Case study Italy - A very short AAR

[Alex Kernel]

Hello guys and girls!

This Italian campaign was meant as my first serious attempt to learn how a naval power operates. Everything from Navy construction and theory options, to navy composition, the rules of combat, the interaction between the land theatres, and the sea ones had to be learned almost from scratch. My considerable experience with land combat was not much worth when switching to sea war, making the learning experience akin to learning a completely new game.

Hereby, I'd like to thank all the game aficionados, who took their time to explain to me about naval development and combat in my thread called "Optimal Naval composition". These advices, along with other info gathered online via Google, offered me an excellent start with this very challenging Italian campaign, opening the way to play other naval powers like the UK and Japan without getting a black eye in the first year of the war. ;-)

The Italy game was very instructive to me regarding naval construction and combat, and it should be regarded as an experiment. Besides, it opened to me the geostrategic view from this part of Europe. Your help with understanding the naval composition was an excellent starting point. Now, I'd like to share with you my beginner experience. Before starting with the mini AAR, clearly I did many mistakes, which delayed Italy's expansion and success odds.

Here is the European Theather on June 1943, TFH

Start date: 1936, Italy, axis member, original stats.

Assuming the main challenge for Italy would be to secure the Mediterranean, I started an ambitious research and production program, centred on both BBS and CVs, despite your advice to specialize in one of them. Later it looked like a mistake. The limited Leadership did not allow to keep the pace with the land army at the same time. I did manage to keep infantry up to date and to endow it with ART and some AT, but only late could I resort to LArm.

The war started for me in 1938 after the Austrian Anschluß (by the way increasing threat via espionage was a complete waste of time and Leadership, because the Anchluss solves the problem way before). In a rapid sequence, I did steamroll Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and Turkey. I let Romania aside because I didn't want to face the Russian bear anytime soon. Sometime in 1938, Italy joined Axis. After the Polish invasion, which the Nazis started as a limited war, they pressed me hard to join the fight against the Allies. I did refuse because my fleet did not receive enough additions, and my campaign along the Eastern Mediterranean was not over. Two weeks into the French campaign, I did accept the German Call to Arms and helped conquer France, occupying some provinces along the Italian border (summer 1940).

Half a year after the Soviet ultimatum on Romania to cede Bessarabia end of June 1940, Romania joined the Axis by its own will to regain its historical province, which was more than fine with Italy.

The mainly naval conflict in the Mediterranean was extremely tensed. The British brought two major fleets and the French fleet was active as well. During my full campaign via Turkey to take the Middle East and Northern Africa, the Brits took some Greek Islands and increased garrisons on all their island possessions, using also extensive air forces from them and from North Africa. When mainland France capitulated the Vichy France overtook the French positions in Levant and Maghreb, frustrating my advance of important supply routes. I swallowed the bitter pill and continued the fight to close the Mediterranean from the British navy. The Brits put strong resistance everywhere. I did manage to bog down their aviation in INT fights, but I couldn't use my bombers extensively either. Regarding Vichy France, I found value in keeping them as my allies despite being frustrated by ongoing territorial advances at the time of their appearance. Annexing Vichy France would have brought Italy marginal IC and Leadership gains, increasing the number of units necessary to keep revolts under control. Vichy did have enough divisions to help keep West Afrika safe by assisting against Allied invasions. In return, I did defend their capital there at all costs. So they stayed till the end.

On the navy front, I endowed the Regia Maria fleet with the best ships at disposal and built two secondary fleets in support roles. The Allies controlled the sea and any sea invasion was for a very long time out of question. They invaded the Tunis Area, expanded, and defended fiercely using the airports until February-March 1941, when Italians finally got rid of them. My luck was the land supply chain via Turkey.

The Italian and the British fleet did collide at the end of 1940, and repeatedly in 1941 in areas were Italy had aerial upper hand, because the Allies had to protect Cyprus. The first battle was really tense, with unknown results (The result after loading for test reasons the battle one more time proved in turn worse for the Italian side). We both lost some ships, but the British losses were more serious. A series of confrontations followed, were Italy slowly managed to turn the tide.

What I didn't know until recently was that every skill point of an admiral will increase by 10% the maximum number of ships you can place under his command without suffering penalties. That isn't visible in the interface. Also important to remember from one player here is that placing the CAGs on other duties than those called "cag duties", annuls the maximum 8 air wings before penalties accrue, compared with the 4 air wings for all the other airplane types. Knowing the first piece of information from the very beginning would have had shortened my naval wars with the Allies significantly.

In April 1941 I did feel safe enough on the sea to prepare the invasion of Spain, the main reason being to take Gibraltar and increase the lame Italian Leadership. On 26 April Italy DOWed Spain. Middle of June Spain was conquered, with some German help in the North. I believe that to have been a miscalculation from my side because the German involvement in the Spanish affair apparently delayed Barbarossa for 1942... That in turn has given Russia extra time to prepare.

By July 1941 Portugal was out and Gibraltar in strong Italian hands. The second strong British navy was caught inside the Med. It took several months to wear it down. Late summer 1941 until the spring of 1942 Italy did have the opportunity to invade UK itself. The choice was between this path and preparing to attack Russia with Germany and Romania.

Here were my considerations at the time:

1. Invading the UK was utterly ahistorical for Italy.
2. England still possessed a vastly superior fleet out there, which could doom the entire landing operation, should those enemy forces be deployed nearby.
3. Since I have plussed almost entirely on developing the navy with both BBs and CVs; I only had a few 1940 LArm and relatively few divisions with ART. The Land Theory was also woefully behind. Not a terrible invasion force.
4. GB had one Medium ARM division, three INF, and mostly garrisons. An invasion was still doable after all, provided my troops manage to land before the big British Navy guns arrive...
5. I was afraid German-Romanian offensive in Russia needed urgent help to have any chances of success.
6. Mediterranean was completely secured.

My choice was to attack Russia, although that was doable and after an England operation.

I converted all those Italian good for nothing Militias to Mountaineers and beefed up the Turkish borders. Garrisoned key maritime straights, and killed off the Allied invasions in West Africa and France, while securing the Aerial defense over Germany itself from bombardment.

As soon as my preparations were over and Winter was over, Italy DOWed SOV, because there was nothing else happening. I know SOV will attack GER, if Germany delays Barbarossa, so I chose a better moment for the Axis, namely the 13 April 1942. Japan DOWed SOV as well sometime later. Until the spring of 1943, Italy conquered Caucasus securing a defensive line on the mountains, cutting SOV from most oil supplies, and invaded Crimea and the Dnepropetrovsk industrial area, together with the Romanian army. The beginning was harsh. The Soviet troops were in best form, with all theoretical knowledge and technological tree up to date. Only with the help of major force concentration, aerial superiority, and L Arms could I advance against them. However, the Soviets soon employed their up-to-date Medium and Heavy Armour, which on multiple times cut through the Romanian and Italian lines like through butter. Very intense battles. CAS would have been very welcome, but Italy's Leadership sucks, and developing the Civil industry, the Navy, TACs, INTs, NAVs, CASs, Cags, MTNs, INF, and L Arm and ARM at the same time is a nightmare...

Anyway, by building lots of ATs, I stabilized the frontline pushing those Soviet Armours back, but Germany's troops were stuck and started to withdraw. Italy's biggest failure was the impossibility to execute encircling operations to decrease the number of Soviet divisions. The lack of piercing power (ARM) and backward Theoretical knowledge gave the Russians the advantage on the battlefield. They had always sufficient time to evacuate the endangered divisions and used their Medium and Heavy Armour to break the encirclement even under aerial bombardment, when the operation seemed almost successful. As a result the Soviet pressure on the frontline continuously grew.

Germany managed to take Leningrad, but Moscow was still out of reach. Between January and June 1943 German brigades numbers decreased from 615 to 516, while Russia had 830 or more and increasing. Romania had used up it's MP, meaning an approaching collapse. Italy did cover the Romanian frontline and started advancing along the German defensive one with the goal to reach Kiev. But securing the frontline beyond Kiev is beyond Italy's possibilities, given its reduced number of divisions. From those 443 one should subtract the 121 Mil Pol (meant to quell revolts), the 57 Mtn/ALP blocked in the Caucasus, and some 25 divisions scattered across the occupied territories to counter Allied invasions in Iberia, Middle East, and North-West Africa.

Japan is doing well. As Italy has slowly reduced the English navy to a shadow (occasionally it also fought with the US navy), Japan clashed with the US navy and got the upper hand, notwithstanding serious losses. They occupied most of Australia, South East Asia, and DOWed USSR, taking a big chunk of South-East Siberia and Manchuria. However, the Japanese Land army is weaker than Italy's. The invasion into Soviet territory stalled, and the same fate followed them in India, which remains in British hands.

In conclusion, The German frontline is going to collapse rapidly resulting in an impossibly long, and indefensible Italian-Romanian frontline along the still German occupation zones. Things are desperate, and it looks like Italy played its cards not particularly well.

A few questions arise in my mind.
1. Should Italy have had focused only on BBs fleets, did it have a chance to develop Medium armour by 1940, and invade ENG by April 1941 and be able to mount successful encircling operations on the Russian front? Could Italy turn the tide on the Eastern front?

2. Is it so, that beginning the anti-Soviet war in 1942 is disastrous for Germany?

3. Would a neutral Italy joining the Allies in 1942/43 not fare better? Conquering some of Germany and starting a liberation war for Eastern Europe against SOV with English and US help could be a winning bet?

4. What else could Italy have done better? What are the strategic options of Italy for winning?

5. Yesterday, after this thread was ready, I found the youtube video series "Let's play Hearts of Iron III TFH Italy" by Marco Antonio. Here the link to episode 1:

.

This guy is a genius. I didn't have the time to see more than 30 minutes through all episodes, but his gameplay is fantastic. He practically won by 1940 (annexed England and defeated the Soviet Union). In another game, he played Tibet, a country with no more than 2 IC, and took China and Japan by December 1942! He did this without cheating, and without micromanaging his armies! To be sincere, this is game exploitation to extremes - especially in the Tibet campaign -, very ahistorical, defeating the whole purpose of playing a historical event. Nevertheless, his victories taught me to be humble about my achievements, at the same time proving Italy CAN win the game. The question remains if Italy can win in an orthodox manner.

Your feedback will be much appreciated .

 

[nuclearslurpee]

Interesting, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of these very short AARs (in the literal sense) around here. I can see these being good discussion points without a lot of authAAR commitment and a good way to get one's feet wet as a result.

Italy is always a bit rough I think because you're so reliant on AI Germany to survive and thrive, especially if you do decide to join in against Russia. This means if you do want to win in a conventional manner you do have to make sure your strategy is in support of Germany, which is often not the most rewarding gameplay (especially compared to the same strategy in multiplayer where your enemies are far more active) but does eventually allow you to accomplish all of your goals.

1. Invading the UK was utterly ahistorical for Italy.
2. England still possessed a vastly superior fleet out there, which could doom the entire landing operation, should those enemy forces be deployed nearby.
3. Since I have plussed almost entirely on developing the navy with both BBs and CVs; I only had a few 1940 LArm and relatively few divisions with ART. The Land Theory was also woefully behind. Not a terrible invasion force.
4. GB had one Medium ARM division, three INF, and mostly garrisons. An invasion was still doable after all, provided my troops manage to land before the big British Navy guns arrive...
5. I was afraid German-Romanian offensive in Russia needed urgent help to have any chances of success.
6. Mediterranean was completely secured.

1. In fairness, winning a war is unhistorical for Italy though it seems you'll be finding this out soon enough if you play on, of course a well-executed fighting retreat and counter-attack can be thrilling gameplay as Myth showed in his epic Italian AAR way back in the vanilla HoI3 days.
2. The UK fleet can be held off long enough to land an invasion force with a combination of force concentration (amass your best ships into 1-2 fleets and park 'em) and significant fighter air cover to defeat NAVs and CAGs. In this respect Italy can do the same as Germany, although this is indeed ahistorical as the real-life British would be, one expects, considerably more competent than the game's AI ever is.
3. And here we see the benefit of narrow research focuses, admittedly historical here as Italy like Germany did not get far with CV development. Italy is well-positioned to deploy INF/INF/ART/AT divisions since they start with binary divisions in their OOB, but you must prioritize the support brigades if you want to win fights with real opponents.
4. This is usually the case, I did a Sealion once and was disappointed in the level of opposition upon landing thus have never bothered since. Admittedly this was as Germany but for Italy it would hardly be any different.
5. This is certainly true and a big argument for why you must choose a UK or USSR focus early and commit. Italy cannot play on two fronts even if Germany can (with human control).
6. A strong argument for a USSR focus as once the Continent is secured England can be dealt with at a leisurely pace.

1. Should Italy have had focused only on BBs fleets, did it have a chance to develop Medium armour by 1940, and invade ENG by April 1941 and be able to mount successful encircling operations on the Russian front? Could Italy turn the tide on the Eastern front?

2. Is it so, that beginning the anti-Soviet war in 1942 is disastrous for Germany?

3. Would a neutral Italy joining the Allies in 1942/43 not fare better? Conquering some of Germany and starting a liberation war for Eastern Europe against SOV with English and US help could be a winning bet?

4. What else could Italy have done better? What are the strategic options of Italy for winning?

5. Yesterday, after this threat was ready, I found the youtube video series "Let's play Hearts of Iron III TFH Italy" by Marco Antonio. Here the link to episode 1:

1. Yes to one, but not both. Certainly a narrow research focus was needed to develop adequate land and perhaps air (INT, maybe CAS) forces. Actually, I'd note that Italy ironically barely needs a navy if you focus on land forces, aside from landing in Spain which requires an escort (but you can cheese this, one might say, but DoWing Spain before joining the Axis and DoWing the UK) you can completely secure the Med with land forces to seize Suez and Gibraltar at which point the British ships in the Med will starve down and be sitting ducks in a few months (presuming you continue the North Africa/Middle East campaign to its conclusion and don't stop at Suez, otherwise the Brits may be able to run supply still). This again suggests a SOV-first approach once you've secured the underbelly.
2. I would venture to say so. Germany at a certain point becomes limited by MP instead of IC, whereas the Soviets have no such issues and will happily continue spamming divisions. If anything, an early Barbarossa is better although this requires Germany to wrap up France by the end of April 1940 at the latest, and Italy to secure the Balkans + Suez in the same time (ideally Gibraltar as well but this may be too short a time table).
3. Italy would certainly fare better but the war would likely be too easy, the game is balanced for the historical factions and adding a near-major power to the Allied column would certainly turn the tide in a big way.
4. I'd say that generally, one should leave Hungary and Romania both alone, it is tempting to conquer them for the extra IC/resources but in doing so you eliminate significant armies from the field which can at least fill the line in Russia. Puppeting may be viable but why waste your time when they'll join your faction anyways? Unlike HoI2 you cannot take military control of puppet forces so there is little point. Focus on securing the Med as quickly as possible to protect yours and Germany's underbelly, and then take charge of Barbarossa. Or you can try going for the UK first, potentially never DoWing Russia si that when they kill Germany, eventually, they'll leave you alone - in this case taking Hungary and Romania is more sensible if you plan to leave Germany to her own demise. Of course this would end with Italy standing alone against Communist Europe but that's an alt-history for another day.
5. Truly some ridiculous things can be done by exploiting the game mechanics, whether this is fun gameplay is of course another story.

Thanks for sharing this campaign, and I hope things go better for you if you ever try Italy again. It's a fun, varied nation but can feel rather geographically forced sometimes if you play historically - which is of course historical, so it is what it is.

 

[stnylan]

An interesting write-up.

I can't add anything to the game-play comments as my own HoI3 experience is very limited, but I did just want to note I had read this and, if you make a second or similar attempt, would be interested in what you did differently and how it resulted.

 

[roverS3]

A micro-AAR, what a fun idea. @nuclearslurpee has done an excellent job in responding to your questions. I will simply add my own opinions here:

1. Invading the UK was utterly ahistorical for Italy.
2. England still possessed a vastly superior fleet out there, which could doom the entire landing operation, should those enemy forces be deployed nearby.
3. Since I have plussed almost entirely on developing the navy with both BBs and CVs; I only had a few 1940 LArm and relatively few divisions with ART. The Land Theory was also woefully behind. Not a terrible invasion force.
4. GB had one Medium ARM division, three INF, and mostly garrisons. An invasion was still doable after all, provided my troops manage to land before the big British Navy guns arrive...
5. I was afraid German-Romanian offensive in Russia needed urgent help to have any chances of success.
6. Mediterranean was completely secured.

1 & 2. I'd say that unless you eliminate most of the Royal Navy, invading the UK is not realistic, and thus exploitative of the game. I'd add to that that eliminating the RN by using mostly Nav & CV's is also manifestly ahistorical and exploitative. (unless you're playing as Japan or the USA). Even then, taking down the UK wouldn't be a historical priority for Italy as it's ambitious goal was to dominate the Med and kick the Allies out of it.
3. Both from a historical point of view as a gameplay point of view, Italy shouldn't be concentrating on both BB's and CV's. The historical path would be to concentrate on BB's and possibly supplement them with a couple of CVL (I)'s by 1943-1944. Italy was building Aquila after all. If we stay in the historical theme, Arm & L Arm development should be behind that of Germany or even the UK. Italy only managed to deploy obsolete L Arm in any significant numbers, so it's not surprising that by building an ahistorically strong navy in-game, you don't manage to keep up in Armour tech and production.
4. Yes, opposition against op. sealion is going to be weak compared to what would have been there historically, both on land and at sea. This is a failing of the AI which can be exploited, but that would indeed be problematic. I would not expect Italy to make a move for the UK unless it secured the Med and East-Africa. This means that, on top of the areas you control, Spain should be the next target for either diplomatic or military action. Also, you need to take Gibraltar, one way or another before you venture into the Atlantic. If we're being historical, I would also expect the next Italian priority to be East-Africa, to recover Italian colonies and take over Allied ones. Even then, see point 1&2.
5. Italy, if it focuses on the Navy, as it did historically, will do badly on the Eastern front. You just won't have the numbers or the firepower, unless you use exploitative tactics like focussing on paratroopers and dropping them on VP locations until the Soviets surrender. The only option here, if you want a game where Italy goes after it's historical targets and has a shot at surviving the war, is to not participate in the war with the Soviet Union and let the Germans die. Once you've secured the med etc. (4) and destroyed a significant chunk of the Royal Navy (1&2), you can then focus on land forces and take the UK while you prepare for a possible war with the Comintern.

