Do you consider Italy a major power?

[TalyonUngol]

I currently play with a mod called "Better Italy", or something like that. Anyway, it nerfs Italy at the start of the game with a malus called "Industrial Incompetence", which lowers the production cap and gives a penalty to division attack and defense. There is a focus that removes this malus, which is buried about 4 to 5 focuses into the industrial section of the mod's focus tree. This malus stings. But you want to know the interesting thing? If you rush industrial focuses to get rid of that malus, you can have it bought off by early-mid 1937.

I think this is a good example of a positive way to "nerf" early Italy: give a malus that hurts like hell, but then make it relatively quick to remove if a player focuses on getting rid of it. Rushing to remove the malus means leaving military and political focuses until later, but as long as you attack weaker nations in your first couple wars, you can manage conquests fine. If you ignore the malus and focus on military bonuses, your army might have better performance in the field, but your industry won't be able to keep them supplied.

Maybe. I Just don't see the need to put the Malus on from a balance standpoint. For gameplay and realism? Maybe. But balance, gameplay, and realism need to all be taken into consideration. Right now Italy imo is in a good spot. Im okay with it receiving nerfs from the spot if it gets good buffs from it's tree. Im really hoping it gets focuses where it can remove the guarentees from yugo and such so it can conquer early if you rush it.

 

[squid_hills]

Maybe. I Just don't see the need to put the Malus on from a balance standpoint. For gameplay and realism? Maybe. But balance, gameplay, and realism need to all be taken into consideration. Right now Italy imo is in a good spot. Im okay with it receiving nerfs from the spot if it gets good buffs from it's tree. Im really hoping it gets focuses where it can remove the guarentees from yugo and such so it can conquer early if you rush it.

This mod's focus tree does give Italy some good bonuses. The industrial branch is almost as good as Germany's tree and gives a lot of factories.

 

[TalyonUngol]

This mod's focus tree does give Italy some good bonuses. The industrial branch is almost as good as Germany's tree and gives a lot of factories.

Well id be okay with that. I just don't think straight nerfs are necessary from a balance stand point. I do hope Italys new tree let's it go nonaligned and help the roman empire. It's meme side of the tree.

Needs a good facist. Needs an African focus tree.

 

[Simon Marques]

The game UI considers it one, and some players call it a major power, but is it really? Italy is not fully industrialized during the games time period (and didn't fully industrialize historically until the 1950s.) Italy starts in 1936 with 20 civilian factories, which is barely more than what Poland has at 17, and is less than what Japan has, they have 25. The Italian navy is OK, but its smaller and less advanced than the French fleet, so Italy's navy cannot guaranty control over the waters directly around the Italian peninsula. Finally, the Italian air force starts with less fighters than France, but more bombers.

This combined with the historical fact that Italy had significant difficulty beating Ethiopia, and was outright defeated by Greece, a minor country, needing Germany to intervene to save them, leads me to believe that Italy is not a major world power, but a minor regional power.

The defeat to the Greeks and the constant races of the Germans to rescue the Italians made this very clear. I go further and say that in fact, the Italians were more trouble than they helped Germany in the whole conflict, I don't think it was the fault of the high Italian command, but the fault of that ridiculous fascist Mussolini. Not even Germany was ready for war when the conflict started, imagine Italy.

Italy had barely recovered from the Spanish civil war and Mussolini was already throwing the Italians into open conflict. Much of the Italian artillery, for example, was still based on models from the first world war, although they had modern battleships, they had no aircraft carriers, their tanks were a joke in the form of riveted steel plates (I would say it was a great waste of steel and other precious raw materials), their air force was also in terrible condition. In quantity it looked like a tiger, but in quality it was as harmless as a cat.

 

[Adrianuse]

Italys strength? What exactly is italys strenngth? They are the -WORST- major in the game. France, Uk, Germany, Japan, Arguably China, Soviet Union are -ALL- superior.

Italy only has one chance to actually do something in a match and that's only by a player and only if you really really gimmick and cheat the system. If you play Italy 'historically' as they were meant to, you'll do absolutely nothing in a match. Germany will gobble up everything from you.

Italy is already garbage and you are asking to make them even worse?

I won't agree. As far as I understood you are talking about a historical multiplayer game. I have played with Italy many times and many times with their help I was able to, among others, win in Africa, help effectively on the Eastern Front and much, much more.
Not to mention that conquering Greece is very easy.
In short, you can do a lot.

Strength comes from the initial large army, fleet, and quite a decent number of factories. In fact, the focus tree isn't the best (although still better than, for example, Yugoslavia or other such minors).

