Italy surrender

[Morris]

Hi everyone :

I just met a similiar situation in the AAR with Mr Diplomatus as what happened in the AAR with Doug . But This time the situation looks so funny :
As there are no allies troops in any Italy city but a Patisan who is almost die on a rail rub , Italy surrender ?/!! It is really unreasonable !

I think the original idea to change the Italy surrender cities is to against my strategy which withdraw all Axis troops from Africa . We tried to make it more historic . This idea is acceptable even if I have to adjust my Med strategy . But the above result is really funny . Even Mussolini is soft , but I do still believe Italy will not surrender without a Allies major invation .

If just for against me or defeat me , You make it !but it will never be useful again after I acknowlege this funny rules !

BTW , this AAR is not finish . I will fight to the last minute ！

[richardsd]

we need to see more of the map to see if the count is right - but really you do need to garison some places

[Morris]

we need to see more of the map to see if the count is right - but really you do need to garison some places

You did not get my point . It is no need to see more map . The computer won't be wrong . My point is That : is this reasonable for history ? It just like a joke !

[richardsd]

computer might be wrong - bug!

[peterjfrigate]

what am i missing? I can only reckon 4 cities that went down (Tripoli, Tunis, and Trieste and Tirana). Is it an easy surrender if the Allies have quad-Ts?

Morris: Did Italy actually surrender in the screen shot you provided, or, did it surrender a turn later when a 5th city was occupied by the Allies?

[Morris]

computer might be wrong - bug!

No ， Computer is right . There are five cities (including the rail station) Tripoli , Tunis ,Caligiri , Tirana & the rail station =5 surrender cities .
The point is : would Italy surrender after these five cites conquered ? No invation to Sicily & mainland , No Italian cites lose but a rail station conquerd by a patisan for 20 days ???!!!

[Morris]

what am i missing? I can only reckon 4 cities that went down (Tripoli, Tunis, and Trieste and Tirana). Is it an easy surrender if the Allies have quad-Ts?

Morris: Did Italy actually surrender in the screen shot you provided, or, did it surrender a turn later when a 5th city was occupied by the Allies?

Italy surrender this turn , You forgot Caligiri . That is not important . If someone criticize of my careless of missing the rules change , I have to accept it . But in this AAR , even if with this accident ,I won't quit & will show you the reason .

My point of this topic is just ask for a discussion of whether the rules of Italy surrender should be adjusted a bit . ( not in 2.1 ,maybe 2.2 or 3.0)

[peterjfrigate]

hi Morris - Just my take but ordinary Italians didn't view themselves as German cannon fodder. Italy was looking for an excuse to get out of a war that most people could see was not in their interest to continue. So isn't it plausible that losing most of their colonial and extra territorial possessions *and* the loss of a major homeland city (Trieste) *either by conquest, rebellion, incursion, or some combination* could trigger an armistice? Remember the Italians saw a war of expansion and easy conquest suddenly turn into the prospect of annihilating bombardment. Actually, you could make the case that it should be *easier* to enforce an Italian surrender, even without conquest, so long as it becomes obvious that (1) the Allies will win decisively and (2) Italy will be crushed if they resist (so even positioning enough long range Bombers when the USSR is ascendant might have been sufficient). Anyway, my point is just that it is not ridiculous that Italy surrenders under the conditions you identify. Just my 2-cents

[Morris]

hi Morris - Just my take but ordinary Italians didn't view themselves as German cannon fodder. Italy was looking for an excuse to get out of a war that most people could see was not in their interest to continue. So isn't it plausible that losing most of their colonial and extra territorial possessions *and* the loss of a major homeland city (Trieste) *either by conquest, rebellion, incursion, or some combination* could trigger an armistice? Remember the Italians saw a war of expansion and easy conquest suddenly turn into the prospect of annihilating bombardment. Actually, you could make the case that it should be *easier* to enforce an Italian surrender, even without conquest, so long as it becomes obvious that (1) the Allies will win decisively and (2) Italy will be crushed if they resist (so even positioning enough long range Bombers when the USSR is ascendant might have been sufficient). Anyway, my point is just that it is not ridiculous that Italy surrenders under the conditions you identify. Just my 2-cents

Yes, peter .Your English is much better than mine . but I have argue by my poor English that : in that case even if some Italians want to be out of war , Hitler won't agree & also won't allow this happen ! In 1942 , Germany did still has hope to win the war (although after that we all know it is impossible), Italian still has attempt to benifit from Axis's victory , They won't surrender under the above situation !

[AC67]

Well, loosing all colonies AND Sardinia IMHO comes really near to what happened historically. So, Palermo or Messina or Cagliari, it's just the same. Don't forget that Sardinia would have been a great aircraft carrier for air missions into Italy and continental Europe.
What I do not agree to is to count also a partisan occupied city against the limit. It's a-historic; even Italy wouldn't have surrendered only because some partisans took Trieste.
What also could be reconsidered is the automatism in the Italian surrender. While Sicily was invaded on July 10th and Mussolini arrested on the 24th, Italy actually surrendered only on September 8th; negotiation with the Allies took some time. There could be a percentual chance for Italian surrender, rising turn after turn, maybe also influenced by the presence or not of German troops in Italy ... Would add some more suspence to the game.

AC

[Morris]

.
What I do not agree to is to count also a partisan occupied city against the limit. It's a-historic; even Italy wouldn't have surrendered only because some partisans took Trieste.

AC

Yes ! exactly ! That is my point !

[richardsd]

what am i missing? I can only reckon 4 cities that went down (Tripoli, Tunis, and Trieste and Tirana). Is it an easy surrender if the Allies have quad-Ts?

