Better Italians in PzC2?

[LandMarine47]

One of the biggest gripes I had with PzC was just how useless some Italian forces like infantry and AT guns were in the game. While the Italians were certainly not on par with their German and British counterparts, I don't think they should be an equal terms with Soviet Conscripts, as there are many points in the North African and Sicilian campaigns where Italians fought well. For this new installment will there be a general rebalancing of the effectiveness of the Italian forces? I felt they should only be slightly less effective than german and british regulars, that near useless as they were in PzC, after all Italy was still a semi modern military force during the war that suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

[PanzerCro]

One of the biggest gripes I had with PzC was just how useless some Italian forces like infantry and AT guns were in the game. While the Italians were certainly not on par with their German and British counterparts, I don't think they should be an equal terms with Soviet Conscripts, as there are many points in the North African and Sicilian campaigns where Italians fought well. For this new installment will there be a general rebalancing of the effectiveness of the Italian forces? I felt they should only be slightly less effective than german and british regulars, that near useless as they were in PzC, after all Italy was still a semi modern military force during the war that suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

I read somewhere on internet that various italian forces fought well in north africa and in russia. Maybe they can make "black shirts" as some kind of special italian unit that will cost a lot but be close to infrantry of "big four".

[Retributarr]

To have high caliber troops... 'Italian Special Forces'...intensive Operazione training at 'Campo Mussolini' will be required!.
Campo Mussolini
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ca ... &FORM=IGRE
Images of Campo Mussolini








Welcome...To..."Campo Mussolini"...my friends!.



"Il Duce"

Additional Additions:

"Il Duce"

Mora' Additionale':
Entrance To 'Campo Mussolini'



OMNIA - Campo Mussolini

[proline]

One of the biggest gripes I had with PzC was just how useless some Italian forces like infantry and AT guns were in the game. While the Italians were certainly not on par with their German and British counterparts, I don't think they should be an equal terms with Soviet Conscripts, as there are many points in the North African and Sicilian campaigns where Italians fought well. For this new installment will there be a general rebalancing of the effectiveness of the Italian forces? I felt they should only be slightly less effective than german and british regulars, that near useless as they were in PzC, after all Italy was still a semi modern military force during the war that suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

Yes, Italian units were effective at certain times in certain battles. Absolutely. However, they were a major weakness to the axis overall. Quite frankly, the axis might have lasted longer had they never joined it, at least then they might have been able to keep their colonies and provide a source of supply to occupied Europe as Spain and Switzerland did. I mean let's review:

1) They weren't great in Spain even against an opponent that lacked the training and equipment they had
2) They did terribly in France
3) They lost their navy to a handful of biplanes
4) They lost to Albania and Greece who had minimal support from the UK. They had to get bailed out by Germany which may have weakened Germany for Barbarossa
5) They lost much of Libya despite much larger forces and needed to get bailed out again tying up even more German forces
6) They lost all their colonies in East Africa
7) They couldn't protect the German flanks leading to the surround at Stalingrad
8 They switched sides, then did what they did best which is beg for help this time from the west since they sure as hell couldn't protect themselves from Germany even on home turf

And yes, we know they did ok in Africa when Rommel was running things. And they got some early victories against Russia while Russia was very weak. And they put on some resistance in Sicily. The trouble is overall they had only small amounts of modern tech and they weren't very mechanized or mobile. There is no faction they could beat unless they had overwhelming advantages or got really lucky, not even minor ones like Ethiopia or Greece.

As for their in-game model, I actually think its pretty generous to Italy. The Italian units aren't actually horrible at all, they just seem that way when they have no experience. If you can keep them alive enough to get experience on them they are pretty good- look around for Graziani mode playthroughs. Their fighters are equivalent to German and UK ones even though in reality they only had a tiny number of their good fighters. They have good self-propelled artillery. Their switchable AA is only slightly worse than a German 88. Their Sahariana are very useful even though in real life they had hardly any of them. Their medium tank is comparable to a panzer 4 even though in real life they only had a few and the rest of their tanks sucked. Their infantry can switch between all the different types at no cost and are good for what they are even though they have no engineers or heavy weapons guys.

What would you buff?

[George_Parr]

I think a less generic (for a lack of better word) setup for all he Axis minors would be helpful. Apart from the African campaign, which obviously has a lot of choices in terms of Italian units, you mostly get a bunch of token units whenever your allies appear. They either have just the basics (Inf, Cav, maybe old and small Art and AT) or get some captured Soviet units, even though they did have quite a few unique or interesting choices that could be added instead. They didn't always have a ton of that stuff available, but they did have it, and it would add another layer to the game if these things appeared instead of just seeing the basic cannon-fodder every time.

Beyond a few more choices in terms of artillery and anti-tank, you could offer more vehicles as well. E.g. have the Hungarians use the Toldi, Turan, Pz-38(t) some Pz IVs, or the Nimrod. If you are successful in your campaigns, maybe vehicles like the Zrinyi or Tas could appear later on. For the Romanians you could have the TACAM R-2, TACAM T-60 or the Maresal. Italy could see a whole lot more Semoventes than currently in the game, they did have at least six different types of those after all.


While Italian performance as a whole was certainly lacking, there are a few things I have to disagree with from your list.
For one, they didn't lose to Albania. They took over that country without a fight, and Albania basically fought with Italy against Greece, not the other way round.
And secondly, the Italians weren't to blame for the whole Stalingrad mess. The Soviets broke through in Romanian sectors, to the east of the Italians. Then later on, with another Soviet push, the Hungarian sector to the north of the Italians collapsed. The Alpini actually held the front but were outflanked on both sides. While this ended up destroying much of the 8th Italian army, it wasn't really their fault.

One also has to wonder which brainiac decided to send mountain troops to guard the steppe instead of using them in the Caucasus. I guess they wanted to keep the Italian units as one coherent force, but this meant that the Alpini were wasted on flat terrain.

[proline]

While Italian performance as a whole was certainly lacking, there are a few things I have to disagree with from your list.

That's fine. My point isn't that the Italians were incapable of doing ok, it's that their current in game model actually captures that potential pretty well already without making them equivalent to Germany / USA / UK / USSR which they most certainly were not.

[FOARP]

I think there should definitely more scope for Axis minor core units in the German campaign - you should have at least ~3 Italian/Hungarian/Romanian units in your core if you're fighting either the British in North Africa or the Soviets. These should be part of a separate core-limit so you have to get them to have a full core (otherwise you'd simply get German units, wouldn't you?)

Similarly the Allied campaign (if there is one) should have separate core-limits for US and Commonwealth units so you have to get both to fill out your core.

However, Italian units in terms of strength weren't modeled too badly in PzC - though there were a couple of actions where they fought well, the general standard was bad.

[Retributarr]

proline post:
]2) They did terribly in France
]The trouble is overall they had only small amounts of modern tech and they weren't very mechanized or mobile. There is no faction they could beat unless they had overwhelming advantages or got really lucky, not even minor ones like Ethiopia or Greece.

Retributarr's response'`:
Agreed!... "They did terribly in France"...For seemingly...very good reasons.
The strong points of the French Little Maginot Line, otherwise known as the Alpine Line...I think...were quite 'Formidable'...especially in a steep-inclined-mountain assault environment. A treacherous...up-hill ascent in which to do battle with the French Bunker Defences.

I have retrieved some pictures to show you all, just what the Italians had to deal with...many of these pictures are of 'OUVERAGE GORDOLON'...others are what I couldn't otherwise find, but...will still serve to illustrate the situation at hand!. In-fact, even German 88mm Anti-Tank-Guns had great difficulty in penetrating these French Defence Modules. So Here-Goes!:






"Locations of French Defensive Ouverage's in "ALPINE LINE-FORTIFICATION-MAP":
ITALIAN BORDER WWII_French Bunkers\OUVERAGE GORDOLON\Alpine_Line_10_June_1940.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Line

To Find MAP: Go down the page...half ways down on the 'Right-Hand-Side'...there you will see a small green colored MAP. Double-Click on the MAP, then Click-DETAILS. On this next Web-Page, a much larger version of the MAP will be displayed. If you now..."Double-Click" this larger MAP...an even 'Larger-MAP will be displayed...showing where all of the defensive fortifications are located.

You can also download this MAP, but in order to do so...when indicated...to 'Attribute' the contributer of this MAP, follow the instructions to press...'Copy'...then 'Paste' what you copy onto WordPad or NotePad...and follow the instructions and the link to download the MAP.

When the MAP is accessed or even downloaded...just...adjust your 'Zoom' adjuster to make the 'Map' larger...or smaller to suite your preference.

Summary Details Of "ALPINE LINE-FORTIFICATION-MAP":
Description:
English: The strong points of the French Little Maginot Line, otherwise known as the Alpine Line. French and Italian dispositions, prior to the Italian invasion of France, 10 June 1940.

Fortified Sector of Savoy (La Tarentaise): 1 - Ouvrage Chatelard and Ouvrage Cave Canon
Fortified Sector of Savoy (La Maurienne): 2 - Ouvrage Sapey 3 - Ouvrage Saint Gobain 4 - Ouvrage Saint Antoine 5 - Ouvrage Le Lavoir 6 - Ouvrage Pas du Roc, Ouvrage Arrondaz, and Ouvrage Les Rochilles

Fortified Sector of Dauphiné: 7 - Ouvrage Janus, Ouvrage Col de Buffere, Ouvrage Col du Granon, and Ouvrage Les Aittes 8 - Ouvrage Gondran 9 - Ouvrage Roche Lacroix 10 - Ouvrage Saint Ours Haut and Ouvrage Plate Lombard 11 - Ouvrage Fontvive Nord-ouest, Ouvrage Saint Ours Nord-est, Ouvrage Saint Ours Bas, Ouvrage Ancien Camp 12 - Ouvrage Restefond, Ouvrage Col de Restefond, Ouvrage Granges Communes, Ouvrage La Moutiere

Fortified Sector of the Maritime Alps: 14 - Ouvrage Col de Crous, Ouvrage Rimplas, Ouvrage Fressinen, Ouvrage Valdeblore, Ouvrage La Serena, Ouvrage Col du Caire Gros, and Ouvrage Col du Fort 15 - Ouvrage Gordolon 16 - Ouvrage Flaut 17 - Ouvrage Baisse de Saint Veran, Ouvrage Plan Caval, Ouvrage La Beole, Ouvrage Col Agnon, Ouvrage La Dea 18 - Ouvrage Col de Brouis 19 - Ouvrage Monte Grosso, and Ouvrage Champ de Tir 20 - Ouvrage L'Agaisen 21 - Ouvrage Saint Roch 22 - Ouvrage Barbonnet 23 - Ouvrage Castillon, and Ouvrage Col des Banquettes 24 - Ouvrage Sainte Agnes and Ouvrage Col des Gardes 25 - Ouvrage Mont Agel 26 - Ouvrage Roquebrunne, and Ouvrage Croupe du Reservoir 27 - Ouvrage Cap Martin
Date
27 February 2015The strong points of the French Little Maginot Line, otherwise known as the Alpine Line. French and Italian dispositions, prior to the Italian invasion of France, 10 June 1940.

[Retributarr]

I think it's time to add more information on the 'Alpine-Line'...also to help break-up some listless tedium!.

Alpine Line 10 June 1940

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=38633194

Download all sizes _ MAP depicting locations of 'Bunker Fortifications'.

All of the large positions were provided with subterranean barracks and central utility plants. Nearly all fortifications were excavated from solid rock.

The Alpine Line featured relatively few artillery ouvrages, tending instead to use mixed-arms positions that combined artillery casemates and infantry positions.

In addition to the linked complexes of blockhouses that formed the grand and petit ouvrages, the country around and between each position was provided with isolated blockhouses, observation points, shelters (or abris), outposts (avants postes) and batteries, using much the same vocabulary of rounded concrete forms as the primary line of fortifications.


Block 2
***More Block Defense Fortification Information:***
Block 1 (entry): one machine gun cloche and one machine gun embrasure.[4]
Block 2 (infantry): one machine gun cloche, one twin heavy machine gun cloche, one grenade launcher cloche, one machine gun/47mm anti-tank gun embrasure and two 81mm mortar embrasures.[5]
Block 3 (infantry): one machine gun cloche, two twin heavy machine gun cloches, one observation cloche,two 75mm gun embrasures and two 81mm mortar embrasures.[6]

These positions allowed the use of mobile supporting artillery[/b], and provided rallying and control points for the necessary infantry support in the country between strongpoints, as the security of the border did not and could not depend on subterranean fortifications alone.

The disposition of forward outposts, backed by heavier fortifications some kilometers to the rear[/b], provided a defense in depth that was, in the case of the Alpine fortifications, supported by the difficult terrain.