I am for additional minuses for Italy representing their problems. I also have no problem that by focusing on solving these problems, Italy would spread its wings, even a little more than now.

However, it should be a difficult choice in which all problems are not solved quickly.

 

[coffeelingfine]

I hope the devs don't nerf Italy any more when they do get around to reworking them.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I won't agree. As far as I understood you are talking about a historical multiplayer game. I have played with Italy many times and many times with their help I was able to, among others, win in Africa, help effectively on the Eastern Front and much, much more.
Not to mention that conquering Greece is very easy.
In short, you can do a lot.

Strength comes from the initial large army, fleet, and quite a decent number of factories. In fact, the focus tree isn't the best (although still better than, for example, Yugoslavia or other such minors).

I am for additional minuses for Italy representing their problems. I also have no problem that by focusing on solving these problems, Italy would spread its wings, even a little more than now.

However, it should be a difficult choice in which all problems are not solved quickly.

Italy's navy gets ripped apart by Frances navy.
The army is large but they are bad divisions. That armor template is cringe.
The air force is okay.
The industry starts out with a good amount of military factories and an okay amoujt of civis but less than France iirc.
They also are forced to trade for tungsten and rubber from the start and steel a year in.
They are still the weakest major and that's after France got a few more nerfs from maluses from la resistsnce. Though maybw im wrong.
Why should Italy be nerfed when it's still the worst major. For what reason should it be nerfed?

Im okay with Italy being weak for two years and then it ramps up big time. Annex war goals. Some manpower bonuses. Bonuses to factory output. Something to help it.

Balance it doesnt need a nerf unless the buffs really do it justice.

If its nerfed too much it'll be too weak. It requires early conquest and really needs to take France instead of Germany. I don't pkay historical. I consider all countries are my enemies. So evem Germany.

 

[Adrianuse]

Italy starts with 50 factories (20 Civ, 19 Miles, 11 Shipyards) and Partial Mobilization (and could transition to War Economy very soon)
Decent Stability and War Support.
They also have a war with Ethiopia, which allows you to get the Army EXP you need, and it's very easy on its own (that's why it's a bonus, not a punishment).

France (which in theory should be stronger) starts with 51 factories (33 Civ, 8 Miles, 10 Yards) and a Civil Economy
Decent stability and terribly low War Support.
It lacks Army EXP and the opportunity to quickly switch to the War Economy. Plus performance penalty (-20%), Political strength (-0.8!) And land doctrines (+ 75% research time).

Of course, France has a better starting army.

Well, for me, France is starting much worse, despite being historically a stronger country, hence I do not understand the assessment of Italy as so weak, for example in comparison with France.

And if Italy played ahistorically, they could easily conquer Greece, Romania, Turkey before France is ready for anything concrete.

This is still just my opinion, as I would generally prefer to weaken countries (and most of all remove division spam, especially minors). Italy, which is more historically in many problems, seems to me to be something fun to play. For example, I like the way the Netherlands is desperately not ready at the beginning of the game.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Italy starts with 50 factories (20 Civ, 19 Miles, 11 Shipyards) and Partial Mobilization (and could transition to War Economy very soon)
Decent Stability and War Support.
They also have a war with Ethiopia, which allows you to get the Army EXP you need, and it's very easy on its own (that's why it's a bonus, not a punishment).

France (which in theory should be stronger) starts with 51 factories (33 Civ, 8 Miles, 10 Yards) and a Civil Economy
Decent stability and terribly low War Support.
It lacks Army EXP and the opportunity to quickly switch to the War Economy. Plus performance penalty (-20%), Political strength (-0.8!) And land doctrines (+ 75% research time).

Of course, France has a better starting army.

Well, for me, France is starting much worse, despite being historically a stronger country, hence I do not understand the assessment of Italy as so weak, for example in comparison with France.

And if Italy played ahistorically, they could easily conquer Greece, Romania, Turkey before France is ready for anything concrete.

This is still just my opinion, as I would generally prefer to weaken countries (and most of all remove division spam, especially minors). Italy, which is more historically in many problems, seems to me to be something fun to play. For example, I like the way the Netherlands is desperately not ready at the beginning of the game.

France can put factories out quicker due to the low amount of Civs that Italy has, combined with the fact it has to trade factories for supplies. Italy also doesn't go for its war economy really quick either. The first two hundred goes to an early war with two countries of your choice, three if you really want to grab Turkey on top of Greece. I prefer to go for Austria and Hungary right now. Weakens Germany which is the intention.

France for sure has some maluses, but it also gets a fantastic focus tree. If you choose the Napoleon route, you get a massive buff to your manpower, you get wargoals on UK and you can also invade the UK really easy. You also get netherlands, Belgium and the Dutch East indies on top of the British Malayas and their puppets really easily.

France has better expansion paths compared to Italy. Italy struggles with France and United Kingdom due to Italys position on the map. Not impossible though if you play dirty. I like to join the Axis and invade Netherlands without calling Germany into the war, and going Through the maginot that way.

France can also get an event that puts them into partial mobilization, though im not sure how it triggers. I get it sometimes. So theres also -that- going on for them.

But France has a larger army, which I prefer to delete and just make an army from the stockpile gained. The large army france gets is unneccesary imo.

So france with 33 Civilian facotires on Civilian economy can produce a civ factory in 113 days and a milwithin 71, while also producing on the second line at a slower pace, but still good.
Italy with 20 civ factories in which 2 are used for trade, though it has to go for trade later of course for steel and more tungsten, can produce Civilian factories at 127 days without producing a second line. Militarys are at 78. If you didn't trade((This hurts production)), you gets civs at 104 and mils at 64 days.

So, from the start, France -still- has a better economy regardless of the economy law presented. Of course, it does get hit with a 20% debuff to factory output, which requires its own set of focuses to work on.

So yes, it is in my opinion after my own playthroughts that Italy is still a weaker nation and I'm not saying it shouldn't be weaker. I absolutely agree it should start weaker.

France has a better economy, a larger army, more manpower through focuses, a massive focus tree. The one for its military and its economy is really strong. It also gets better conquest options surrounding it. Not to mention, technically, it could also invade other countries around the world due to having territory everywhere, but I'm only counting the ones that its next to being Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands + DEI, UK + Colonies. I mean, if it takes the Uk and gets british Raj annexed early on? Thats huge. France also doesn't lack resources as bad as Italy does except Oil. Oil is a weakness for France but other than that? Nope. It produces its own.

Italy has a formable nation, however, being the Roman Empire that makes it super strong. if Italy manages to get the Roman Empire and all its manpower as well as factories from teh cores, Italy is the strongest nation in the game. Its just having to get there is tricky. Its easier on the historical AI focuses of course, but the nonhistorical AI? Ooh boy. It can be tricky yet fun.

 

[blahmaster6k]

To me, the deciding question for balance should always be "is X country as close to its historical strength as possible in 1936?" All other considerations are secondary.

 

[TalyonUngol]

To me, the deciding question for balance should always be "is X country as close to its historical strength as possible in 1936?" All other considerations are secondary.

All countries Will have to be nerfed drastically so. This game will never be 100% historic.

Italy is balanced the way it is and nerfing it for historical opens up a can of worms.

 

[viola]

Historically speaking Italy was kinda in an awkward spot: it was definitely the strongest of the regional powers, above Spain or Poland or other minor countries, which meant that its leadership was pushed into competing with the actual major powers, but it was also definitely the weakest of the major powers, which meant that every time that Italy tried to compete with them it usually went pretty bad.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Historically speaking Italy was kinda in an awkward spot: it was definitely the strongest of the regional powers, above Spain or Poland or other minor countries, which meant that its leadership was pushed into competing with the actual major powers, but it was also definitely the weakest of the major powers, which meant that every time that Italy tried to compete with them it usually went pretty bad.

Which is very much portrayed right now with the game. It's the weakest major as it should be. Just doesn't need to be dumpstered.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Which is very much portrayed right now with the game. It's the weakest major as it should be.

Actually Japan should be the weakest Major, weaker than Italy. But then it wouldn't be "fun" to play.

 

[him_15]

In terms of Navy and Army size, yes.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Actually Japan should be the weakest Major, weaker than Italy. But then it wouldn't be "fun" to play.

