Italian troops overpowered?

[borsook79]

After quite a few games against the AI and first PBEMs I come to the conclusion that Italian forces are too strong, I think a more historical (and also more balanced) approach would be to make them understrengthed at the start, e.g. having strength 5 on average (some units should be higher, e.g. motorized corps should be 8 ). This would in my opinion add more realism to the game but also balance the African front more.

[bahdahbum]

I haven't encoutered problems with the italians ! My british are beating them in the desert rather easely

[borsook79]

I haven't encoutered problems with the italians ! My british are beating them in the desert rather easely

I am not saying they can't be beaten, just that they're stronger than they were in history. Of course they can be beaten but it is harder than it should be.

[Redpossum]

Eeeeeeh, this is a tough one!

I have done a great deal of reading about the North African campaigns of 1940-42, and the contradictions are rampant, where the italian troops are concerned.

One source says the italians were totally worthless, another says they fought like lions in the rearguard actions after El Alamein. A third source says they were good troops, who just suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

One source says Rommel had nothing but contempt for the italians, another source claims he was a genius at getting the best out of them.

Who ****ing well knows where the truth lies?

I have read that there were two different types of italian infantry, the regular line units made up of conscripts, and the bersaglieri units made up of fascist party members and other volunteers, and that the conscripts were useless while the bersaglieri were tough and well-motivated. Who knows?

I will make one strong point, though.

If we accept that a good deal of the often-poor performance by italian units was due to poor equipment, and we remember that in the game the player has full control of researching, equipping, and upgrading his units, then the historically poor performance by italian units does not mean they automatically should perform poorly in the game.

[firepowerjohan]

It will be a difference once you assign a leader. UK has monety leadership 8, best Italian has leadership 4. That combined with higher organisation tech will mean if UK spend some money in Egypt then Italy is in big trouble unless Germany decide to come to help=rescue.

[borsook79]

Eeeeeeh, this is a tough one!

I have done a great deal of reading about the North African campaigns of 1940-42, and the contradictions are rampant, where the italian troops are concerned.

One source says the italians were totally worthless, another says they fought like lions in the rearguard actions after El Alamein. A third source says they were good troops, who just suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

AFAIK it varied between units, I can think of at least two Italian divisions that performed really well (comparable to German troops), that is why I proposed giving the motorized corps higher strength. Also I think understrengthing them is a good way (used in HOI for example) to show not enough/poor quality of equipment. Also it gives the player a choice of investing into reinforcing them or e.g. new troops/technologies.

[bahdahbum]

Bergsalieri were not full of facist volunteers, those were the black shirts . bergsalieri were elite troops all volunteers and even Rommel is quoted has having great respect for them .

Italians troops were rarely motorised ( the trucks of the trento division were taken from it to transport supply ), and not as well equiped as the german and british counterparts . But some units did show great courage and skill . The few germans alone could not beat the british army on their own , not enough of them . Many people forget that the italians had a AA gun as good as the german 88 ( in fact a 90 mm AA gun ) which they used against british tanks with great effect ..The main problem of the Italians was that their equipment did not improve as quickly as the british did . In 1943 they managed to produce tanks similar to a panzer IV in capacity, but hen they surendered and the germans used them

It is not so simple to say Italians were "weak" , too much about it .

[Redpossum]

How many games have you guys seen on the North African campaign?

I was sitting here ruminating on this subject, and it occurred to me that I have seen a LOT of games that were about or at least included the North African campaign over the years, starting with Avalon Hill's "Afrika Korps" in, hmmm, 1973 or so?

Anyhow, my point is that this is one of the most-simulated campaigns in all of wargaming, and these issues have surely been hashed out and haggled over thousands of times in the last 65 years

[bahdahbum]

I would like to find that game back . It's been so long , 1973 you say . we do not get younger but at least my son is beginning to see the light and he plays !

[shawkhan]

I still treasure my old copy of AH's Afrika Korps. Such a great game with a moderate number of units. Still remember the biggest decision in the game, whether or not to go for the 2-1 attack on Tobruk, with its game-winning or game-losing(roll '6') dieroll.

[Maj_Battaglia]

One good source of information--and seemingly balanced--is Ian Walker's Iron Hulls Iron Hearts. This covers the armored divisions that fought in North Africa, primarily, but also has a lot of good supporting info.

Certainly a lack of raw materials prevented Italy from a proper buildup before the war, but so too did Mussolini's insistence on taking on pretty much every leadership role in the Italian armed forces. So the question becomes do you want to be burdened with Italy's incompetence at the top or see what you can do in the game with some good and some mediocre troops? I do think that the leadership question goes a long way to balance things out, though I see that as--best case in a game--something that could be overcome: better leadership at the top recognizes and promotes better generals.