Because of the mountainous terrain and the vertical character of the sites chosen for fortification, individual blocks typically emerged from rock faces in a steep hillside or cliff with mined galleries within under rock cover.


A typical high Alpine frontier post

Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes.

Apparantly!!!...it's a 'No-Can-Do' at this moment...However...I will try later on...to get this 'IMAGE' when and if I am able to do so!.

[WarHomer]

And old joke once went; What´s the title of the world´s shortest book? "Italian war heroes".

[PanzerCro]

And old joke once went; What´s the title of the world´s shortest book? "Italian war heroes".

Along with american history and british food specialties

[LandMarine47]

One of the biggest gripes I had with PzC was just how useless some Italian forces like infantry and AT guns were in the game. While the Italians were certainly not on par with their German and British counterparts, I don't think they should be an equal terms with Soviet Conscripts, as there are many points in the North African and Sicilian campaigns where Italians fought well. For this new installment will there be a general rebalancing of the effectiveness of the Italian forces? I felt they should only be slightly less effective than german and british regulars, that near useless as they were in PzC, after all Italy was still a semi modern military force during the war that suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

What would you buff?

I think just a couple of values when it comes to attack and defense, to at the very least make them on par with Soviet 41 Regulars, which aren't as good as SMG or Guards units, but at least better than Conscript units. While everything you did state about the Italians is true, I just wanted to see a much more unique or dynamic Italian faction if that makes sense, make them a little better to play. I would love to see an Italian Corps DLC down the line, but this was just basic brainstorming. Italians suffered severely from lack of equipment and incredibly poor leadership as pointed out earlier, but I feel they weren't as bad as the Soviet Conscripts we see on the Eastern Front.

[Retributarr]

U-TUBE VIDEO'S:
WWII Italian Invasion Of France Alpine Line June 10, 1940
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... lpine+Line
*** ITALIAN INVASION OF FRANCE ***
*** Battle of the Alps 1940 Italy vs France ***
*** Why was Italy so Ineffective in WWII? ***
*** (WWII) The Italian Invasion of France (1940) ***
*** Italian Invasion of France ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** Benito Mussolini declares war on UK and France ***
*** WWII Factions: The Italian Army ***

[proline]

One of the biggest gripes I had with PzC was just how useless some Italian forces like infantry and AT guns were in the game. While the Italians were certainly not on par with their German and British counterparts, I don't think they should be an equal terms with Soviet Conscripts, as there are many points in the North African and Sicilian campaigns where Italians fought well. For this new installment will there be a general rebalancing of the effectiveness of the Italian forces? I felt they should only be slightly less effective than german and british regulars, that near useless as they were in PzC, after all Italy was still a semi modern military force during the war that suffered from poor equipment and leadership.

What would you buff?

I think just a couple of values when it comes to attack and defense, to at the very least make them on par with Soviet 41 Regulars, which aren't as good as SMG or Guards units, but at least better than Conscript units.

Italian infantry cost 70 bucks and have attack values of 2&1 with a defense of 7. USSR regulars cost 81 and have attack values of 3&1 with a defense of 6. Overall the Italian infantry is a little worse but costs a little less.

However, Italian Bersaglieri cost 131 for attack values of 5&2 and defense of 7. USSR guards 41 cost 128 for attack of 4&2 and defense of 7. So there the Italian unit is clearly better and comes out a year earlier.

And Italian Alpini cost 131 and have attack values of 5&1 with a defense of 8. USSR mountain infantry cost 103 for attack of 3&1 and defense of 6. That's not even close.

The cavalry are precisely the same.

The Soviets have engineers, paratroopers, and bridging units that the Italians have no equivalent for. The Italians have Sahariana which is essentially an ultra mobile Bersaglieri and is far better than any Soviet scout of that time period.

Overall then I don't believe that your assessment that the Italian infantry is worse than 1941 Soviet infantry is correct. The basic infantry is a little worse at lower cost, but the Italians have much better mountain and heavy weapons infantry. Italian infantry units are all in the same family (except the Sahariana) and so are very versatile. They are much better than conscripts.

[Retributarr]

Well!, ir's rather quite here...so I'm going to add a few more pictures of the 'Gordolon' fortress emplacements.

Gros ouvrage de Gordolon
3 blocs - Located on the western bank of the river Vésubie near Lantosque
Commandant: Cne Cardi Regiments: 61th DBAF & 167th RAP Generators: 3 SMIM 100 cv Troops: 5 Officers & 246 Men

The fort which housed 246 men is located close to the western bank of the River Vesubie at the end of a long dead end road off the D2565.

Gordolon is on two levels with the entrance block, usine and caserne at road level with a stairway up to an intermediate corridor 60 feet above. At each end of this corridor further stairs lead to the two fighting blocks. The initial layout is similar to other forts

The guns are still in place in both fighting blocks. Block 3 has two 81mm mortars and Block 2 has two 81 mm mortars on the lower level and two 75mm canons on the upper level. Alongside the mortars in both blocks there are two ammunition lifts up from the floor below.











Ouvrage de gordolon
A display of some of some of the interiors of the underground Bunkers.

The operators occupied two adjacent rooms separated by a wall with a window.

Originally the room would have looked something like this:


The underground passageways connected all facilities of the fort. The tunnels were at an average depth of 100 feet, and the main passageway was 2,050 feet long.


Looking up at the shaft of a GFM cloche – a dome-shaped armored structure for observation and machine-gun fire. There were two GFM cloches at the combat block.

Another room of the command center with a chalkboard. This is likely to be where important decisions were made by the command:


The top level of the block: the casemate, with a three-tier bed. At the end, the platform that lifts to the armored observation dome can be seen.

Apart from the armored observation dome with a periscope and the GFM cloche, the block has a retractable turret with a 1935 machine gun system.

One of the storage rooms with boxes for storing 75 mm shells:

Command center of the block:

The command center originally looked something like this:

The casemate where fired shells were delivered. They slid down a conveyor straight from the turret

Here, a section of the conveyor down which the fired shells slid can be seen:

The diameter of the armored turret is 10 feet, and the armor thickness is 11.8 inches. The turret, together with its guns, weighed 163 tons.

[Retributarr]

Schematic of Ouvrage de Gordolon & Interior Workings of the Complex:
https://www.google.com/search?sa=G&chan ... 5375937562



Casemate de la ligne Maginot (Little Maginot Line_Alpine Line:)


Mortar Mount in Ouvrage of Gordolon




Ouvrage de la ligne Maginot




PICTURE: 2-75mm Artillery Cannons mounted in Coupula

[Turtler]

Sorry proline, but I have to chew you out on several points.

And I would be hard pressed to see how having hundreds of thousands of soldiers- even if often lacking- was a weakness.

1) They weren't great in Spain even against an opponent that lacked the training and equipment they had

False.

I mean, everybody really remembers Guadalajara- and with good reason- but most people don't remember Malaga, Santander, Teurel, the riposte to the Ebro offensive, and so on.

Italian troops were on the whole above average- and even sought after- units compared to most others (including the veteran Spanish Nationalist ones) and were rarely defeated even given some of the lingering trouble.

2) They did terribly in France

Agreed, but as someone else noted there were major extenuating circumstances, and even the oh so famed Germans had great trouble in both WWI and WWII with similar terrain (anybody remember the Battle of Mount Grappa? Anyone?).

3) They lost their navy to a handful of biplanes

They lost their navy to the most powerful navy on the planet, including carrier based biplanes with torpedoes... and advanced destroyers and battleships with radar and night-fighting equipment that preyed upon the Italian Navy's lack of resources.

4) They lost to Albania and Greece who had minimal support from the UK. They had to get bailed out by Germany which may have weakened Germany for Barbarossa

Sorry, but the only remotely accurately true thing here is the "minimal support from the UK" and maybe the "weakened Germany for Barbarossa" (if only because having lots of troops get killed or captured weakens any force).

But the Greeks NEVER Took Albania, only parts of it on the Greek-Albanian Border. And to be fair they had never cared much about it. They repulsed the Italian invasion (often against great odds), and having done so they then did try to counterattack into Albania.

But a steady stream of reinforcements, better equipment, and Cavallero's reorganization saw Greek attempts to break through blunted and even repulsed. Which was quite bad for Greece because it had dispatched most of its military strength to the border, hollowing out its positions elsewhere (like on the Metaxes Line with Bulgaria). Which would've made a Bulgarian and/or Turkish entry into the war alone dangerous, nevertheless a German one.

So Italy was on a trajectory to win the war- even if very gradually and inefficiently- before the Germans came in (buoyed- AGAIN- by the fact that the Greeks had pulled their forces away from where the Germans would attack).