You, uhhh, don't know just how bad Italy was..... do you? Japan was able to wage war against a extremely larger country in China and fight off the Americans, British, Australians, New Zealanders, Dutch, Indians, Burmese and countless others for 4 years if we start at the attack on Pearl Harbour, but the war with China was 8 years. Japan isn't a superpower but they punched well above their weight for a resource starved country. Italy was a complete disaster and failed in almost every single operation they launched. They couldn't even successfully bomb Malta into submission because they found some biplanes in a warehouse. Heck their invasion of France is an embarrassment on its own, roughly 6,038 casualties for only 310 French ones, and that's if we use the highest estimates for the French. And they outnumbered almost 2:1 on the overall campaign but the frontline itself the Italians outnumbered the French 3.5:1 . We're talking about a country with low resources, low industry, low population, highly trained but horribly equipped military and outdated commanders. But yes, please explain to me the country that beat a developing African country by using advanced weapons and chemical warfare and was constantly embarrassed fighting other Europeans and only lasted 3 years of fighting was stronger then the Japanese who fought tooth and nail for 8 long years and made the Americans so worried about casualties that they resorted to using nuclear bombs to finish the war.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Actually Japan should be the weakest Major, weaker than Italy. But then it wouldn't be "fun" to play.

Between general skill, use of resources (given that Japan and Italy arguably had the same industrial capabilities to develop tech and equipment), and strategic position, Japan's arguably in a much stronger position despite their similar status. Japan produced a larger navy, produced significantly more aircraft, and still had time for a substantial land army (despite its limited heavy equipment; Italy ultimately ended up in the same position). Japan was far more efficient at building up for a total war, as their fleet had technical equipment of vastly-superior quality (top-of-the-line torpedoes, guns up to 20 inches in caliber, modern carriers and shells that actually had consistent ballistics--we're looking at you, Littorio).

Japan had actually built for total war, unlike Italy. Notice the first and simplest expression in their battle doctrines: Japan fought aggressively to seize land while they had the initiative, but often took the offensive against superior opponents and were able to use combined arms in their initial attacks quite effectively (i.e. mix of paratroopers, amphibious landings, and a landward push of armor-backed mobile infantry against Malaya). By comparison, Italy lacked any coherent strategy for their invasion of Egypt (massing large numbers of dismounted infantry was the reason neither Balbo nor Graziani was willing to attack, and why Wavell outmaneuvered them so easily despite being outnumbered) and faced humiliations in their attacks on both France and Greece. In naval terms, Japan's decisive battle doctrine was willing to risk serious losses to maintain constant pressure on allied units, resulting in attacks as far east as Hawaii and as far west as Ceylon within a few months of each other (Britain abandoned the eastern Indian Ocean for the start of 1942 after losing the carrier Hermes and nearly being hit badly by the Kido Butai or carrier mobile strike force); they also were highly-aggressive with their small units throughout the war, with destroyers, subs, and cruisers attacking aggressively against Allied formations in night attacks and inflicting serious losses throughout 1942. By comparison, Italy spent most of the war trying to maintain their navy's numbers and launched mostly small-scale attacks, as their war effort had never been intended to seriously risk the Italian Navy (other than their first few encounters, which were still fairly passive by comparison to Japan). Once losses were sustained, the Italians became even more cautious of committing irreplaceable units to the front lines, while Japan continued to risk its navy throughout the war.

While the difference in doctrine might not seem like a conclusive answer to the difference between the two major powers, it highlights a simple distinction: Japan was actually planning for war, while Italy arguably was not (at least against a peer competitor like France). Notice the difference between their declarations of war: Japan attacked the US preemptively despite knowing it would provoke a strong reaction before attacking the Commonwealth and Dutch (in the midst of a continuing war with China), while Italy only attacked France at the twilight of the war for them (when Britain's continued resistance was no guarantee). Combine the larger overall production of equipment and the generally-superior quality of the Japanese officer corps (not substantially, but generally)...and you're looking at a bit of a mess in this comparison.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

Yep Italy is a Mainpower. It´s not so industrial and economy like Germany but it is a Main Power in that time about the Country improvements with Ethopia, the Colonys in Africa and an modern Navy as well as modern Special Forces.

In our todays Time I´m not so sure anymore, but from Romulus to 1943 it was historically a Mainpower.

 

[Akaoni]

You, uhhh, don't know just how bad Italy was..... do you? Japan was able to wage war against a extremely larger country in China and fight off the Americans, British, Australians, New Zealanders, Dutch, Indians, Burmese and countless others for 4 years if we start at the attack on Pearl Harbour, but the war with China was 8 years. Japan isn't a superpower but they punched well above their weight for a resource starved country. Italy was a complete disaster and failed in almost every single operation they launched. They couldn't even successfully bomb Malta into submission because they found some biplanes in a warehouse. Heck their invasion of France is an embarrassment on its own, roughly 6,038 casualties for only 310 French ones, and that's if we use the highest estimates for the French. And they outnumbered almost 2:1 on the overall campaign but the frontline itself the Italians outnumbered the French 3.5:1 . We're talking about a country with low resources, low industry, low population, highly trained but horribly equipped military and outdated commanders. But yes, please explain to me the country that beat a developing African country by using advanced weapons and chemical warfare and was constantly embarrassed fighting other Europeans and only lasted 3 years of fighting was stronger then the Japanese who fought tooth and nail for 8 long years and made the Americans so worried about casualties that they resorted to using nuclear bombs to finish the war.

