Changes on Italian provinces: terrain and climate, IC, resources, infrastructures

[unmerged(51143)]

Some terrain and climate changes must be made for Italy:
- Naples and Reggio Calabria from plain to hill;
- Turin and La Spezia, and Nice too (even if French), from hill to mountain;
- Bologna from hill to plain;
- rivers should be placed on the borders Cassino/Anzio and Naples, Bologna and Rimini, Ferrara and Bologna, Milan and Venice (many rivers and channels cross these areas, and a lake too between Milan and Venice);
- climate must be changed from "mediterranean" to "temperate" in all "North Italy" and "Appennine Ridge" provinces, and in Perugia and Cassino too.

We have to consider, on IC, that Italy surely was the "poorest" of the industrialised countries, but was able to built the two Littorio-class battleships together (all finished in spring/summer 1940), to mobilise and mantain big Army (500,000 men mobilised for the Ethiopian campaign and only partially demobilised), Navy (the fifth in the world) and Air Force (numerically the biggest before 1939), all this before the WW2, while in the first years of war Italy was able to build 2 paratroopers divisions, 3 (light and then medium) armored, some motorised infantry divisions, self-propelled artillery and anti-tank artillery units (Italy started before Germany to fill its armoured divisions with self-propelled guns, in 1942-43), new naval and air units, etc. before the WW2, also, Italy was able to recover from 1929, to expand some industries and to build many infrastructures (airports, harbors, railways, motorways, roads and public buildings in Italy and in the colonies, etc.) and land fortifications in the Alps and on Libya/Egypt border provinces. Thus, Italian total IC should be increased by 10 (which only 6 to 8 would be effectively used for units, industries and infrastructures production):
- Rome IC should be halved from 8 to 4;
- Turin IC should be increased by 3;
- IC +1 to Rimini, Ferrara, La Spezia, Perugia, Venezia, Bologna, Milano;
- IC +2 in Taranto (the big steel factories);
- IC +1 in Tripoli, and Massaua or Rhodes or Benghasi (in the colonies there were some small industries led by Italian settlers).
I think that also French IC have to be slightly increased.

Resources:
- +1 oil in Catania (Gela's plain oilfields were discovered in those years);
- the most part of Italian coal was mined in Sardinia (where a town was named Carbonia, "Coal-city") and Histria, thus I suggest that the most part of energy produced by Italy should be relocated and divided between Cagliari (the most part) and Venice.

Infrastructures:
- Taranto airports -5;
- Foggia airports +5 (Allied started largely bombing Ploiesti and Southern Germany from these airports);
- Tripoli harbor -6 (Axis had many supply problems in Africa not due to the Royal Navy but due to the small size of Libyan harbors);
- Naples harbor +8 (I do not know who was the smart mind who erased one of the biggest Italian ports);
- Palermo harbor -4;
- Catania harbor +1;
- Rhodes harbor +1;
- Naples and Catania AA +1.

I would also suggest that stored supply in 1936 increase by about 500 to 25,000: Italy ended the WW1 with many "war materials stocks" remained, which were nearly all used to mobilise the new divisions needed for and to supply Ethiopian and Spanish campaigns.

 

[Carroarmato-P40]

I agree wholeheartedly, however I would go as far to add +3 IC to Genua and +1 to Turin.

 

[unmerged(21069)]

I also agree... sounds like everything Italy needs and should have is summurised right there by FilTur

FilTur, would you also look over Italy's tech teams let us know what you think?

 

[Gen.Schuermann]

this all sounds reasonable, but i do not know if you can just put new rivers into the game...

 

[lwarmonger]

I find that increasing French IC by around 10, British IC by 10, Japanese IC by 10, and American IC by around 40 leads to a more historical game industrially (have studied pre-WWII economics extensively). One of the reasons why Italy was able to build the fleet that it did, was that was the primary focus of it's spending. The air force and army were both victims of early re-armament, and those numbers that you refer to, while accurate, are also misleading.

Here are some numbers. Italy was spending approximately 10% of it's national income on the military by the mid-30's (a higher proportion than any other nation save perhaps the Soviet Union), and used this funding to create a large and modern navy (with the exception of Italy's 113 strong submarine force, which was a heavy investment in obsolescence). That was the sole bright spot in the picture Mussolini had painted for his country (although even then it was clear that the Italian navy could not defeat the Royal Navy in the Med).

