The Italians

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 pm

I totally concur with the above post. That P40 was a really good tank but it came too late in the war. Italy even made a carrier Aquilla but it wasn't finished. Any nation that can build a carrier should be in the game as its own player

China on the other hand NEVER made anything...
they borrowed German helmets, borrowed pilots and fighters from America, borrowed artillery and military expertise from England.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:50 pm

A&A is a game, it need playability.

With a Chinese player, the game will be more balanced, and we will experience more action in Asia and Pacific. As today all attention are against Germany in Europe, and a Chinese player is the only rational mean to stop this bedlam.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:20 pm

But then you get 4 allies and 2 axis and the game needs the balance of players as well. Its better to have a 3 vs. 3 thing than 4 nations against 2. That way its more family oriented. Do you like having to fight battles with 1:2 odds?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:21 pm

There is nothing wrong with Chinese armies controlled by the Allies. I have CCP units controlled by USSR, and Nationalists by USA. This reflects the dependancy of China on Allied supplies and equipment, as well as the lack of Chinese industrial power.
Someone having to control China in it's own right (assuming we invent a united China) will soon get bored with building all infantry every turn.
We know that the war went badly for Italy, but it might have come back with the success of it's Allies, much as the UK returned from disastrous defeats in France and Singapore.
Also, making Chungking a U.S. Victory City gives players more incentive to take an interest in China.

Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by Hobbes77 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:09 pm

Hello all,

Regarding Italy being added to this Deluxe version, I'd like to offer something I noticed while playing Pact of Steel, a version of Revised for Triple A that includes Italy as the 6th country.

Regardless of the historical accuracy questions, the inclusion of a 6th power (3rd Axis power) can significantly change the game dynamic because of the turn order.


This is not an actual round as you know. It's merely to illustrate how these 2 Allied powers move one right after the other. This is one of the reasons why the Allies have the advantage on AA, since there's nothing the Axis can do to prevent the US attacking and Russia reinforcing US conquered areas, which for instance can be specially crippling for Japan (since the UK can also move/reinforce) before J's turn.
Achieving this level of coordination between Allies isn't easy (and even less for the Axis) but it usually is the deciding factor in many games I've played, both board and online. And a closer look will also reveal specific country vulnerabilities to combined attacks but I won't dwell there.

There seems to be 2 choices to include Italy:
1) As part of G's turn, either moving/attacking separately or combined with German forces.
2) As a separate power with its own turn.

If the 2nd option is taken then there's plenty of possibilities for Italy's turn on each game round. I'll just use an example to demonstrate how it changes the game dynamic:


Now, it seems that the Allies and Axis are more balanced since neither side enjoys the advantage of having 2 countries playing one after the other. But in reality Russia is a lot more vulnerable than before: instead of having 2 Axis powers to deal it has 3, since the Italian player can either go for Africa or help G conquering Europe/Russia (or even both!). And the other 2 Allied countries need to transport units to the mainland, unlike G/I/J (if it buys ICs on Asia), which takes time.
Of course, the Allies might want to go for the weakest Axis member (Italy) but considering how both G and I home territories are right next to one another it won't be that easy to conquer and hold Italy (and it's even more difficult for the UK to do so, since it would require 2 fleets, 1 to drop units on Algeria, the other to attack Italy).
And pairing Italy and Germany's turns one after the other, to keep the paired US/Rus turns would be even worse for Russia (let's face it: nearly all Axis strategies for winning need for R to be taken).
And finally, one last thought: a 6th country would increase the time required to finish 1 game.
All of those (with the exception of Italy playing as a part of G's turn) would introduce major changes to the gameplay. I'm not advocating either, just wanted to add this to the discussion :)

Posts: 116
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Phuket (Thailand)

Post by Mimmo » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:59 am

My personal opinion - for introduce Italy as 6th player in some New Edition DELUXE version – is that the game should be start on spring of 1941 instead of 1942 as the actual New Edition version.
The main reason is that - at that time - we still have our Colonial Empire in Italian East Africa and the Operation Barbarossa was not launched yet.
This can introduce major change in the game play.
In this case the order play could be the follow:

Italy: counter attack in Cyrenaica (taken by the British) and attack Kenya or Sudan;
UK: a lot of operations as they have a world wide empire;
III Reich (I use this definition in my game): launch Operation Barbarossa and Operation Mercury;
U.S.S.R: rebuild a defensive line after Germans attack;
Japan: attack on Pearl Harbour, Philippine, Hong Kong, etc…
U.S.A: join in the war and rebuild the fleet.


Member of, the FIRST Italian Forum on the web

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Washington (state, not DC)

Post by Chairman » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:25 pm

Hobbes77, you have brought some very good points to the table. Thanks for this.

I agree with Mimmo. Spring 1941 has the axis at their strongest with their best chances for victory.

In my opinion, the ideal window for the game is May 1941. Here are my reasons:

Italian empire is still intact (barely).
France still owns Syria.
Germany has just conquered the Balkans and Crete.
Operation Barbarossa is only one month away, so we can use the Order of Battle for initial set-up.
The Bismarck still Sails the Seas! :D
Japan is revving up for the strike at Pearl Harbor.
French Indo-China is already occupied by Japan, so this can be used as a base.

IMHO this is the best possible date to set A&A.


Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Washington (state, not DC)

Post by Chairman » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:54 pm

On the discussion of whether to add Italy or China, I think that BOTH might work. This would bolster the Axis and allow Germany to concentrate on USSR and the Atlantic. China would help prevent Japanese tank drives to Moscow and encourage the US to actually fight in the Pacific instead of entirely KGF.

In defence of the Chinese war effort:
The Chinese capitol city of Chongqing was is the most bombed city in world history. Compare this to 1944/45 Germany and you should see that China was in a similar position.

Also, while China might only buy infantry in A&A, so does the Soviet Union. The classic opening purchase for Russia is 8 infantry.

In the battle for Shanghai, Chiang Kai-shek's finest troops held out against overwhelming odds of enemy air-superiority and amphibious landings for over three months. Again compare this to the battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad. The Chinese only retreated after they realised that the Western powers would not intervene. They inflicted approx. 25% casualties on the Japanese while suffering 33% casualties. This about even when given the much larger Japanese air power and the support of the IJN.

The Japanese army in China was much larger than the 500 thousand that has been stated. The Japanese army had about 4million troops supported by almost 2 million collaborationist Chinese troops at the end of the war.

In light of incessant SBR and a huge invading army, it is a miracle that the Chinese survived at all. They were able to hold the Japanese at bay by using new and guerilla tactics and with the support of Allied air units like the Flying Tigers. The Chinese even helped out the British by invading Burma late in the war.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests