Italy surrender

[Morris]

Mr. Morris, I respect you as a superior player--you're still likely to win our game--but tell me which is more "gamey," leaving cities all over the map ungarrisoned, in defiance of real life practices in WWII or my little landing in Tirana? I think it is actually very likely in the given circumstances that Mussolini would be ejected from office and that the new government would do all it could to get out of the war.

I think the Italian surrender rules should remain unchanged.

Mr Diplomaticus :

1 I respect you too
2 What we are discussing about is whether the Italy surrender rule need adjusted . If no need , It is ok for me . I just learnd new rules & will not make this kind of mistake again .
3 I just provide two screen shots of the turn before Italy surrender (Nov 24th 1942). It will show you how did I defend Italy . Every city has at least one GAR or Corp .The Trieste Gar attacked the partisan in this turn . Regarding to Tirana , since I didn't know it is a surrender city , so I move the Gar there to attack a patisan in Yugo .Yes , it is my mistake of losing Italy . I can afford for it , But I am not the one who leaving cities all over the map ungarrisoned .

4 let's forget about this & enjoy our game !

[Morris]

I think the Italian surrender rules work very well.

Before we just counted Sicily and mainland Italian cities. Then the Allied players bypassed Torch and the Axis made a fortress on Sicily with units in every hex. Then we added Tunis as a surrender city and the Allies started to invade Vichy France, but still had to struggle with Sicily. When Sicily was conquered then Italy would surrender. So it worked better. Many players complained why a foreign city would count as a surrender city.

With the current rules Italy can surrender if enough cities are captured including Tripoli and Tunis. Now all of Italy is a legal target and I think that works much better game wise. The real Italians would have surrendered if pushed hard enough. They surrendered when they lost Sicily, but could have easily surrendered if Husky had landed e. g. in the north or near Taranto.

I really don't see a problem here. If a partisan spawned in northern Yugoslavia and Morris didn't rail a unit to Trieste then I feel he can blame himself for losing Italy. The same with Tirana being taken unopposed. If you don't place garrisons in coastal Italian cities then you ask the Allied player to invade there.

Do you really think the real Italians had no home garrison forces? Do you think they would allow Hitler to send all Italian fighting forces to be slaughtered in Russia at the risk of losing their home country easily?

I don't think we should reward reckless playing by making it much harder to conquer Italy. It's the Axis player's responsibility to ensure he garrisons Italy well enough.

I don't understand why whenever I read your post related to me , I usually felt the smell of gunpowder . In the last post of this topic , I provided two screenshot to show how did I defence Italy . Without reading this , how could you imagine I had no home garrison forces to defend Italy ?

Regarding to the topic of Italy surrender cites ,please be objective or just as this topic is not from me . It is only a suggestion to complete the game . But I will respect all decision you will make . I never try to ask for a reward anyone's reckless . But I felt one point that : you usually be reckless to make any conclusion related to me . Please calm down ! I am not your enemy ! I am your student ! Please be patient to your student, my professor

[Clark]

There's a saying in English, "If the shoe fits, wear it." It means that if you feel the criticism is directed towards you and it's applicable, you should take it seriously. Implied is also that if you don't think the criticism is warranted by your actions, even if it's directed at you, then don't worry about it.

As to Stauffenberg's comments, I generally get the sense that he's defending his (I'm assuming Stauffenberg is male) and the other mod designers' choices in the game rules. And although I think his comments here aren't really aimed at supermax, that's by far the most applicable target for his "reckless" accusation with regards to losing Italy, since supermax had one of the most amazing attacks going against Russia and the Middle East in the history of the game, and lost Italy (and the game) because he was careless and allowed a UK garrison to sneak in and take Rome.

And in general, you really should lighten up! I think everyone has the utmost respect for you and your game. And by the standards of the internet, this board might as well be fluffy clouds, rainbows, and prancing unicorns. I've never seen this much discussion by people of so many backgrounds, ages, and nations with so little conflict. And all in discussions about a WAR game!

[Diplomaticus]

Hear, hear!

And I will say for myself that any appearance of a personal insult or attack against Morris was 100% unintentional.

I think I may have unintentionally hurt Mr. Morris's feelings by the way I used the word "gamey." But really I was just using it, as I think he was, in a technical sense. The gist of my argument is that the current rules do indeed permit certain "gamey" moves that result in a surprising loss of Italy, but I don't see them as any less "gamey" than the Axis choices that permitted this result to happen. In other words, I argue that all kinds of unrealistic things can and do go on in CEAW, but I argue that in this particular case (Italy surrender conditions) I don't think the rule is broken at all. If rogue partisans and floating garrisons can skew the results in such a big way, well then that just forces Axis to exercise all due caution in guarding objective cities.

Just to be crystal clear: I bow before Morris as a great player, far superior to me. I also think Morris is a good guy. He's known as one of the best and most aggressive players in the game, and he's certainly aggressive (as I am!) in arguing his points on this forum. Maybe that's rubbed some people the wrong way, but not me.

[peterjfrigate]

remember Dr. Strangelove: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

[zechi]

Regarding point 3 by Zechi. This is the reason that the Italian hexes don't change side when Italy surrenders. It means the Italian cities become empty, but still Axis controlled so the Germans can rail units there. If Germany was already in Italy then these units won't disappear. I think a good Axis strategy is to use German units to garrison the most important Italian cities. That is what I do.

Regarding the other points. This is one of the weaknesses with a game where the players know the rules. You know what will happen and play accordingly. All countries about to die make suicide counter attacks. The Poles do it. The Romanians do it. Even the Russians do it if Omsk is about to fall. The French often do it, but to a lesser extent since the Axis can reject the French armistice offer.

How can be prevent players from exploiting knowledge about what will happen next and still try to have freedom for the players to do what they want?

I think we have to look at the game as a game. I don't think it matters much if the Italians make a last ditch suicide effort just before they surrender. If the Allies have made a decent job there won't be many Italian units left anyway and many units would be down in red and orange efficiency. So the damage to the Allies will not be big.

So why make a lot of effort into an area with very little effect on game play? As far as I can see the Italian surrender rules aren't broken. The Axis can hold out for quite some time if the Germans spend some effort into keeping Italy into the war.

You are probably right in most points, However, I still don't like that the railhubs count as surrender cities. As explained above, it is nearly impossible to defend these properly for several turns as units place on railhubs will retreat. For example, it is rather easy to force a GAR placed in Foggia to retreat with an amphibious invasion supported by naval and/or air units. Of course the Axis player can place a lot of units aroud Foggia to make retreats impossible, but from my point of view it feels somehow wrong that the Axis player can actually defend "normale" cities with little effort, but you will need a lot of units to defend the rail hubs properly.

I know that it will not matter in many games, but especially in the endgame it can really matter if a retreat is possible or not.

[Morris]

There's a saying in English, "If the shoe fits, wear it." It means that if you feel the criticism is directed towards you and it's applicable, you should take it seriously. Implied is also that if you don't think the criticism is warranted by your actions, even if it's directed at you, then don't worry about it.

As to Stauffenberg's comments, I generally get the sense that he's defending his (I'm assuming Stauffenberg is male) and the other mod designers' choices in the game rules. And although I think his comments here aren't really aimed at supermax, that's by far the most applicable target for his "reckless" accusation with regards to losing Italy, since supermax had one of the most amazing attacks going against Russia and the Middle East in the history of the game, and lost Italy (and the game) because he was careless and allowed a UK garrison to sneak in and take Rome.

And in general, you really should lighten up! I think everyone has the utmost respect for you and your game. And by the standards of the internet, this board might as well be fluffy clouds, rainbows, and prancing unicorns. I've never seen this much discussion by people of so many backgrounds, ages, and nations with so little conflict. And all in discussions about a WAR game!

Yes ,sir ! Thanks for your lesson . Maybe I am a little bit over sensitive . If so ,please forgive me .
Actually ,I usually made careless mistake during the pbems (usually 6-7 pbems per day).also made foolish mistake because of lacking understanding of the new changes ( just like lost Finland in AAR with Joe & lost Italy in AAR with Doug & Diplom)but I have to clear that I have been always careful of my moves & never move it recklessly without thinking . Some of the moves is looks like reckless is usually because of my strategtic purpose .

[Plaid]

You are probably right in most points, However, I still don't like that the railhubs count as surrender cities. As explained above, it is nearly impossible to defend these properly for several turns as units place on railhubs will retreat <...>

But we should remember that all that railhubs are in mainland Italy. Real Italians surrendered before things go this far, so I think its okay that this checkpoints are easy to take.

Also who said that it is easy to defend a city? In our old game even full german corpse didnt manage to hold Taranto against relatively weak allied force.

[Morris]

[
I know that it will not matter in many games, but especially in the endgame it can really matter if a retreat is possible or not.

I have to agree to this point again . Anyway There is a tendency I felt recently among the AARs with me that : Joe , Doug , Cliff all concentrate in Med action . If I were Allies , I would also do this . Because it is much easier to kick Italy out ( Tripoli, Tunis , Caligiri , Tirana then any of Italy city Or rail rub ).This strategy seems so attractive to allies player . If italy was kick out in 1942-1943 , It is usually hopeless for Germany to face three fronts.

so it come back to the game balance problem . As I said If Allies made less mistake , Allies is invincible .

[Morris]

You are probably right in most points, However, I still don't like that the railhubs count as surrender cities. As explained above, it is nearly impossible to defend these properly for several turns as units place on railhubs will retreat <...>

But we should remember that all that railhubs are in mainland Italy. Real Italians surrendered before things go this far, so I think its okay that this checkpoints are easy to take.

Also who said that it is easy to defend a city? In our old game even full german corpse didnt manage to hold Taranto against relatively weak allied force.

Corps or Gars in city will not be forced to retreat but it can be done in a railhub .

[Plaid]

Corps or Gars in city will not be forced to retreat but it can be done in a railhub .

Yes. And?

I believe Italian campaign supposed to be focused on Afircan things and Sicily/Sardinia. Real warfare on mainland Italy is extreme (for example all Sicily covered by garrisons) and it should not be hard for allies aswell.

[zechi]

You are probably right in most points, However, I still don't like that the railhubs count as surrender cities. As explained above, it is nearly impossible to defend these properly for several turns as units place on railhubs will retreat <...>

But we should remember that all that railhubs are in mainland Italy. Real Italians surrendered before things go this far, so I think its okay that this checkpoints are easy to take.

Also who said that it is easy to defend a city? In our old game even full german corpse didnt manage to hold Taranto against relatively weak allied force.

My problem is, that the railhubs are easier to take as "normale" cities, simply because the unit can retreat on the hub. This feels wrong. I also do not think that a city can be captured as easily. Of course a city can be captured, but rarely in one turn. Furthermore, if I remember our game correctly, the battle for Italy raged for several turns and the Allies managed to capture Taranto only because of a lucky shot after several attacks against the city. Such combat results should not happen anymore, as naval bombardment is much less effective (in these times you could even get 3:0 results with you veteran BBs if you got lucky) and the randomness of combat results has been reduced significantly.

However, I have to admit that in my game with Morris it was very easy to capture an Italian city in the endgame only defended by a GAR with support of two Soviet TACs and Paraunits.

Nevertheless, it does not make sense that railhubs are easier to take as other cities only because units can be forced to rereat.

[Plaid]

I'm rather happy that its easy to lose Italy if axis player ignore african campaign and other MED stuff. Feels right, no matter how exactly it is working.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't understand why whenever I read your post related to me , I usually felt the smell of gunpowder . In the last post of this topic , I provided two screenshot to show how did I defence Italy . Without reading this , how could you imagine I had no home garrison forces to defend Italy ?

Regarding to the topic of Italy surrender cites ,please be objective or just as this topic is not from me . It is only a suggestion to complete the game . But I will respect all decision you will make . I never try to ask for a reward anyone's reckless . But I felt one point that : you usually be reckless to make any conclusion related to me . Please calm down ! I am not your enemy ! I am your student ! Please be patient to your student, my professor

The point is that you started this thread with the point of gaining support to altering the Italian surrender rules, using the posted game as an example. My point was that there is no need to alter the rules because if you had garrisoned Tirana and Trieste you could have hold out much longer. So what's actually broken?

It's fair enough to forget about the current rules and make a mistake, but it doesn't mean we need to alter the surrender rules because of that.

I'm speaking in general of players who dislike having to garrison cities (home or occupied). If that person knows the rules about partisans / surrendering and he gets burned, then I feel it's probably his own fault and not something wrong with the rules. I see several Axis players who ignore placing garrisons in Russia when they rush eastwards. Then they will eventually get into trouble with more partisans popping up. That's deliberate and we don't intend to alter the rules because several players don't like to have to garrison cities.

I think Diplomaticus had a good explanation to why the current Italian surrender rules seem to be good. It's not intended to let the Axis player send the Italians to fight everywhere except Italy. If the player does it then he will face the consequence of an early surrender.

Having heavy losses influence the Italian surrender time is possible, of course, but I wonder if it becomes rather problematic for the players to know when it will trigger. Should it count the number of destroyed units or the number of steps lost? Regardless of choice it will complicate the game and players will have to check the losses every turn to know when it can happen.

I think having Italian surrender cities is not bad because when the Allies are in a position to land in mainland Italy and having crushed the Axis forces in Libya then the Italian forces are most likely quite depleted. So this more indirect method seems to work pretty well. Italy seems to surrender when the game situation is approximately as it was in the real war. The difference is that the Allied Husky invasion can happen anywhere and not just Sicily.

The real Italians surrendered when they realized the Allied bombers could reach Rome and the Italian industry in the north. They didn't want to see their cities devastated by bombing. Even if the Italian army had been strong I think the will to fight would have been broken. Mussolini would not have lost Libya without a fight so when the Allies control all of North Africa then Italy must have suffered some defeats.

[supermax]

Hey, gang. Because of all these goings-on, I just did a little update to our now quite obsolete (RC11) AAR.

I agree with the last few posts. As I wrote in the AAR this morning: "Picture this: Germans are running rampant all over Russia. Yeah! Meanwhile, their Italian "Allies" have been stuck on garrison duty in France. Oh, and they got kicked out of all of North Africa with zero help from their "allies". Oh, and they lost Sardinia too. Oh, and the Allies have liberated Corsica and have a very large force in Marseilles-Nice, and that force has begun to move into northern Italy. Hitler, Mussolini's "friend" couldn't even be bothered to send some old men & Hitler youth to stop a Yugoslavian partisan force from entering Trieste (which, btw, did actually happen late in the war). Don't you think under these circumstances that a coup d'état might overthrow Il Duce?"

I should have added that the entire Italian fleet is at the bottom of the sea and that Allied planes and ships enjoy total supremacy in the Med. No opposition of any kind. Under these circumstances, do you really think Mussolini could get away with stripping homeland defenses in this manner?

Mr. Morris, I respect you as a superior player--you're still likely to win our game--but tell me which is more "gamey," leaving cities all over the map ungarrisoned, in defiance of real life practices in WWII or my little landing in Tirana? I think it is actually very likely in the given circumstances that Mussolini would be ejected from office and that the new government would do all it could to get out of the war.

I think the Italian surrender rules should remain unchanged.

Is anyone surprised if i totally agree with Diplomaticus?

I know the gamey consequences of not garrisonning Italian cities, especially Rome

As Borger put it a while ago, this is the final version of GS for a while. No changes will be made.

Also its just a game and we should stop changing the rules. It works perfectly the way it is. most Axis players can make Italy resist well into 43 and sometimes beyond when the germans graciously lend troops for the defense. I guess some players are better at it then others at defense, or should i say at not putting all german ressources in Russia to get in sight of Omsk, but not take it(since its just not doable in the new version). The axis strategy as got to be balanced in GS, otherwise you just loose, so its not the game designer's fault, but any player that does not garrison Italy properly, including me, since ive done my Italian blunder in the past and paid with an ultimate defeat for it.

[kaigab]

i am italian, and Italy started to look for an armistice the day they lost tripoli. You must understand that Italy (Mussolini) entered the war to make gains in africa.
To be completely historical, Italians started to negociate with allies once lybia was lost. They just were scared of the germans (The King feared to get caught by nazis) and so they waited till allies could put troops on mainland italy so that our "brave" king could run there and be protected (and this is what happened, King run from Rome to go where allies were invading).

So the rule as it is actually more soft for germany; to be completely historical, italy should surrender when ANY italian mainland city is conquered, regardless of sicily, or sardinia.

The tactic (which i use too) to completely withdraw from africa in '40 is gamey and should be discouraged. However, this is due to some (IMO) flaws of the game making really useless for axis to fight in africa. IMO, if UK loses Suez there should be big penalty for UK and at same time, if Italy loses africa, italians units should have a big drop in efficiency as italians, since they lost in el alamein, simply started to find a way out of the war.

[supermax]

i am italian, and Italy started to look for an armistice the day they lost tripoli. You must understand that Italy (Mussolini) entered the war to make gains in africa.
To be completely historical, Italians started to negociate with allies once lybia was lost. They just were scared of the germans (The King feared to get caught by nazis) and so they waited till allies could put troops on mainland italy so that our "brave" king could run there and be protected (and this is what happened, King run from Rome to go where allies were invading).

So the rule as it is actually more soft for germany; to be completely historical, italy should surrender when ANY italian mainland city is conquered, regardless of sicily, or sardinia.

The tactic (which i use too) to completely withdraw from africa in '40 is gamey and should be discouraged. However, this is due to some (IMO) flaws of the game making really useless for axis to fight in africa. IMO, if UK loses Suez there should be big penalty for UK and at same time, if Italy loses africa, italians units should have a big drop in efficiency as italians, since they lost in el alamein, simply started to find a way out of the war.

This is a very nice comment. We cant make changes to the game, but at least the matter is settled. The germans DO get a better deal in CEAW than historically.

[joerock22]

I agree with Stauffenberg that the Italian surrender rules are fine the way they are. In my experience, how long Italy lasts is totally dependent on how much the Axis player is willing to commit to it. The current rules provide a good balance, allowing the Allies to force Italian surrender quickly if the Axis don't defend well, and allowing the Axis to turn Italy into a virtually impregnable fortress with proper commitment. (I know; I've done it)

As to Zechi's idea to give the Germans some "loyal" Italian troops when Italy surrenders, I would have no problem with that. It would help with the suicide attacks, and even the suicidal railing of Italian units to delay the Russian horde for a turn or two.

The difference between Italy and France vs. Russia is that Italy and France will surrender in almost every game. Russia will not. So it makes sense to take steps to encourage players not to make suicidal moves for Italy and France, even if we don't bother taking the same measures for Russia. USSR surrender is so rare, and when it happens the game is basically won for the Axis, so there's no point in making such a rule for the USSR. But France and Italy will surrender in almost every game, so making such a rule is worthwhile.

I would support a rule where some small percentage of Italian surviving ground steps is converted into loyal German units with Italian names when Italy surrenders. Maybe 10% would be a good number? It would not effect game balance much and would provide some incentive against suicidal moves.

[Morris]

I don't understand why whenever I read your post related to me , I usually felt the smell of gunpowder . In the last post of this topic , I provided two screenshot to show how did I defence Italy . Without reading this , how could you imagine I had no home garrison forces to defend Italy ?

Regarding to the topic of Italy surrender cites ,please be objective or just as this topic is not from me . It is only a suggestion to complete the game . But I will respect all decision you will make . I never try to ask for a reward anyone's reckless . But I felt one point that : you usually be reckless to make any conclusion related to me . Please calm down ! I am not your enemy ! I am your student ! Please be patient to your student, my professor

The point is that you started this thread with the point of gaining support to altering the Italian surrender rules, using the posted game as an example. My point was that there is no need to alter the rules because if you had garrisoned Tirana and Trieste you could have hold out much longer. So what's actually broken?

It's fair enough to forget about the current rules and make a mistake, but it doesn't mean we need to alter the surrender rules because of that.

I'm speaking in general of players who dislike having to garrison cities (home or occupied). If that person knows the rules about partisans / surrendering and he gets burned, then I feel it's probably his own fault and not something wrong with the rules. I see several Axis players who ignore placing garrisons in Russia when they rush eastwards. Then they will eventually get into trouble with more partisans popping up. That's deliberate and we don't intend to alter the rules because several players don't like to have to garrison cities.

I think Diplomaticus had a good explanation to why the current Italian surrender rules seem to be good. It's not intended to let the Axis player send the Italians to fight everywhere except Italy. If the player does it then he will face the consequence of an early surrender.

Having heavy losses influence the Italian surrender time is possible, of course, but I wonder if it becomes rather problematic for the players to know when it will trigger. Should it count the number of destroyed units or the number of steps lost? Regardless of choice it will complicate the game and players will have to check the losses every turn to know when it can happen.

I think having Italian surrender cities is not bad because when the Allies are in a position to land in mainland Italy and having crushed the Axis forces in Libya then the Italian forces are most likely quite depleted. So this more indirect method seems to work pretty well. Italy seems to surrender when the game situation is approximately as it was in the real war. The difference is that the Allied Husky invasion can happen anywhere and not just Sicily.

The real Italians surrendered when they realized the Allied bombers could reach Rome and the Italian industry in the north. They didn't want to see their cities devastated by bombing. Even if the Italian army had been strong I think the will to fight would have been broken. Mussolini would not have lost Libya without a fight so when the Allies control all of North Africa then Italy must have suffered some defeats.

Ok sir , If you insist not change the rule,it is quite ok for me . It will never be a mistake like this in my coming pbems . I just wondering the original rules give Allies alittle bit upper hand since Axis player is already with heavy burden .