The army, for all its numbers, was stupendously weak in addition to being led by incompetent officers. The "main battle tank" of the Italian military when it entered the war in 1939 was the Fiat L.3, of three and a half tons. It did not have a radio, poor optics, and only two machine guns. This was at a time when Germany and France were fielding 20 ton designs with much heavier weaponry. Much of Italy's artillery was from WWI (in fact some of their best guns had been captured from the Austrians during that war), and the reorganization of fielding half again as many divisions by cutting regimental strength of individial divisions (from 3 infantry regiments to 2) significantly impaired efficiency. The airforce claimed to have 8500 aircraft by 1939, while in reality it only possessed 454 flyable bombers and 129 fighters... none of them comparing favorably with the first rate aircraft of other air forces and supported by an industry that produced fewer planes than its Italian counterpart in 1915.

Italy's basic problem was twofold. First, it was a victim of early re-armament. It spent a great deal on the expansion of its military in the 1930's, and most of the money poured into the army during the 1936-39 period went not to modernization, but to operations. Ethiopia, and Spain especially, were disasters for Italy's armed forces because they took away money needed to produce the newer tanks and aircraft that would allow them to compete. Those 500,000 men you mentioned were mobilized for the Ethiopian campaign and not demobilized that is true... but they are best represented by militia (in HOI 2) when it comes to their structure and equipment, and in real life acted as a significant drain for funds that could have been used better elsewhere.

The second problem was complexity. Italy simply didn't have the ability to produce (or pay for) the type of advanced machine tools that were needed to produce the new models of weapons. This was why Italy was always so woefully weak in terms of the equipment its soldiers were using throughout the war... it simply didn't have the machinery capable of producing the type of tanks and aircraft that nearly every other major power was. Economically speaking, Italy was a semi-developed country (only an estimated 2.8% of the world's manufacturing capability... well behind the French), and I think that is well represented within the game as it is.

NOTE: If you wish to mod italy to have more ic yourself, then just ask me... it's pretty easy to do and i'd be happy to walk you through it

 

[unmerged(38515)]

Arguement for the Italian Navy. Historically speaking the italian navy spent the early years of the war handing the brits their butts in surface actions. Most italians ships sunk were due to air, with only a handful being lost to surface ships. Nearly all of the brits losses were due to being sunk in ship to ship actions. It was only the complete ineffectiveness of italian air the enabled the brits to have a draw tonnage wise. This is all pre-american involvment btw

 

[lwarmonger]

Arguement for the Italian Navy. Historically speaking the italian navy spent the early years of the war handing the brits their butts in surface actions. Most italians ships sunk were due to air, with only a handful being lost to surface ships. Nearly all of the brits losses were due to being sunk in ship to ship actions. It was only the complete ineffectiveness of italian air the enabled the brits to have a draw tonnage wise. This is all pre-american involvment btw

Italy was consistantly defeated early on (of which the battle of Cape Matapan was only the most famous Italian defeat), and it was not until German dive bombers entered the picture that the tonnage lost to each side even came close to evening out (although the number of Italian warships sunk by the British vastly outnumbers the number of British ships sunk by the Italians). In fact, I cannot think of a single major British naval defeat that occured solely at the hands of the Italian navy, early or later on.

Even then, the British retained almost complete control of the Med (which was the goal of both navies), save when the German air force was present. In the words of a British admiral in the Med at that time, "they (the Italians) run, we chase."

 

[MateDow]

Arguement for the Italian Navy. Historically speaking the italian navy spent the early years of the war handing the brits their butts in surface actions.

I am not sure I agree with your analysis of the battles between the Italian navy and the Royal Navy. I can think of some battles where the Italians made some tactical gains before being drivien off by inferior British forces. The Italian navy would put agressively to sea, but when there was a hint of resistance would withdraw.

At the Battle of Calabria, an Italian force of 2 battleships, 14 crusiers and 32 destroyers was driven off by a force of 2 battleships, 9 cruisers and a carrier after recieving just a single hit.

Off Cape Spada (Crete) two Italian light cruisers are intercepted by a British force of 1 cruiser and 5 destroyers. The Italians lose one cruiser and the other escapes after not damaging the British force.

The British continued to run convoys to Malta with the only threat being Italian (or German) aircraft. In no battle against convoys was the Italian navy able to penetrate to the body of the convoy. Thay always withdrew when confronted by the excort force regardless of whether they had the tactical advantage in numbers and firepower.

Most italians ships sunk were due to air, with only a handful being lost to surface ships. Nearly all of the brits losses were due to being sunk in ship to ship actions. It was only the complete ineffectiveness of italian air the enabled the brits to have a draw tonnage wise. This is all pre-american involvment btw

Most Italian and British ships were sunk by aircraft. In a body of water as small as the Mediterranean, this is to be expected. But, there is no proof to say that most British losses were due to the Italian navy in surface battles. I can find numerous occasions where there were British ships sunk by submarines and aircraft, but I can not find an occasion where the British lost a ship to Italian surface forces.

The Italian navy was hobbled by poor command and control that meant that many of their sorties were ineffective due to missing the target. They also suffered from a lack of agressive leaders. They frequently came out second best because the admirals leading their forces wouldn't press home an attack. You can't win battles when you are afraid of lossing them from the outset.

The other handicap that the Italians suffered under was the inability to replace their losses. The Italian shipyards were unable to build ships at a rate to sustain anyhting mut minimal losses. The Italian navy was forced to hoard the ships that they had at the beginning of the war because they knew that they would be unable to replace them. The British were able to replace their losses easier even considereing the facts that they were fighting in theaters around the world and reinforcements for the Eastern Med had to go all of the way around Africa.

I think that Italian IC is probably fairly accurate. They have to make decisions regarding what they are going to build. They don't have enough industry to be strong in all areas which is historical.

I think that we should look at the industry levels of all nations once we have a couple of releases under our belts. This is going to be a large project and will require a lot of data from played games. Changing IC can greatly change the balance of the game and I am hesitant to change that without a lot of thought and testing. I will always default to having nations be harder to play that players want. It keeps the game challenging and interesting. MDow

 

[Herr Doctor]

I think that Italian IC is probably fairly accurate. They have to make decisions regarding what they are going to build. They don't have enough industry to be strong in all areas which is historical.

I think that we should look at the industry levels of all nations once we have a couple of releases under our belts. This is going to be a large project and will require a lot of data from played games. Changing IC can greatly change the balance of the game and I am hesitant to change that without a lot of thought and testing. I will always default to having nations be harder to play that players want. It keeps the game challenging and interesting. MDow

However, vanilla IC for Italy is ridiculously too small. It is without doubt that in compare to France and Britain, its industrial and military potential was somewhat small, but in regional contexts of the Mediterranean Italy was leading power. Now, with vanilla, when you are playing Italy in historical way (without early annexations of Albania, Yugoslavia, Spain etc) with the existent vanilla Italian IC, it is absolutely impossible even to build historical navy (Littorio and the smaller vessels) or several tanks as the upgrading of the army (due to the low historical policy slider for “standing army”) and supporting high supply producing (especially you need it as Italy has so little resources)… I think the above-mentioned offers are very reasonable if CORE wishes to see historical navy and army numbers for Italy in game.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Italian Armed Forces on 10th of june 1940, entering the war.
Regia Aeronautica had not 8,500 planes nor 600, but about 1,800: 783 bombers (FIAT Br20, Savoia-Marchetti S79 and Cant Z1007); 594 fighters (FIAT Cr42, Macchi MC200 and FIAT G50); 268 recon-planes (Ro37 and Caproni Ca311); 151 idro-recon-planes (Ro43 and Cant Z506).
Esercito Italiano had 73 divisions (53,000 officers and 1,580,000 troops, including territorial services, air defense and deposits personnel): 57 infantry ("Fanteria"), 5 mountain ("Alpini"), 3 cavalry ("Celeri"), 3 armoured ("Corazzate"), 3 semi-motorised ("Autotrasportabili"), 2 motorised ("Motorizzate"), 2 Libyan (colonial infantry-men) and some mountain brigades ("raggruppamenti alpini"). Italian armoured divisions were equipped with L3 light tanks (tankettes) and M11/39 medium tanks, only by spring 1941 they could have the 1st real medium tank (M13/40).
Regia Marina had 576 units for 620,000tons, of which only 295 units for388,000tons were real war ships: 2 23,500tons battleships (Giulio Cesare and Cavour, great-war ships modernised on 1933-37), 7 heavy cruisers (10,000tons), 12 light cruisers (5,000tons to 8,000tons), 94 destroyers, 75 torpedo boats (MAS), 115 submarines (from coastal ones [short-range] of 350tons up to "oceanical class" [long-range] of 1,300tons - 59 units were medium-range submarines). On september 1940 4 battleships, 2 new (Littorio and Vittorio Veneto) and 2 "modernised" (Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria), were added.
I think 10IC more would never transform Italy in a new Japan, but would only ensure Italy to have enough industrial capacity to meet historical goals: I played 2 scenarios from 1936 on with Italy, and without conquering other nations and developing up to "advanced machine tools" (unhistorically for every country not Germany, USA, Japan and UK) it is really impossible to build so much units of that quality (in the game an L3 armoured division is at least 15IC for half a year). The problem of the bad armament of Italian forces is not an IC problem, but a research one, in the game of course (historically, e.g. no Italian industry could really build tanks better than M15/42, the modernised version of M13/40).