1. Should Italy have had focused only on BBs fleets, did it have a chance to develop Medium armour by 1940, and invade ENG by April 1941 and be able to mount successful encircling operations on the Russian front? Could Italy turn the tide on the Eastern front?

2. Is it so, that beginning the anti-Soviet war in 1942 is disastrous for Germany?

3. Would a neutral Italy joining the Allies in 1942/43 not fare better? Conquering some of Germany and starting a liberation war for Eastern Europe against SOV with English and US help could be a winning bet?

4. What else could Italy have done better? What are the strategic options of Italy for winning?

1. Yes, if you want to be historical and efficient with leadership. Yes, but at the cost of other things which are more historically relevant. Yes the UK could be invaded by April 1941, but likely only in an exploitative way (see above). Encircling operations on the Russian front require a significant amount of armoured and mobile forces to pull off, as well as air support. If Italy wants to be able to do this, it would have to be your main focus, so no naval expansion, all research focused on your ground forces and planes (best focused on either Tac or CAS & Int), and pulling out most troops from other theatres before the start of Barbarossa. It would also be quite ahistorical, but it might be fun to watch. Alternatively, a focus on Paratroopers could give you a gamey way to punch far above your weight by taking VP's at the opportune time to force a surrender.

2. It's more likely to end badly, because the Soviet Union has had more time to expand it's army and rebuild it's officer ratio after the officer purge. Best to start Barbarossa as soon as possible. (within reason, you need to have enough troops to make big encirclements or you're screwed.)

3. Joining either the Comintern or the Allies as Italy will skew the board in that faction's favour. The more historical option here seems to be the Comintern, as Italy's rivals in the Med are part of the Allies, and Italy has a lot of Communists. From a story-telling standpoint, an Italy that turns Communist instead of Fascist would make sense. If you join the Comintern, you're also in a situation where you're the only faction member with a serious navy. That could turn into an interesting WW3 scenario where the Comintern fights the Allies, and an outnumbered Regia Marina has to scrap for domination of the Atlantic. The Comintern-Axis war will be shorter than historical, if only because the Germans have to man a long Italian border. Sure you're likely to lose some ground initially, but once the Red Army steamroller starts rolling, you can push back in unexpected places. Amphibious landing in Basque country anyone?
Joining forces with the Allies allows you to potentially save France by pushing into Austria and Czechoslovakia. You can then hook West and encircle small pockets of German forces against the Swiss and French Borders. If you manage to get Switzerland on board, or take it by force before joining the Allies, you're almost guaranteed to be able to avoid the fall of France entirely. The question is, of course, why? Taking Austria, the south of Germany, and bits of the Balkans would be nice, but beyond that you're not actually protecting your real weak spot, which is the Med. A war with the Soviet Union after the fall of Germany would be even more ludicrous, as the real risk of the Brits and/or the French turning against you would force you to keep your forces close to home.

4. Not joining the Axis, or not joining the war with the Soviets are both viable strategies. You DOW the allies independently after they've been attacked by Germany. This allows you to take the South of France, and eventually the Allied territories in the med. The main risk is that the Axis may attack you overland, and if you've focused on fighting in the Med and expanding your colonial empire in Africa, you likely won't be in a position to resist this attack. That said, the Germans will likely attack the Soviet Union before they even think of hitting you, and thus the two titans will just destroy each-other, until the Soviets win. If you whittle down the Royal Navy sufficiently, an eventual invasion of the UK could be on the cards, but that would be only after the big Allies-German-Soviet war has run it's course. You want the Allies to liberate part of Europe, so taking out the UK early will just result in a massively overpowered northern neighbour (either a victorious 3rd Reich, or an very much expanded Soviet Union). You should be able to hold off Allied landings indefinitely if you have a strong enough navy, especially if the Allies are still fighting the Japanese in the Pacific as well. Eventually, you might be able to gobble up the Allied part of post-war Europe, and the UK, but this would make less historical sense than just signing a favourable peace deal that lets you keep the lands you conquered (at least most of them, you may have to give back much of Southern France), and consolidate the new Roman Empire as a powerful third party to the cold war. This being more believeable if you also develop nukes.

Maybe we can have a ground hog day AAR? Where you keep going back and playing Italy games, changing strategy every time... the possibilities are endless... Thanks for posting this.

 

[Alex Kernel]

Please read the very interesting contribution to this AAR, made by @Kovax under my previous thread Optimal Naval Composition about the role of Threat in influencing the game dynamic behind the scenes in a very serious way, against the interests of Italy.

The problems actually started FAR earlier than you might think. If a fascist country builds Threat, it reduces the Neutrality of Democratic and Communist countries. By taking over several Balkan countries, Italy's high Threat allowed the Soviet Union (and various Allied countries) to reduce their Consumer Goods production, pass more aggressive production laws, and generally perform better than normal. I find that you can usually get away with ONE early DoW without significantly skewing the game against Germany, but any more than that should wait until Germany's Threat becomes the bigger factor. Once Germany triggers First Vienna, you can probably make a second conquest, and after Germany declares war on Poland, they're the bigger threat and you're free to act as irresponsibly as you can get away with.