Morris: Did Italy actually surrender in the screen shot you provided, or, did it surrender a turn later when a 5th city was occupied by the Allies?

I thought you needed 5 in final version?

[zechi]

I think the problem with the Italian surrender conditions is, that it is very difficult to simulate the historical reasons for the Italian surrender. As far as I know the following conditions lead to the historical Italian surrender:

1. Failure of several campaings (Invasion of Greece and Egypt) and inability to succeed in any major operation without German support. The Italian Military and political leaders were quickly forced to realize that Italy was ill prepared for war and that Italy would only play a role as a German minor Ally/Puppet.

2. Loss of Libya and other Italian colonies in Africa.

3. High Italian losses in the North African theater of war, especially in the Battle for Tunis, but also early in Operation Compass.

4. Allied invasion of Sicily and the realization that the Italian mainland would be next.

5. Allied air and naval superiority in the Med, which would allow the Allies to start a devastating strategic bombing campaing against Italy.

From my point of view most of these conditions are simulated in GS in an abstract way. The low starting techs of the Italian will not allow them to succeed in any operation without German support. To force an Italian surrender the Allies need to capture at least Libya and most likely Tunis as well as other cities on the Italian mainland or Isles, which would give the Allies bases to start a bombing campaign against Italy. In many games the Italians will also have suffered some losses before any surrender seems manageable.

Nevertheless, from my point of view the railhubs should not count as surrender cities, as they are really hard to defend even if garrisoned. Units will retreat from the rail hubs if attacked, so they can be captured rather easily with some luck. In fact it is rather easy to force a withdraw with some air support.

Cheers Zechi

[Morris]

I think the problem with the Italian surrender conditions is, that it is very difficult to simulate the historical reasons for the Italian surrender. As far as I know the following conditions lead to the historical Italian surrender:

1. Failure of several campaings (Invasion of Greece and Egypt) and inability to succeed in any major operation without German support. The Italian Military and political leaders were quickly forced to realize that Italy was ill prepared for war and that Italy would only play a role as a German minor Ally/Puppet.

2. Loss of Libya and other Italian colonies in Africa.

3. High Italian losses in the North African theater of war, especially in the Battle for Tunis, but also early in Operation Compass.

4. Allied invasion of Sicily and the realization that the Italian mainland would be next.

5. Allied air and naval superiority in the Med, which would allow the Allies to start a devastating strategic bombing campaing against Italy.

From my point of view most of these conditions are simulated in GS in an abstract way. The low starting techs of the Italian will not allow them to succeed in any operation without German support. To force an Italian surrender the Allies need to capture at least Libya and most likely Tunis as well as other cities on the Italian mainland or Isles, which would give the Allies bases to start a bombing campaign against Italy. In many games the Italians will also have suffered some losses before any surrender seems manageable.

Nevertheless, from my point of view the railhubs should not count as surrender cities, as they are really hard to defend even if garrisoned. Units will retreat from the rail hubs if attacked, so they can be captured rather easily with some luck. In fact it is rather easy to force a withdraw with some air support.

Cheers Zechi

Completely agree with all of your above points !

[zechi]

A possible more historical solution concerning the surrender of Italy would be to have similar game mechanic as in the case of France concerning the strenght of the North African GAR after they surrender.

As we all know after ther surrender of Italy Mussolini was liberated by the Germans in a coup de main. With support of the Germans Mussolino could etablish the Italian Social Republic (RSI), which included the industrial heart of Italy (northern Italy) and held out until the end of the war. The RSI had small Army recruted from the Italian Army loyal to Mussolino as wells Italian facist and was a German puppet state, nevertheless the Army of the RSI was not totally insignificant and could at least be used for Anti-partisan activity as well as in the Battle of Anzio.

Therefore the Axis player could get a small Italian Army (under German control) which would be calculated from a percentage from the existing Italian Army just before the surrender similar in case of the French surrender and the North African GAR simulating the parts of the Italian Army remaining loyal to the Axis cause.

This would help in reducing several effects I have experienced or seen in AARs:

1. Italians would not go for strange suicide attacks as soon it is nearly 100 % sure that Italy will surender in the next few turns (similar as the French suicide attacks encountered before the rule change).

2. The Allied player would try to destroy Italian units, even if he knows that a surrender is imminent.

3. Italy would not be completely ungarrisoned after all Italian units dissappear, which does not seem right.

4. Losses for the Italians would matter, i.e. we would not face the situation that the Italian Army is in good shape and after Italy surrenders it has completely disappeared. In the real war some Italian units schose to surrender to the Germans or to the Allies, others chose to fight for the Allies or the Axis. Of course the Italian navy should completely dissappear as well as any air units.

Just a few thoughts for GS 2.2.

[Plaid]

Rule is that italy surrenders after losing 5 checkpoints.
If one allow weak partisan unit to enter one of that checkpoints - it is problems on axis end, nothing to do with rules.
You know, Germany also surrenders if say Polish partisan will walk into Berlin and Hamburg, but I didnt see much people complaining about it.

Rules are rules, realism is realism.
Realism starts and ends with question "why any power surrenders after losing its capital regardless of military strength and situation".
Answer is - it is game rule.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

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.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

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.

[Cybvep]

I hate Italian suicide attacks, but in case of the partisan spawn I don't see the problem. If Italy is so weak that it cannot prevent partisans from taking major Italian cities and the Allies are already occupying several important cities, then all government authority should collapse.

I think that the current Italian surrender rules are reasonable, but in 2.2 Italian losses should also be a factor.

[Diplomaticus]

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.