 

[unmerged(51143)]

I also agree... sounds like everything Italy needs and should have is summurised right there by FilTur

FilTur, would you also look over Italy's tech teams let us know what you think?

I wrote a post about for some changes, but I think there is not much to change: just adding 2 big industrial companies (Magneti Marelli and Edison), and Marconi for few months (he died on 1936, working until the last) and other minor changes on existent reasearch teams. Italy had some world-class genius working (e.g. Fermi, Marconi, Crocco, etc.) but industrial companies were medium or low level in front of UK, German and USA ones, and Italian researchers could not work with high-level facilities (but they did miracles using what they had, like Fermi for nuclear physics, and Marconi for radio transmissions and RADAR), only exeptions were the wind tunnels for aeronautical reasearch, Italy was one of the few world nations to have supersonical wind tunnel since '30s.

 

[unmerged(21069)]

Gentlemen, i suggest that this whole thing be resolved by loading the 1938 scenario and comparing it with the '36 scenario. It is, simply put, impossible, playing the game, to build the amount of ic and the number of tank divisions and ships that Paradox adds to Italy in the '38 scenario in the time between Jan. 1. '36 and Sept. 1 '38. Italy gains around 20 IC in the '38 scenario, it's impossible, as far as I can tell, for Italy to build that much IC if one starts the game in '36. Plus, on top of the the '38 scenario adds 3 tank divisions. Clearly, Italy should start w/ more IC, maybe as much as 80.




Btw, FilTur, I think you're right about the tech teams, but I wanted your read on them. Before Paradox had put down Ansaldo as an exclusively naval tech team and I didn't see other big errors, but i wasn't positive.

 

[lwarmonger]

Italian Armed Forces on 10th of june 1940, entering the war.
Regia Aeronautica had not 8,500 planes nor 600, but about 1,800

The 8500 was what was claimed, while the 600 was what the Italian airforce had operational in 1939 (not June 1940).

I think 10IC more would never transform Italy in a new Japan, but would only ensure Italy to have enough industrial capacity to meet historical goals:

But if you are looking at IC, then (since IC is abstract measurement of industry, and therefore relative), you also have to look at how Italy relates to it's competitors. Italy is actually far stronger in terms of industrial capacity in HOI2 compared to its neighbors than it was in real life. In 1938 (through measuring indices of national production such as steel output, consumption of energy from modern sources such as coal, ect) Italy only had one ninth America's manufacturing capability (and for America that was a very bad year... if one takes better years like 1936 it was more like one eleventh), one fourth of Germany's, one third of Britain's, and two thirds of France's. If you truly want realistic, then Italy's IC needs to be drastically reduced relative (if not in absolute terms) to all of the other great powers.

 

[JRaup]

The 38 GC is some what flawed, so using that as a comparison would lead to some false results.

As for terrain changes, we can make changes to the province files to alter those terrains, but we cannot add in any rivers on map.

As for IC values, these will be re-evaluated once all the new tech trees are in place. It would do us no good to make any such changes right now, as other things need to be implemented first, so as not to casue any redundancies or other balance problems.

I disagree with some of the INFRA and base size changes. The ports at Tripoli and Benghazi were rather large, and had deep water access. Others are less about commercial capabilities, and more about military applications, including, but not limited to: Dry docks, heavy industrial repair facilities, slip ways, and actual ship building capabilities. Do not focus on commercial shipping here, as it leads to some misplaced assessments.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

The 8500 was what was claimed, while the 600 was what the Italian airforce had operational in 1939 (not June 1940).