Another issue is joining the Axis early. If Italy does NOT join the Axis until France falls, Vichy will have a truce with Germany, but NOT with Italy, so when Italy does join, Vichy is fair game. A second consideration is that Italy won't need to fight BOTH the UK and French fleets at the same time,

It's "possible" to research both BB and CV, but as you discovered, that leaves very little Leadership for other tasks. Playing GER, you've got the Leadership for both, but as Italy, you've got enough land bases surrounding your area of operations to make CVs less important.

Everyone here gave me a lot of food for thought. The idea brought by several of you to test Italy under different scenarios and present the resulting campaigns here as similarly short AARs is appealing.

My thoughts at this moment tend toward trying two paths:

1) Italy as neutral, fascist in the beginning, then changing direction towards liberal democracy after 1941. In this case, it will join the Allies once the tide has turned on the Eastern Front. I will be trying to liberate Western Europe with the Allies. Then I will force if needed from the console, a conflict with the Soviet Union in order to liberate Eastern Europe from the newly installed Communist dictatorship.

2) Italy as Axis Member, under consideration of a lower than Germany's Threat strategy, as suggested by Kovax. This is basically a rerun of the original AAR, with significant improvements on strategy and tactics.

In both cases, I will refrain from unhistorical tactics like decreasing National Unity, or airdropping of troops on key VP.

Nevertheless, I will take the liberty to change the focus of production and research away from the historical path, though always in ways that were plausible for Italy. The beauty of a campaign is to test "what if..." scenarios, i.e. alternative plausible histories. For example, my intention is to change the focus on land army and restrict the fleet development on the cheaper BB fleets, recognizing Italy reduced scope to the Mediterranean area and the Eastern Front.

A third path, Italy as a Communist power, looks implausible to me. True, the Communist forces were strong at the time in the country, but even a left-wing government would have had second thoughts about a Soviet superpower conquering Western Europe, and becoming a threat to all those left at its borders. Communist Yugoslavia certainly had this nightmare, and that is why, the country steered away from the big brother Soviet influence, as it did China, and later Romania. So, even a communist Italy wouldn't have been automatically an ally of the Comintern.

 

[nuclearslurpee]

Please read the very interesting contribution to this AAR, made by @Kovax under my previous thread Optimal Naval Composition about the role of Threat in influencing the game dynamic behind the scenes in a very serious way, against the interests of Italy.

This is a good point, most people don't think about this as really only Italy has this level of influence (a minor can become so threatening with breakneck-pace conquests but the effect is usually "only" comparable to Germany) and is in a position of not wanting to use it. Most of the time people are more concerned with minors about attracting DoWs from their neighbors and the knock-on effects are not considered. For Italy as pointed out it must be considered.

1) Italy as neutral, fascist in the beginning, then changing direction towards liberal democracy after 1941. In this case, it will join the Allies once the tide has turned on the Eastern Front. I will be trying to liberate Western Europe with the Allies. Then I will force if needed from the console, a conflict with the Soviet Union in order to liberate Eastern Europe from the newly installed Communist dictatorship.

This would be a fun one, WW2.1 is an under-done category of AARs I think. I'd recommend maybe trying to keep the USA out of the Allies in this case, otherwise their IC will be enough to crush the Soviets by itself. Manpower is likely to be a big issue also.

2) Italy as Axis Member, under consideration of a lower than Germany's Threat strategy, as suggested by Kovax. This is basically a rerun of the original AAR, with significant improvements on strategy and tactics.

This is probably the way to go. I usually really only invade Yugoslavia, Albania (by decision), and Greece when I play Italy although this is in HPP with different mechanics involved. Anywhere else can wait until the big show kicks off.

 

[Alex Kernel]

This would be a fun one, WW2.1 is an under-done category of AARs I think. I'd recommend maybe trying to keep the USA out of the Allies in this case, otherwise their IC will be enough to crush the Soviets by itself. Manpower is likely to be a big issue also.

1. Can Italy keep the USA out of the Allies? I suspect mainly faction leaders could do that via diplomatic influence. Or you mean espionage missions like "Support our [ideological] party"? Please explain such a strategy.

2. Yes, the US has unrivaled IC, but there are a few aspects to take into account. Supposing we get a historical outcome where the Soviet Union conquers Eastern Europe and East Germany, the Soviets will enjoy very high IC as well, may be similar. Besides, if they do create communist puppets, those will bring their armies too on the frontline.

