Allies Declare War on Italy in '39

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:47 pm

Okay...so this game is getting even sillier. Should this be possible? Given that the Allies control Tunis and can just hop into the bottom city on the toe, should this be possible or is it just me who thinks your GS game has major probs with things like HG sailing everywhere and this being able to happen??

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:33 pm

Should the Axis have seen notices about lack of Allied ships and reduced convoys?

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:35 pm

I agree with that and changed the code so Tunis is only counted as a surrender city after USA has joined the Allies. That should avoid premature invasions of Italy.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:39 pm

Maybe an Italian garrison in that toe city?

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:48 pm

That's why we playtest. Kudos to who figure this out! Also, that's why we opened up beta testing to as many folks who wished to join. The more testers were have the more of these exploits we can identify and fix up front. Well done ...

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:50 pm

*grrmmblegrrmmble*

Peter Frigate is the genius!

*grrmbbleeebgggrrrrrmmbbblleee*

peterjfrigate · Post by **peterjfrigate** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:12 am

Thanks! I just hate being on the sidelines early in the war

My convoys are stripped 100% since there are no escorts, and I got the message saying outrage at Anglo-French aggression reduces US production.

Also, France had something like -200 PP because of all the shipping & invasion costs.

I'm not sure what the broader ramifications are - maybe Germany can capitalize on weakness elsewhere? Still it's very unrealistic, and a huge advantage if Italy goes down.

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:21 am

Perhaps if this kind of thing were to happen, Germany could regain Italy and get full PP's and combined manpower? That would surely be a dissuader.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:25 am

Should France be able to go 200 into the negative??

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:39 am

Blathergut wrote:Should France be able to go 200 into the negative??

Good point. Should anyone? It's not like you can call that many landing craft up from thin air.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:13 am

NotaPacifist wrote:
Blathergut wrote:Should France be able to go 200 into the negative??
Good point. Should anyone? It's not like you can call that many landing craft up from thin air.

Well, with the changes to come out in v2.00an I don't think this will be an issue. However; the ability to go deeply negative on rail, sea transport or invasion is an abstraction in which civilian assets (i.e., trains and ships) are immediately pressed into military service and the negative PP's are the economic consequence of that action.

In this case, with Tunis being removed as a surrender city prior to USA entry the axis player would be able to hold Italy. And, the -200 PP's would mean that France wouldn't be able to repair, much less build, any new unit. I think this would make the conquest of France a walk in the part for the axis.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:01 am

Probably should add a GAR to Reggio too....

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:56 am

You mean in the setup? Should we move a gar from the north to Reggio?

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:08 am

I updated the 1939 and 1940 scenarios with the following:
• Moved a corps from Venice to Reggio
• Moved a garrison from Florence to Ancona
• Moved an armor from Milan to Venice

The reason is to cover every Italian coastal city so an invasion can't take a city to enforce Italian surrender by taking
Sicily.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:29 am

Good!!!