But if you are looking at IC, then (since IC is abstract measurement of industry, and therefore relative), you also have to look at how Italy relates to it's competitors. Italy is actually far stronger in terms of industrial capacity in HOI2 compared to its neighbors than it was in real life. In 1938 (through measuring indices of national production such as steel output, consumption of energy from modern sources such as coal, ect) Italy only had one ninth America's manufacturing capability (and for America that was a very bad year... if one takes better years like 1936 it was more like one eleventh), one fourth of Germany's, one third of Britain's, and two thirds of France's. If you truly want realistic, then Italy's IC needs to be drastically reduced relative (if not in absolute terms) to all of the other great powers.

You are wrong: Italian IC is underrated for game purposes, I do not care about France or USA when I simply cannot match all the civilian and military buildings Italy made from 1936 to 1942, even if they were much poor. On the other side, it would be right to improve other nations industry: but at least for western democracies the most part of industrial production should go (during peace time) to consumer goods and not to military units.

8,500 planes was claimed by no one, at least as official data, maybe as pure propaganda (like the "8millions bayonets", a phrase by Mussolini for a pre-war slogan); I do not know waht do you mean by claiming only 600 operational planes in 1939 (nor which data are these): the planes that could fly (not being affected by mechanical problems), the planes which had the pilots to fly, or the planes assigned to operative squadrons (like those acting in Spain)?

 

[Camrik]

The 8500 was what was claimed, while the 600 was what the Italian airforce had operational in 1939 (not June 1940).



But if you are looking at IC, then (since IC is abstract measurement of industry, and therefore relative), you also have to look at how Italy relates to it's competitors. Italy is actually far stronger in terms of industrial capacity in HOI2 compared to its neighbors than it was in real life. In 1938 (through measuring indices of national production such as steel output, consumption of energy from modern sources such as coal, ect) Italy only had one ninth America's manufacturing capability (and for America that was a very bad year... if one takes better years like 1936 it was more like one eleventh), one fourth of Germany's, one third of Britain's, and two thirds of France's. If you truly want realistic, then Italy's IC needs to be drastically reduced relative (if not in absolute terms) to all of the other great powers.

I'm very interested in WW2 economy. Imho, USA economy should be much larger than it is in HOI2. Do you have some numbers or could you provide some links that I could go to to learn more about this?

Thanks in advance.


Ghis

 

[lwarmonger]

You are wrong: Italian IC is underrated for game purposes, I do not care about France or USA when I simply cannot match all the civilian and military buildings Italy made from 1936 to 1942, even if they were much poor. On the other side, it would be right to improve other nations industry: but at least for western democracies the most part of industrial production should go (during peace time) to consumer goods and not to military units.

Since IC is an abstract of industry, it can only be effectively determined from the viewpoint of game mechanics and relative economic strengths. If you truly wish to increase the amount of IC for Italy, I can show you how to do it, but remember that a lot of those "divisions" that Italy had were a lot smaller than their counterparts from other militaries. This was a result of Italy's reduction of their infantry units from three regiments to two... and in terms of fighting capability they consistently proved themselves weaker than even Greek formations. Therefore, most of those infantry formations that Italy possesses were really more like militia. The "fortifications" you refer to were not high level (no where near a "Maginot Line" or "Sevastapol" style defense system), and could be easily built after Advanced Construction Engineering is researched. Italy did produce advanced battleships, but this consumed much of its industrial capabilities, and the airforce was not really built up, much less upgraded, past the Spanish Civil War.

8,500 planes was claimed by no one, at least as official data, maybe as pure propaganda (like the "8millions bayonets", a phrase by Mussolini for a pre-war slogan); I do not know waht do you mean by claiming only 600 operational planes in 1939 (nor which data are these): the planes that could fly (not being affected by mechanical problems), the planes which had the pilots to fly, or the planes assigned to operative squadrons (like those acting in Spain)?

The 8500 planes was claimed by the Italian airforce in its reports to Mussolini (for whom demonstrations were often held using the same aircraft several times, or surging non-operational aircraft onto display). The 600 fighters and bombers figure comes from Mack Smith's Mussolini's Roman Empire, and is comparable to most of the other figures I have seen. These are aircraft that were capable of flying, and used for something other than training (and do not include aircraft specifically designed for recon work).

 

[lwarmonger]

I'm very interested in WW2 economy. Imho, USA economy should be much larger than it is in HOI2. Do you have some numbers or could you provide some links that I could go to to learn more about this?