3. The morale and efficiency of the US troops in Europe will be significantly lower in Europe due to distance from the national capital and different continent penalties. This explains why, besides supply issues, Germany's troops in Siberia experience so much difficulties in conquering Russia, whenever the conflict flares anew after a German victory (rare event).

4. The AI is not particularly efficient in managing overseas land operations. The US and England will need lots of time to deploy troops on continental Europe. This is why my expectation is that Italy will need all the help it can get to expulse the Russians from the occupied territories.

For all these reasons it is doubtful that the IC advantage of the US will translate into tangible results on the battlefields of continental Europe.

Any inputs on this are of the highest interest.

 

[nuclearslurpee]

1. Can Italy keep the USA out of the Allies? I suspect mainly faction leaders could do that via diplomatic influence. Or you mean espionage missions like "Support our [ideological] party"? Please explain such a strategy.

2. Yes, the US has unrivaled IC, but there are a few aspects to take into account. Supposing we get a historical outcome where the Soviet Union conquers Eastern Europe and East Germany, the Soviets will enjoy very high IC as well, may be similar. Besides, if they do create communist puppets, those will bring their armies too on the frontline.

3. The morale and efficiency of the US troops in Europe will be significantly lower in Europe due to distance from the national capital and different continent penalties. This explains why, besides supply issues, Germany's troops in Siberia experience so much difficulties in conquering Russia, whenever the conflict flares anew after a German victory (rare event).

4. The AI is not particularly efficient in managing overseas land operations. The US and England will need lots of time to deploy troops on continental Europe. This is why my expectation is that Italy will need all the help it can get to expulse the Russians from the occupied territories.

For all these reasons it is doubtful that the IC advantage of the US will translate into tangible results on the battlefields of continental Europe.

Any inputs on this are of the highest interest.

1. In theory, any major power in a faction can use the Influence diplomatic mission to push a nation around the diplomatic triangle, however in the US case they will likely join the Allies anyways due to the Pearl Harbor event, so the question is what ways Italy may or may not have to keep Japan from firing that decision. Possibly declaring a full-faction war on the USSR will be enough, Japan may not want to fight on two fronts.
2. If US IC is roughly equal to Soviet IC, then the Allies as a faction will greatly eclipse that of the Soviets. Italy + UK + restored France alone are probably roughly equal to the USSR by themselves, throwing the USA into that mix gives a 2:1 advantage or greater.
3. I am not aware of any continent-related combat bonuses. Supply and logistics yes due to the vagaries of the overseas supply system, but not combat. This may be true in real life but in game there is no impact on morale or combat efficiency from distance-to-capital. In any case this is quite minimal in Europe once sufficient ports are under Allied control which is certainly the case in this scenario.
4. The AI is inefficient in managing to start a land operation. Once a front is established (which is definitely the case for Allies vs Comintern after Germany is defeated), AIs can ship troops in-theater to reinforce their forces without great difficulty. There are many examples of this in the AAR literature. The AI can struggle to properly choose a front to prioritize, and the US in particular struggles with this if Canada or Mexico remain neutral due to shared land borders, but in an East vs West scenario there is really only one front in most vanilla playthroughs.

Additionally, US IC can be impactful in the form of lend lease, 100s of IC going to UK, France, Italy and not the Soviets are a strong force multiplier even if the US otherwise sits at home hunting commies in Hollywood for the duration.

Thus US on the Allied side can prove a decisive advantage whereas keeping them out of the war would keep a more interesting balance of forces, particularly having the US on the same team as the human player (human vs AI being the greatest mismatch since Germany vs Poland)

 

[Alex Kernel]

1. In theory, any major power in a faction can use the Influence diplomatic mission to push a nation around the diplomatic triangle, however in the US case they will likely join the Allies anyways due to the Pearl Harbor event, so the question is what ways Italy may or may not have to keep Japan from firing that decision. Possibly declaring a full-faction war on the USSR will be enough, Japan may not want to fight on two fronts.
2. If US IC is roughly equal to Soviet IC, then the Allies as a faction will greatly eclipse that of the Soviets. Italy + UK + restored France alone are probably roughly equal to the USSR by themselves, throwing the USA into that mix gives a 2:1 advantage or greater.
3. I am not aware of any continent-related combat bonuses. Supply and logistics yes due to the vagaries of the overseas supply system, but not combat. This may be true in real life but in-game there is no impact on morale or combat efficiency from distance-to-capital. In any case this is quite minimal in Europe once sufficient ports are under Allied control which is certainly the case in this scenario.
4. The AI is inefficient in managing to start a land operation. Once a front is established (which is definitely the case for Allies vs Comintern after Germany is defeated), AIs can ship troops in-theater to reinforce their forces without great difficulty. There are many examples of this in the AAR literature. The AI can struggle to properly choose a front to prioritize, and the US in particular struggles with this if Canada or Mexico remain neutral due to shared land borders, but in an East vs West scenario there is really only one front in most vanilla playthroughs.

