibious assaults later in the game. The odds were a total suprise for me, but after bombardments (air and sea) you get calculated results like 4:0 or even 7:0. If the Allies have enough air and sea assets they should succeed to get a foothold on Sicily quite easily if the island is defended mostly or only by GAR.

You have a bigger issue if there a German (SS) Mechs in the key cities of Messina and Palermo, but if the Axis chooses to defend Sicily with GAR and some elite units, I think this is OK as it will bind these assets to the island.

Nevertheless, I'm strongly in favor of making it attractive for the Axis to fight for North Africa for several reasons.

Firstly, there is no way that the Italian fascist would have evacuated Libya and left it for the British to take. At least not at the start of the Italian engagement. However, this happened in all of my current games. With the new rule that you get the PP back for the transports, it is very easy to evacuate the forces in Lybia and avoid a fight in North Africa to bolster the defense of Italy. I think that this has become more or less a no brainer strategy. If the Italian would have been pulled out of Lybia by Mussolini without any real fight, he would have lost support at home and would most likely have to take its hat. This is especially true if he would have given up Lybia without any real fight.

Secondly, I even think that a purely defensive strategy in North Africa by the Axis is ahistorical. Often the Axis player builds a defensive wall around Tobruk with the help of the Germans, but do not attack the British in Egypt. However, Mussolini and the Italian fascist were eager to expand their Empire and conquer Egypt and other British colonies in Africa. Therefore there should be a strong incentive for the Axis to actually start an offensive in North Africa, preferably in 1940.

Thirdly, at the start of the war the Italians did not act together with the German. Italy tried to invade Egypt alone, which led to the disaster of Operation Compass. The same goes for Greece. This is badly simulated in GS as the Italians rarely act alone. From the start they are usually supported by German forces. Therefore, the most historical way would be if the Italians would actually try to capture Egypt and Greece without any support of the Germans firstly. If this fails the German should come to the aid of the Italians. I'm not sure how this could be implemented in the game, but the following ideas come to my mind:

1. The Italians get morale or PP benefits if they manage to take Egypt/Greece without any German support.

2. German units cannot enter North Africa before January 1941 if they accept the French armistice offer. This could be justified with the fact that Egypt (North Africa) was considered an exclusive sphere of interest of Italy. According to the German Wikipedia entry about Operation Sonnenblume Mussolini declined any German help even in December 1940. The Afrika Korps arrived in February 1941. A similar rule could be used for Greece. Only the Italians are able to move any units or launch any attack against Greek territory.

Of course if the Germans decline the French armistice offer, then the Germans can instantly attack in North Africa, as this is where the French will continue the fight.

These are just some wild ideas, but perhaps they could be considered. I think it could lead to a more interesting Italian play for the Axis player. Currently Italian units are mostly used for support roles and act rarely without any German support. It would be interesting if it would become more attractive for the Axis player to use Italian units in a more active role according to the historical path, but perhaps these ideas are also to restraining?