Thanks in advance.


Ghis

The best overall source on this that I have found is Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" which does an excellent job of analyzing the various strengths and weaknesses of nation states (it has two chapters preceding and post WWII). I'll go looking for some sources online for you though (one of the disadvantage of getting most info out of books).

 

[Camrik]

The best overall source on this that I have found is Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" which does an excellent job of analyzing the various strengths and weaknesses of nation states (it has two chapters preceding and post WWII). I'll go looking for some sources online for you though (one of the disadvantage of getting most info out of books).

Thanks! It would be nice to have it online, but I'll check at my College's library tomorrow to see if they have Kennedy's books.

I'll check back here again in case you found something online

Thanks again!


Ghis

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Since IC is an abstract of industry, it can only be effectively determined from the viewpoint of game mechanics and relative economic strengths. If you truly wish to increase the amount of IC for Italy, I can show you how to do it, but remember that a lot of those "divisions" that Italy had were a lot smaller than their counterparts from other militaries. This was a result of Italy's reduction of their infantry units from three regiments to two... and in terms of fighting capability they consistently proved themselves weaker than even Greek formations. Therefore, most of those infantry formations that Italy possesses were really more like militia. The "fortifications" you refer to were not high level (no where near a "Maginot Line" or "Sevastapol" style defense system), and could be easily built after Advanced Construction Engineering is researched. Italy did produce advanced battleships, but this consumed much of its industrial capabilities, and the airforce was not really built up, much less upgraded, past the Spanish Civil War.



The 8500 planes was claimed by the Italian airforce in its reports to Mussolini (for whom demonstrations were often held using the same aircraft several times, or surging non-operational aircraft onto display). The 600 fighters and bombers figure comes from Mack Smith's Mussolini's Roman Empire, and is comparable to most of the other figures I have seen. These are aircraft that were capable of flying, and used for something other than training (and do not include aircraft specifically designed for recon work).

I never doubted about the low quality of the Italian weaponry and organisation: but in the game this is mostly a matter of research not production. I know perfectly that the only thing which made Italian tanks not to be simply "war toys", in front of the other tanks used in Africa, was that Italian tanks could shoot while moving; that Italian fortifications were simple; that only a few divisions were not of normal infantry, and normal infantry divisions (the most but not everyone) were under normal level (but this does not mean they were militia divisions, only colonial and "Camicie nere - CCNN" were - you must think by '30s standards, German and British infantry divisions in 1939 were not mighter as weaponry); etc. But you do not want to understand that in the game an L3 or a M11/39 armoured division is very expensive (nearly as a PzIII one), that from 1936 to 1941 I would have to build 3 of them (before 1940) plus 2 modern battleships plus long range submarines plus some infrastructure plus 2 airborne divisions plus motorised divisions etc. All this, simply occupying Ethiopia in 1936 and Albania in 1939 or even in 1936 too, is impossible in the game. Building an L3 division is expensive as to build 6 to 8 infantry divisions, motorised divisions are equal to 2 infantry divisions etc.: sure, I could build (or CPU could do) 30 complete infantry divisions instead than a mechanised army, but this is another matter. I remember you that in 1936 a big part of Italian Army and Air Force divisions (in the game) are undersized to 70 instead than 100, so proportions are respected. The IC level is not historical itself, nor economics in the game are so much sophisticated, HoI and HoI2 are surely the best games I know to simulate strategy and war, but IC should refer only to what a country could or could not build as number of units (or we will have to increase every Nation consumer goods needing and to decrease every unit production costs): giving 10IC more to Italy as basic in 1936 would not transform my country in a new Germany neither a Japan or a France, only would allow a player (or CPU) to have a more historical possibility of building some units, surely not many planes if I build tanks or no many infantry divisions if I build paratroopers etc.

Italian Air Force knew well how many planes and of which quality Regia Aeronautica had: maybe some dishonest and pimp member (unlucky we had many in the higher circle) told M this number to get a promotion, but simply you could read at Balbo's reports until 1940 on the situation of the RA and see that ever M knew "the sad truth" (but in 1940 other Nations' Air Forces were not far mighter: the matter was, rightly, Italy had only a few of the industrial power of UK and Germany, and moreover was very short in raw materials during war, to build enough planes for an industrialised war - and even enough armoured divisions etc. but I repeat the game would not allow me or others, if not modified or with "little historical changes" like invading Yugo etc., to build even so few units).