But also think of things this way: as the Axis player you are not burdened with the foolishness and corruption of the Hitler regime, either. Should you be? Should you be forced to plan for a blue-water navy in 1940 to take on the US (something which takes a very long time, and I wish naval procurement were longer in this game to reflect those decisions)? Through incompetence or corruption, the Kriegsmarine took delivery of battleship engines in summer 1944, only to scrap them immediately as the decision to not proceed in that direction was made nearly three years earlier (but resources were wasted to continue these contracts--Weinberg, A World at Arms p.543). Should you be forced to abide orders not to abandon cities in Russia even if it means saving entire armies from encirclement?

Sometimes I think an interesting game would be playing the role of OKW, being given objectives, orders, and resources by the political AI and basically winning by not getting fired.

But I digress. My point is that a lot of the Italian handicap was due to political and other high-level leadership failings, failings that plagued all nations to some degree. I think one point of these games is that the player is free to see if he can do better.

[borsook79]

But I digress. My point is that a lot of the Italian handicap was due to political and other high-level leadership failings, failings that plagued all nations to some degree. I think one point of these games is that the player is free to see if he can do better.

But, unless I am mistaken, at the start of the war most Italian divisions did not have full number of men, which also had an effect on their performance and can be easily represented in the game.

[Maj_Battaglia]

Apologies Borsook, I see that I missed your specific point.

I am not sure without digging whether it is the case that most Italian divisions were understrength, though I trust your recollection and it would not surprise me.

I will say that if it is true, did Italy call up reservists to fill up the divisions or train new recruits? If the former, then perhaps there should be a delay (as there was; Italy declared war on June 10 and finally attacked about 10 days later (enough time to get reservists in place?)) and then Italian units are automatically brought to full strength. If the latter, then indeed it would be justified to start at partial strength and be forced to pay for reinforcements (and manpower) for existing units.

Again, though, you could argue that the game allows the player to not go back and forth on whether to join the war, as Mussolini did, and be as ready as possible once the algorithm thrusts Italy into the game.

Certainly Italy would not be the only country--and I have to admit that I am basing this on a guess and vague recollections without looking further--that would be in the position of starting understrength for some or all of its units. The victims of surprise attacks (Denmark, Norway, etc.) likely had to call up reservists to fill units. I believe Poland only fully mobilized a couple of days before the German invasion, and therefore their units were likely not at full strength.

IMHO your point is certainly worth exploring and discussing in more detail. Thanks for bringing it up.

[borsook79]

Certainly Italy would not be the only country--and I have to admit that I am basing this on a guess and vague recollections without looking further--that would be in the position of starting understrength for some or all of its units. The victims of surprise attacks (Denmark, Norway, etc.) likely had to call up reservists to fill units. I believe Poland only fully mobilized a couple of days before the German invasion, and therefore their units were likely not at full strength.

Yes, this is not only about Italy, It is just that Italy is one of the "majors" that was affected by this problem. As for Poland - in truth it never finished the mobilization, though the level of "readiness" varied greatly between armies it was still going on until the very end. In fact on September the first only 600,000 out of the expected 1 million were ready.

BTW All this could be represented not only by lowering starting strength but also by putting some units into the building queue at the start.

[Maj_Battaglia]

I like the idea of placing some troops in the build queue quite a bit. That way you can deploy on the first turn, but they are otherwise frozen.

[rkr1958]

How many games have you guys seen on the North African campaign?

I was sitting here ruminating on this subject, and it occurred to me that I have seen a LOT of games that were about or at least included the North African campaign over the years, starting with Avalon Hill's "Afrika Korps" in, hmmm, 1973 or so?

Anyhow, my point is that this is one of the most-simulated campaigns in all of wargaming, and these issues have surely been hashed out and haggled over thousands of times in the last 65 years

There was also AH's Tobruk, which I believe came out in the mid to late 70's. I own this game ... it's been in my attic for the last 15+ years and hasn't seen the light of day for at least the last 25 years. This game predated squad leader and represented individual AFVs (tanks, halftracks) and guns (e.g., 88mm flak, Anti-tank rifles), mortars & other artillery. I can't remember exactly but I believe infantry was represented at the crew, squad (or platoon) level. Via pencil and pad you kept track of individual soldier casulaties and damage to vehicles (e.g., f-kill (knocking out a gun) and m-kill (breaking the tracks). The game included effects of smoke and burning vehicles on light-of-sight and fire effectiveness.

In one of the first (if not first) scenarios, I remember the British ATR (anti-tank rifles) fairly easily knocked out the Italian tanks. Also, the game protrayed the devestation that the German's 88mm Flak AA guns inflicted on the British tanks. In the game the British and Germans vehicles and guns were superior to those of the Italians.