Italy STILL goes after UK; that hasn't changed. Italy has played after UK from the beginning. Your point of making Italy neutral to start out with so that they can't be attacked by UK is EXACTLY what I said! That's the only reason to make Italy neutral! What HAS changed is USA goes BEFORE Italy now. Italy's potential neutrality makes more sense now that they go after the USA, in that when Italy makes its attack I1, they need not fear immediate USA retribution. AS I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, Italy starting neutral makes more sense with the new turn order. Where did I say that Italy shouldn't start neutral? How is what you said any different from what I said? Why are you attacking the complexity of my idea when it's the same idea?Imperious leader wrote:The turn order already changed. I still don't see why you have a point. Italy's turn being second to last allows the potential to counter US moves into morocco/Gibraltar (assuming J1 attack).This is the new turn order from Larry. Italy plays after UK, so the point in case you didn't understand is that Italy is neutral (under my proposal) while UK takes her turn, so she cant be attacked. In OOB UK had good prospects to sink at least one of the Italian fleets off Italy via Gibraltar. Now during her turn she starts with her complete fleet intact to start her war. If UK takes out the Italian fleet, she is already in a poor position at start. Thats the point.New Turn Order:
2nd. Soviet Union
4th. United States
6th. UK (London – Calcutta)
IL, if you reread what was posted you'll find that mantlefan supports your proposal. You're both arguing the same point. Italy should start out neutral (UK can't attack it UK1). I am starting to think you have a good argument.mantlefan wrote:So you're saying Italy should be neutral until Italy's turn. I don't see how that's in contrast to what I said. If italy is neutral till Italy's turn, doesn't it start out neutral?Imperious leader wrote:Not needed. Just make Italy neutral till her turn, so she cant be attacked till after her turn.The new turn order might make Italy starting out neutral more appropriate
The new turn order doesn't have any affect on this, as Italy still goes after UK as you pointed out. With either turn order UK could move its units around to be in a better def position. They could even build an IC at Egypt to add units next turn. They could also move fleet out of harms way to the Red Sea to consolidate with the Indian fleet. I think that Italy should at the very least should loose 1 tpt and maybe a dd if you play this way though. The Italian fleet is beefed up so 1/2 the fleet survives, w/at least 1 tpt. I think it should only be a 1 round pass though, if Italy doesn't declare war It1, UK should be able to perform a preempt strike UK2.
This statement kinda through me a little. I don't see the US being a factor in attacking Italy with either turn order. They are simply not in position on US1 to do much (or can't DOW w/o being attacked). I guess that in the old turn order that if the US was attacked in the first turn it would have a shot of taking back Gibr/Morocco or using the Central US bmr to kill a loan tpt or dd in sz92 or 94 though.mantlefan wrote: What HAS changed is USA goes BEFORE Italy now. Italy's potential neutrality makes more sense now that they go after the USA, in that when Italy makes its attack I1, they need not fear immediate USA retribution. AS I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, Italy starting neutral makes more sense with the new turn order.
- Imperious leader
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
- Location: Moving up to phase line red...
He said the NEW turn order makes Italy safe, but this is not the case. UK can still maul them and make Italy already suffer an inferior position.
I made this proposal and have been posting about a neutral Italy till the day the game came out, due to my seeing correctly and FIRST that UK can maul either one or both Italian fleets, making Italy already weak before they even play a turn.
Just like it was me that first pointed out that a Major Norway factory by the allies would break the game, and just like me who was one of the first to declare that Sealion was not only possible, but certain and had Larry telling me I'm crazy "we already fixed that...its not possible..who are you to declare this rubbish"
Well all those chickens came home to roost it seems.
But perhaps as you said by some form of magic, having Italy play after UK makes any difference in this NEW turn order ( which is the same as before) then i am not seeing it.
Again, Italy stays neutral till she starts. Add that to the rules and it is and remains the simplest solution.
Ridiculously falseImperious leader wrote: He said the NEW turn order makes Italy safe, but this is not the case. UK can still maul them and make Italy already suffer an inferior position.
How can seriously think that after all my posts that I am talking about italy going after the US without neutrality protection from the UK? The very first post I recommended Italy's beginning neutrality, thus protection from the UK. Where have I ever talked about ANY of these situations without Italy's starting neutrality? Don't waste time looking; it didn't happen.
I said that with the new turn order, it makes more sense to make italy neutral, since because the US cannot immediately after Italy attacks, they are more safe from US retribution. Even if it makes things .00000001% easier for italy, it still makes things easier for italy. The Neutrality is still the main issue.My point is, and always has been, as I said in that very first post about this, that Italy starting neutral is even more appealing now.
Imperious leader wrote: I made this proposal and have been posting about a neutral Italy till the day the game came out, due to my seeing correctly and FIRST that UK can maul either one or both Italian fleets, making Italy already weak before they even play a turn.
What's clear is that what you really want is to be the person that thought of the Italy neutrality idea first. Whatever. Fine, you did. I don't care. My point is, it has been, and continues to be that now that's even a better idea however infinitesimal the difference in turn order makes that.
It's just so aburdly ridiculous and annoying that you seem to ignore in every post how I am not just talking about turn order, but also how the potential for neutrality may interact with that. If it's an English language issue, fine, that's totally understandable. But more likely, you jsut wanted everyone to know it was your idea. Hopefully now that your ego is satiated you can get off my case and realize I have been agreeing with the idea to make Italy neutral to start and that it is even a better idea now with the current turn order.
You keep saying Italy's starting neutrality is the simplest solution, as though I am suggesting anything else. Show me where I suggested anything else.
IL, How in the Sam Hill does that mean I think that Italy should not be neutral? How does that mean I'm suggesting that the turn order be changed? Maybe you're a math person, with trouble reading. I get that, it's cool.mantlefan wrote:The new turn order might make Italy starting out neutral more appropriate.
Alpha.+2 Turn Order = EVEN MORE reason to make Italy Neutral
Alpha.+2 Turn Order = An Even Better Situation to implement Italian Neutrality.
Nowhere do you have any justification from anything I have said to suggest I was calling for a change in turn order, that I was saying that Italian Neutrality is a bad idea, or that Italian neutrality was a bad idea before the turn order change.
I suggest you quit trying to pick arguments that aren't there, quit trying to take offense when none is given, and quit trying to let everyone know that such-and-such a thing was YOUR idea, whether it was or not.
The part about the turn order was in reference to the US (not the UK). In the old turn order (US after Italy) the US could attack Italian positions if Italy took Gib or Morocco in reprisal (if the US was invited into the war on the first turn).
With the new turn order (US before Italy) it makes even more sense to him to make Italy neutral because the US wouldn't be able to attack newly acquired Italian positions (US already took its turn). The US is out of range of any Italian forces on its first turn (Italy hasn't moved yet). The only thing that the US could do (with its turn now before Italy) is beef up Gib/Morocco using its one tpt (if the US was attack in the first round).
The turn order reference did cloud the point I think. Point being UK shouldn't be able to attack Italy on the first turn (we are all in agreement with that). With the old turn order (if the US was attacked turn 1), by time the US turn rolled around Italy would have already DOW, so there shouldn't have been any problem with the US attacking newly acquired Italian positions. However with the new turn order (US before Italy) the Italians don't have to fear a reprisal from the US on its first turn.
Neither turn order should matter as far as the US is concerned. With the set up the US couldn't have ever attacked a neural Italy (as long as Italy by proposed rule must DOW on It1).
I would support a proposal to make Italy untouchable on UK1. After that (even if Italy doesn't DOW It1) they should be fair game. The writing would be on the wall, and the UK (and in the right situation the US) should have the right to attack in the 2nd round IMO regardless of what Italy did or didn't do..
That's something that I didn't mention, that I just assumed was understood, and something that I agree with.WILD BILL wrote: I would support a proposal to make Italy untouchable on UK1. After that (even if Italy doesn't DOW It1) they should be fair game. The writing would be on the wall, and the UK (and in the right situation the US) should have the right to attack in the 2nd round IMO regardless of what Italy did or didn't do..
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 31 guests