As for Barbarossa, probably not. The timeline for Barbarossa was always going to be delayed by the late spring in 1941 and other logistical problems.

5) They lost much of Libya despite much larger forces and needed to get bailed out again tying up even more German forces

True.

6) They lost all their colonies in East Africa

True.

7) They couldn't protect the German flanks leading to the surround at Stalingrad

The REASON they couldn't protect the German flanks leading to Stalingrad was because of Army Group B's insanely overextended and undersupplied situation, resulting in EVERYBODY getting below average and inadequate reinforcements and support. Why?

Thank Halder and the OKW.

And that failure was by no means Italian exclusively. As someone else pointed out, the Hungarian and Romanian sectors (which had similar problems) collapsed first, with the Italian Expeditionary Force being one of the few to get even a *sizable* portion of its forces out.

And ultimately this problem was due to the German operational command's inability to properly manage reinforcements or provide for adequate flank security. Blaming "Muh Italian Weakness" holding back the superior German soldier is utterly unjustified and stupid in this case.

8 They switched sides, then did what they did best which is beg for help this time from the west since they sure as hell couldn't protect themselves from Germany even on home turf

This is painfully true, but primarily came down due to a couple major problems.

Firstly, the Germans were ALREADY ON Their home turf. Italian positions and units- whether in Italy proper or elsewhere like Southern France or the Aegean or Romania- were generally blanketed by German units or those of other loyal allies like Bulgaria and Romania. Indeed, Kesselring was fighting the Western Allied breakout attempts at Salerno when he received word of what happened, so he pulled his rear units around ad started crushing them.

Secondly: Badoglio's orders were utterly garbage, coordinating with NOBODY (least of all their new allies) nor giving adequate warning or orders to their own troops to actually resist, meaning that even in the cases where units would be capable of fighting off the Germans if properly notified, they were not.

And yes, we know they did ok in Africa when Rommel was running things.

Sorry, but no.

You ever hear of Giovanni Messe? The Italian Rommel?

The guy who was actually in charge for most of the Tunisian Campaign and who did such a spectacular job that the Western Allies- even with Enigma and other cryptographical info- *didn't know Rommel had left?*

(Ironically they might've been able to know if they understood the signs. The last major act of Rommel in Africa was the foolhardy attack by unsupported armor over the flat terrain at Medenine, which got spanked hard. Messe didn't make the same kind of mistake.)

And they got some early victories against Russia while Russia was very weak.

And later, unto mid war.

And they put on some resistance in Sicily.

And Italy and elsewhere.

The trouble is overall they had only small amounts of modern tech

Not really. The problem was that they didn't keep up with the cutting edge of tech as it move.d

and they weren't very mechanized or mobile.

True.

There is no faction they could beat unless they had overwhelming advantages or got really lucky, not even minor ones like Ethiopia or Greece.

Eh what?

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. And flatly false.

Spanish Republicans.

Ethiopia (See: the Christmas Offensive's collapse).

Albania

YUGOSLAVIA (big time).

Greece

Britain (esp. in East Africa and in wafare with an in depth defense).

and the Soviet Union.

Yes. The Italian Military was certainly dubious in many things, chief among them leadership, and support from allies (especially their main ally, Germany). Their performance is FAR from the best recorded here. But there's a difference between acknowledging this and arguing they couldn't do much of anything except run to daddy Rommel (while ignoring the times that Daddy Rommel $hat the bed by depreciating their qualities unjustly- even after he had his command staff wiped out by them in WWI- while doing stuff like sending the Ariete to attack over utterly defensible ground with the British waiting or how Daddy Halder and Hitler left them unsupported out on the flanks with no reserves and even the German formations in Stalingrad being screwed for reinforcements).

Especially since if the player does anything right, they will solve perhaps the single greatest flaw they had. Incompetent and inadequate leadership.

[LandMarine47]

What would you buff?

I think just a couple of values when it comes to attack and defense, to at the very least make them on par with Soviet 41 Regulars, which aren't as good as SMG or Guards units, but at least better than Conscript units.

Italian infantry cost 70 bucks and have attack values of 2&1 with a defense of 7. USSR regulars cost 81 and have attack values of 3&1 with a defense of 6. Overall the Italian infantry is a little worse but costs a little less.

