Sicilian Silliness

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:51 am

It's kind of tragic that an island like Sicily can be (fairly) effectively defended with a pile of garrison units e.g.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:21 am

It is from Max's strategy . It is quite effective & not expensive . but sometimes you do not have so many GARS .

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:55 am

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 · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:12 pm

The Sicily blob is one easy we could consider adding Reggio and Cagliari to the Italian surrender cities.

We have to think about the REASON Italy surrendered. It was not because Italy lost units (they lost a lot in Libya). No, it was because the Allies got airbases close enough to bombard Italian cities like Rome. Italy was afraid to have their main cities bombed and surrendered before it happened at a large scale.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:19 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:The Sicily blob is one easy we could consider adding Reggio and Cagliari to the Italian surrender cities.

We have to think about the REASON Italy surrendered. It was not because Italy lost units (they lost a lot in Libya). No, it was because the Allies got airbases close enough to bombard Italian cities like Rome. Italy was afraid to have their main cities bombed and surrendered before it happened at a large scale.

How about add Reggio and Cagliari to the Italian surrender cities , & remove Tunis as a surrender city ?

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:22 pm

The problem with removing Tunis is that then many Allied players would ignore Vichy France completely and go directly in long range invasions against Sardinia.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:37 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:The problem with removing Tunis is that then many Allied players would ignore Vichy France completely and go directly in long range invasions against Sardinia.

Sardinia is Italian ,but Tunis is not . Sardinia also has shorten distance from Italy . There are Italians living on Sardinia ,but In Tunis there are only Arabian & African . As a surrender city , Sardinia is more qualitied than Tunis .

Yes , the Player will probably quit attack Tunis , But they will Dow Vichy to land in Southern France . Actually in 1943 , Allies landed in NA is just because US army need more trainning course before Normandy face Germans . They had no confidence then , they need more practise . NA is a good choice which would be easy to land & low casualty . But In GS , player don't need practice . They can make Normandy in 1941 !

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:34 pm

This is (to me) the most annoying game engine thing in CEAW. It simply doesn't make any sense that units can't retreat 'through' other units behind them or 'stack' on the same hex.

I'd just cap the maximum number of units in Sicily to 10(?) and be done with it.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:31 pm

if the Axis has enough units to 'stack' Sicily then I think thats an ok strategy, its not very hard to beat up the GAR's with a little effort

I think it is ok as it is as it creates a better game effect with Tunis and NA

those GARs aren't free either if they are in Sicily they aren't anywhere else!

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:08 am

I like the Italian surrender rules the way they are. I think it provides a good incentive to do Torch without making it a requirement. I fear adding Reggio and/or Cagliari would make it too easy for the Allies to force a surrender. You would rarely see the Torch landings because it wouldn't be worth it.

The current system also mirrors what happened historically. Italy surrendered after Tunis and Sicily fell. Like Borger said, the reason for the surrender might have been high casualties and the threat of bombing, but that doesn't change what happened. To me, you'd have to have a really good reason to break away from the historical timeline.

The garrisson blob can be overcome with a little effort, so it doesn't seem like a problem to me. It's more of a speedbump than a roadblock.

JimR · Post by **JimR** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:13 am

The Sicilian garrison blob isn't a game-changer, so I don't think various rules should be rewritten to address what seems to be mere "Sicilian silliness." If the Axis wants to invest in a wall-to-wall garrison carpet there, let him.

On another but slightly related matter: would it be too difficult to allow retreating units to "displace" other friendly units behind them? If Sicily were full of garrisons this change would not make any difference, but in continental battles this change could allow units to retreat even if all other friendly hexes are occupied by other friendly units.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:02 am

I like JimR's point about retreat – seems like there could be more options in the retreat department. I'm starting a new thread on this idea.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:28 pm

joerock22 wrote:I like the Italian surrender rules the way they are. I think it provides a good incentive to do Torch without making it a requirement. I fear adding Reggio and/or Cagliari would make it too easy for the Allies to force a surrender. You would rarely see the Torch landings because it wouldn't be worth it.

The current system also mirrors what happened historically. Italy surrendered after Tunis and Sicily fell. Like Borger said, the reason for the surrender might have been high casualties and the threat of bombing, but that doesn't change what happened. To me, you'd have to have a really good reason to break away from the historical timeline.

The garrisson blob can be overcome with a little effort, so it doesn't seem like a problem to me. It's more of a speedbump than a roadblock.