Additionally, US IC can be impactful in the form of lend-lease, 100s of IC going to UK, France, Italy, and not the Soviets are a strong force multiplier even if the US otherwise sits at home hunting commies in Hollywood for the duration.

Thus US on the Allied side can prove a decisive advantage whereas keeping them out of the war would keep a more interesting balance of forces, particularly having the US on the same team as the human player (human vs AI being the greatest mismatch since Germany vs Poland)

1. OK, @nuclearslurpee , you convinced me the US is a game-changer, even if the Soviet Union will get to conquer part of Western Europe. A full faction war on SOV to presumably prevent the December 1941 Pearl Harbour event is possible only if Italy joins Axis. What if Italy remains neutral, as envisioned for the second scenario? Maybe some spying activity could keep the US out of the Allied camp, but at a very high leadership cost for Italy.

2. By the time the Bolsheviks reach Berlin (or maybe beyond), the Russians will have a huge and modern military. I still doubt DOWing them will be an easy ride for the Allies, even with the US on board. Indeed, the 2:1 IC advantage would be there, but:
a) the French (restored) army will be small;
b) the US will need some time to bring reinforcements in;
c) the UK is mostly a naval power with modest land capabilities;
d) Italy will still be dwarfed by the Soviet power;
e) it seems to me the Soviet AI plays better than any of its counterparts (hard-coding?). The Soviet AI generally defends in a robust manner (unlike the German one), continuously applies pressure on different parts of the frontline looking for week spots, and has a large pool of competent officers.
f) By 1942/43 the SOV has a very modern and powerful army.

3. If I remember correctly, the Soviet units do get an event-related bonus for defending on their own territory, even if it doesn't appear on the battle stats. It should be their latest defensive event giving them a series of boosts. You might be right: possibly there are no distance-to-capital or continent-related combat penalties. I think I read about that on a forum but didn't find that piece of information when looking for it today... At any rate, there is no info on this in the battle statistics of the Soviet-Italian, Soviet-Romanian or Soviet-German battles.

4. Comments noted.

During the next Italy campaign, I will try to keep the US neutral as long as possible.

 

[nuclearslurpee]

1. OK, @nuclearslurpee , you convinced me the US is a game-changer, even if the Soviet Union will get to conquer part of Western Europe. A full faction war on SOV to presumably prevent de December 1941 Pearl Harbour event is possible only if Italy join Axis. What if Italy remains neutral, as envisioned for the second scenario? Maybe some spying activity could keep the US out of the Allied camp, but at a very high leadership cost for Italy.

2. By the time the Bolsheviks reach Berlin (or maybe beyond), the Russians will have a huge and modern military. I still doubt DOWing them will be an easy ride for the Allies, even with the US on board. Indeed, the 2:1 advantage would be there, but:
a) the French (restored) army will be small;
b) the US will need some time to bring reinforcements in;
c) the UK is mostly a naval power with modest land capabilities;
d) Italy will still be dwarfed by the Soviet power;
e) it seems to me the Soviet AI plays better than any of its counterparts (hard-coding?). The Soviet AI generally defends in a robust manner (unlike the German one), continuously applies pressure on different parts of the frontline looking for week spots, and has a large pool of competent officers.
f) By 1942/43 the SOV has a very modern and powerful army.

3. If I remember correctly, the Soviet units do get an event-related bonus for defending on their own territory, even if it doesn't appear on the battle stats. It should be their latest defensive event giving them a series of boosts. You might be right: possibly there are no distance-to-capital or continent-related combat penalties. I think I read about that on a forum but didn't find that piece of information when looking for it today... At any rate, there is no info on this in the battle statistics of the Soviet-Italian, Soviet-Romanian or Soviet-German battles.

4. Comments noted.

During the next Italy campaign, I will try to keep the US neutral as long as possible.

1. To be honest, I'm not sure as the vanilla HoI3 mechanics are a bit vague on this. Supposedly, Japan can be persuaded not to fire Pearl Harbor in a couple ways, one being if they don't feel like they have a fighting chance (a similar condition exists for Germany and Barbarossa), another being if the US never fires their oil embargo. In all honesty, I'd probably tag to Japan and have them DoW the Soviets a little bit after Germany does, rationalize it as the Strike North faction winning after a better showing at Nomonhan, and go from there.
2. Admittedly good points. I guess the main thing is, if the Allies can survive the initial wave (or, more "historically accurate", wait until they have forces built up to DoW the Commies), then they can outproduce the Soviets without a lot of problems. So a lot depends on how you configure the WW3 scenario.
3. There is a "territorial pride" bonus, but that doesn't affect, say, US troops reclaiming France for example. It's a home-turf defensive bonus only.