Slitherine

@zechi

I disagree with barring Germany from Libya until a certain date but do agree that we should give the axis some incentive for going into Egypt.

What if we:

(1) Make all Italian and Libyan cities surrender cities. This would include Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk, Cagliari, Reggio and also, keep Tunis a surrender city.

(2) Set the number of cities to 5 to force an Italian surrender. Of course, the capture of Rome would immediately do that.

(3) Increase the number of surrender cities needed by the allies by 1 for each city in Egypt and Syria controlled by the axis.

rkr1958 wrote:@zechi

I disagree with barring Germany from Libya until a certain date but do agree that we should give the axis some incentive for going into Egypt.

What if we:

(1) Make all Italian and Libyan cities surrender cities. This would include Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk, Cagliari, Reggio and also, keep Tunis a surrender city.

(2) Set the number of cities to 5 to force an Italian surrender. Of course, the capture of Rome would immediately do that.

(3) Increase the number of surrender cities needed by the allies by 1 for each city in Egypt and Syria controlled by the axis.

Yes, that sound also like a good idea and could work.

However, I do have sympathy for game in which the Italians would try to do some operations without any German help, especially in 1940.

As I just finished writing in another thread, life is already damned hard for the Axis--if we implemented changes like some of those above, it would make it even worse. In order to keep things balanced, if we're going to force the Axis player to do stupid, suicidal (but historically accurate) stuff with the Italians, we would need to balance it out by, say, imposing rules forcing the Red Army to stand and fight (and get encircled and annihilated) in Barbarossa. All the arguments made in favor of the North African situation could be made for the USSR--historicity, less gamey tactics, less stasis/more action, etc.

A question: Can anybody report on a game where Italy got knocked out of the game on or near the historical date (September '43) and yet Axis managed to win the game? Has this happened to anyone?

The reason I ask, is that I've never seen this happen, and I suspect it's exceedingly rare. That's because in CEAW major invasions ususally move more quickly than in RL. Even with all the changes we've made, seriously does anybody wait until June '44 to do Overlord?

If my suspicion is correct, then I think we have to be very careful about designing things in the game so that Italy "ought" to fall in '43. As the game now stands, it seems to me that a huge factor in Axis success must be keeping Italy in the game as long as possible--hence the Sicilian Silliness we've been arguing about.

Actually if my games get that far I usually perform Overlord in 1944.

My current game is May 1944 that landings will take place.

The only time I go early is because the Axis player is not playing historically and I have to get him fighting 2 fronts earlier.

Anyway , there is one way to make Italy or Germans come to Africa : make Topruk as a Surrender city which must be conquered or make one of Tripoli & Benghazi as a fotress & consider it as an necessary surrender city of Italy before 1944 . It means if you want to kick out Italy before 1944 ,you must conquer one of Axis 's fortress city in Africa . So Axis will be worthy to invest in Africa .

Or we can limited the supply of the 8th Army as Axis before Jan 1943 .