I'm on the fence about this ... so I'm throwing this out for discussion ... what if we kept Tunis, add both Reggio and Cagliari as surrendered cities and change the Italian surrender rules to any of the following 3 conditions. (1) The allies capture Rome. (2) The allies capture any FOUR Italian surrender cities (which include Reggio, Cagliari and Tunis). (3) The allies capture any THREE Italian surrender cities of which at least one must be in mainland Italy. The mainland Italian cities would now include Reggio but, of course, wouldn't include Messina, Palermo, Cagliari or Tunis. Such conditions could dilute the garrison blob on Sicily forcing the axis player now to more aggressively defend Cagliari on Sardinia and Reggio in mainland Italy. Also, Vichy North Africa would still be attractive as the allied player could now force a surrender with Tunis, Cagliari and Reggio (3 cities w/1 mainland city) thus bypassing Sicily (i.e., fortress Sicily). Or by-pass fortress Italian, if necessary, by capturing Tunis, Cagliari, Messina and Palermo (4 cities w/0 mainland cities).

For reference, the Italian surrender rules for AH's 3rd Reich (3rd edition and on) was the total control of Sicily or Sardinia AND the control of one or more hexes in mainland Italy. While not explicitly part of the Italian surrender, control of Tunis was very important as a naval and air base for supporting the invasion and conquest of Sicily and / or Sardinia. Tunis was a port and it's hex also included Bizerete. This meant that 36 naval and 10 air factors (15 with an airbase) could base there. Also, air based there were in range of Messina and Cagliari. So to me it's obvious that the designers of AH's 3rd Reich considered/made Tunis important for fighting Italy. While GS's game mechanics are different I believe we do the same by making Tunis an Italian surrender city.

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:44 pm

The problem is that there was never any real fighting on Sardinia. The Germans occupied Cagliari after the Italian surrender and then abandoned the island as undefendable. If you're going to make a city a surrender city, it should be one that was important in the real war. In that sense, Tobruk would be considered much more important.

If you're looking to create a way around the Sicilian garrison blob, then I'd recommend making Tobruk a surrender city in the way Ronnie proposes in his 3rd option. In other words, you could force Italian surrender in the following ways:

1. Capture Tunis, Tobruk, and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

2. Capture the 2 cities on Sicily and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

3. Capture Tunis OR Tobruk, 1 city on Sicily, and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

4. Capture Tunis, Tobruk, and the 2 cities on Sicily

#4 is exactly what happened historically. It forces you to capture Tunis if you want to avoid landing on mainland Italy. It also doesn't force the Italians to heavily defend Cagliari, a city that historically wasn't that important. Finally, it would encourage people to defend in Libya, something many Axis players are not doing because they view Sicily as much more important.

The Axis still have to defend Sicily, because if the Allies capture it they can just capture Tunis and Italy will surrender. But now the Allies have a way around the garrison blob, namely doing Torch and then capturing a city in Italy instead. Italy will have to honestly defend all its coasts instead of just Sicily, which I think is what we're going for.

Thoughts?

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:15 pm

joerock22 wrote:The problem is that there was never any real fighting on Sardinia. The Germans occupied Cagliari after the Italian surrender and then abandoned the island as undefendable. If you're going to make a city a surrender city, it should be one that was important in the real war. In that sense, Tobruk would be considered much more important.

If you're looking to create a way around the Sicilian garrison blob, then I'd recommend making Tobruk a surrender city in the way Ronnie proposes in his 3rd option. In other words, you could force Italian surrender in the following ways:

1. Capture Tunis, Tobruk, and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

2. Capture the 2 cities on Sicily and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

3. Capture Tunis OR Tobruk, 1 city on Sicily, and 1 city in mainland Italy (including Reggio)

4. Capture Tunis, Tobruk, and the 2 cities on Sicily

#4 is exactly what happened historically. It forces you to capture Tunis if you want to avoid landing on mainland Italy. It also doesn't force the Italians to heavily defend Cagliari, a city that historically wasn't that important. Finally, it would encourage people to defend in Libya, something many Axis players are not doing because they view Sicily as much more important.

The Axis still have to defend Sicily, because if the Allies capture it they can just capture Tunis and Italy will surrender. But now the Allies have a way around the garrison blob, namely doing Torch and then capturing a city in Italy instead. Italy will have to honestly defend all its coasts instead of just Sicily, which I think is what we're going for.

Thoughts?

I really like it! It places more importance on Italy defending Libya, which is historical. One suggestion and that's to pick Tripoli instead of Tobruk as the Libyan surrender city. 110,000 Italians (12% of Libya's population) were living on the Med coast between Tripoli and Benghazi.

Based on this maybe replace Tunis with Benghazi too (so two suggestions). So in your examples above Tunis & Tobruk could be replaced by Tripoli and Benghazi. Even though Tunis would be removed I still think that Torch would be attractive in order to get out Tripoli. Also, the Italians would have significant incentive to defend Libya much harder than they do now. And even make a push into Egypt to better secure the eastern part.

The more we flesh this out the more I'm liking it. My initial impression is that it will make the Med, North Africa and Italy play more historically.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Libya

During the era of Fascism many Italians moved to Libya and colonized the coastal areas. In 1940 the Libyan Italians were nearly 110,000, or 12% of the total population of Libya. They were concentrated on the Mediterranean coast around the city of Tripoli (constituting 37% of the city's population) and Benghazi (31% of the city's population) and enjoyed a huge development in architecture. In 1938, the governor Italo Balbo brought 20,000 Italian farmers to colonize Libya, and 26 new villages were founded for them, mainly in Cyrenaica.[15]

The governor Italo Balbo developed the Italian Libya from 1934 to 1940, creating a huge infrastructure (from 4,000 km of roads to 400 km of narrow gauge railways to new industries and to dozen of new agricultural villages)[16]

The Libyan economy nearly "boomed", mainly in the agricultural sector. Even some manufacturing activities were developed, mostly related to the food industry. Building construction increased in a huge way. Furthermore, the Italians made modern medical care available for the first time in Libya and improved sanitary conditions in the towns.

The Italians started numerous and diverse businesses in Tripolitania and Cirenaicia. These included an explosives factory, railway workshops, Fiat Motor works, various food processing plants, electrical engineering workshops, ironworks, water plants, agricultural machinery factories, breweries, distilleries, biscuit factories, a tobacco factory, tanneries, bakeries, lime, brick and cement works, Esparto grass industry, mechanical saw mills, and the Petrolibya Society (Trye 1998). Italian investment in her colony was to take advantage of new colonists and to make it more self-sufficient. (General Staff War Office 1939, 165/b).[17]

By 1939 the Italians had built 400 kilometres (250 mi) of new railroads and 4,000 kilometres (2,500 mi) of new roads. The most important and largest highway project was the Via Balbo, an east-west coastal route connecting Tripoli in western Italian Tripolitania to Tobruk in eastern Italian Cyrenaica. Most of these projects and achievements were completed between 1934 and 1940 when Italo Balbo was governor of Italian Libya, as it became the Fourth Shore.[18]

The last railway development in Libya done by the Italians was the Tripoli-Benghazi line that was started in 1941 and was never completed because of the Italian defeat during World War II.[19]

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:53 pm

i still would want Tunis to part of the surrender conditions

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:34 pm

I think we should use the following.

Italy surrenders when:
1. Tripoli AND Tunis and 2 Italian surrender cities are captured
2. Tunis OR Tripoli and 3 Italian surrender cities are captured
3. 4 Italian surrender cities are captured
4. Rome is captured

This means that taking Libya and Tunisia will mean a faster Italian surrender (same as now). If you bypass these areas you need to land on the Italian mainland and take some cities there too.

To avoid having special rules for surrender cities in Italy we could move the 1 production from Cagliari to Ancona and say that all Italian cities with production are considered surrender cities. Then Reggio and Cagliari won't be counted and we have a reason for it.

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:38 am

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.

Morris · Post by **Morris** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:21 am

Stauffenberg wrote:I think we should use the following.

Italy surrenders when:
1. Tripoli AND Tunis and 2 Italian surrender cities are captured
2. Tunis OR Tripoli and 3 Italian surrender cities are captured
3. 4 Italian surrender cities are captured
4. Rome is captured

This means that taking Libya and Tunisia will mean a faster Italian surrender (same as now). If you bypass these areas you need to land on the Italian mainland and take some cities there too.

To avoid having special rules for surrender cities in Italy we could move the 1 production from Cagliari to Ancona and say that all Italian cities with production are considered surrender cities. Then Reggio and Cagliari won't be counted and we have a reason for it.

This sounds better . So the GAR blob need more GARS on Sardinia !

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:47 am

Me too! I'm with Morris, and Stauffenberg.