However, Italian Bersaglieri cost 131 for attack values of 5&2 and defense of 7. USSR guards 41 cost 128 for attack of 4&2 and defense of 7. So there the Italian unit is clearly better and comes out a year earlier.

And Italian Alpini cost 131 and have attack values of 5&1 with a defense of 8. USSR mountain infantry cost 103 for attack of 3&1 and defense of 6. That's not even close.

The cavalry are precisely the same.

The Soviets have engineers, paratroopers, and bridging units that the Italians have no equivalent for. The Italians have Sahariana which is essentially an ultra mobile Bersaglieri and is far better than any Soviet scout of that time period.

Overall then I don't believe that your assessment that the Italian infantry is worse than 1941 Soviet infantry is correct. The basic infantry is a little worse at lower cost, but the Italians have much better mountain and heavy weapons infantry. Italian infantry units are all in the same family (except the Sahariana) and so are very versatile. They are much better than conscripts.

I never even looked at the numbers in such detail, I am probably not experienced enough to take full advantage of the Italian troops in PzC. But overall, I do hope to see Italy as an interesting Ally in PzC2, rather than just useless auxiliaries.

[proline]

Sorry proline, but I have to chew you out on several points.

You spend a great deal of time explaining that the Italians had excuses for their many, many failures. I don't dispute that. Every losing army has excuses. But that doesn't change the fact that when you've got excuses for everything, at some point maybe the problem is you. Perhaps we could agree that one of the differences between the Italians and the more capable factions is that the more capable factions found ways to win, even when the odds were against them. The Italians never did. Beating countries with vastly inferior forces, such as Yugoslavia and Ethiopia, isn't something to write home about.

And again, this thread is about how the Italians are modeled in game. As I've pointed out in detail, they have stats better than USSR units of the same time period but still worse than the competent armies (Germany, UK & other Commonwealth, and the USA). I see no reason why they should be any higher. The equipment, mobility, morale, leadership, etc. of the Italians was simply inferior to the western allies.

[Turtler]

You spend a great deal of time explaining that the Italians had excuses for their many, many failures. I don't dispute that.

Except that isn't just what I did, I also explained how several of the claims you made were flat out false, and were not failures. And that some of the ones that were were cases where you exaggerated the magnitude (see: Albania).

What happened was bad enough as it was without having to exaggerate it.

Every losing army has excuses. But that doesn't change the fact that when you've got excuses for everything, at some point maybe the problem is you.

But accurate analysis of a problem requires being able to well...get it accurately.

Claiming they preformed poorly in Spain isn't accurate (because there was a whole bloody war outside of Jarama and Guadalajara, and on the whole they preformed quite well, well above par- even given the sorry and low par that the combatants of the SCW had).

Claiming they lost Albania to Greece isn't accurate.

Again, truth is bad enough as it is without having to exaggerate.

Perhaps we could agree that one of the differences between the Italians and the more capable factions is that the more capable factions found ways to win, even when the odds were against them. The Italians never did.

Riiight. And Gazala was....what?

All due to Rommel?

The Val D'Aosta campaign was...what? All due to the tripline of German forces mixed in with the RSI?

And the fact that Giovanni Messe had to salvage Rommel's foolhardy offensives in Tunisia is what?

Never's a very long time.

Beating countries with vastly inferior forces, such as Yugoslavia and Ethiopia, isn't something to write home about.

No, but falsifying the record to try and make it worse is.

And again, this thread is about how the Italians are modeled in game.

Fair enough.

As I've pointed out in detail, they have stats better than USSR units of the same time period but still worse than the competent armies (Germany, UK & other Commonwealth, and the USA). I see no reason why they should be any higher. The equipment, mobility, morale, leadership, etc. of the Italians was simply inferior to the western allies.

Which is true- and I would also extend this to the mid/late war Soviets- but the fact remains that being able to

But it also has to contend with the fact that many of the major problems the Italians get were due to the very problems that the player is liable to fix. The player may not be able to micromanage what kind of gear gets produced (and thus used) with the Fascist Italian industrial cartels and may not be able to RP the weeding out of the NCO deadwood, but when one of your key problems is Strategic leadership (and the ability to have said leadership decide) and you stick them under the command of the player in a TBS, that gets minimized greatly.

The Italians shouldn't get a massive boost in the early game, but I see no reason why they can't gradually power up if anaged well and the war goes better. Which of course is up to the player to do.