Yes, but don't get angry!

Ok, I think that the context is a little bit more complex than the one you described...

- Italy had low resources, but Japan suffered lack of resources too (oil, rubber and duralumin too. This last one was needed for modern aircrafts);
- Italy had low industries compared to Germany, UK, URSS and USA, but it can be compared to France (that had no resources problems) and moreover Japan;
- Italy had low population, this is true;
- highly trained and outdated commanders (true), but horribly equipped (partially true).

Focusing on the first point for example: Italy joined the war and immediately lost access to resources (since they imported them from Allies); Japan started war with China, but can continue importing resources from USA, UK and Dutch Indies: when USA decided embargo, few months later Japan declared war to the West powers, but they got easy access to resources (conquering Dutch Indies and Philippines).

What I would say? Italy was surely bad, but I think that it was accentuated by the context where it was put. Probably 'putting' Japan in the middle of the Mediterranean sea we would have had quite the same behavior...

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Yes, but don't get angry!

I wasn't trying to be

Ok, I think that the context is a little bit more complex than the one you described...

- Italy had low resources, but Japan suffered lack of resources too (oil, rubber and duralumin too. This last one was needed for modern aircrafts);

Yep, I didn't mention it since we all know that the reason Japan invaded was due to lack of resources, I didn't feel it necessary to mention it

Italy had low industries compared to Germany, UK, URSS and USA, but it can be compared to France (that had no resources problems) and moreover Japan;

Absolutely, but France should and could very easily dwarf Italy, the larger population and resources and land in Europe gives plenty of opportunity to rise above industrially, by quite a bit, over Italy

but horribly equipped (partially true).

WWI firearms, WWI guns, outdated tanks and tankettes, ANZAC troops in North Africa complimented the accuracy of Italian artillerymen but noted that their shells rarely exploded due to poor production, outdated air force, except for a couple of exceptions, outside of their navy and the occasional aircraft design, their military was massively ill prepared for the fighting over WWII, they didn't even have dedicated anti-tank guns that they designed and produced themselves, they had to use foreign equipment or their small WWI field guns as improvised. Yes they had some more modern equipment such as the FNAB-43 or the P26/40 but often times these would be rolled out too late or not enough to make a difference. Italy was a agrarian country still, they lacked the capabilities to enter the total war economy that a major needs to win and prove their strength.

Focusing on the first point for example: Italy joined the war and immediately lost access to resources (since they imported them from Allies); Japan started war with China, but can continue importing resources from USA, UK and Dutch Indies: when USA decided embargo, few months later Japan declared war to the West powers, but they got easy access to resources (conquering Dutch Indies and Philippines).

Key difference here is Japanese commanders knew war had changed, they struck fast and decisively and at many locations to give no time for the Allies to prepare. While Italy invaded into barely defended Egypt, they would dig in after a while since they expected the British to show up and dig their trench and they would reenact the Western Front of WWI all over, problem is the British and ANZAC knew it wasn't like that anymore so Italy got pushed all the way back despite outnumbering the Allied troops massively to the point of having to beg for German help. Then they got the bright idea of since they failed 2 fronts, North and East Africa, they should open a new one in Greece and we all know how that went.

The main problem Italy had is they weren't ready for war, if I recall the estimate was they wouldn't be until 1947-48. They needed time to gather and stockpile more resources, transfer more farmers to workers, train their commanders in the new warfare and other issues. I've already stated that to me Italy is a major minor or minor major, that middle ground tier between the big boys and little boys. They should be able to beat Yugoslavia but not France. Should be able to beat Greece but not Germany. However Italy has all the problems they did historically and I believe that the way Italy needs to be reworked in the future is that if you join historically around the same time that you will have problems fighting but through fighting and earning territory you'll speed up the process of being ready for total war, or you can take an alternate branch where you wait longer before jumping in, you lose out on more territory and it changes diplomatic missions but you're more ready for that first strike. It would make the player think, wait for their moment, when they believe they are ready, a risk reward system. To me the goal of Italy should be to become a major, to have Italy, bits of Southern France, the Balkans (outside of whatever Bulgaria), North Africa, East Africa, Syria (the region not country, so the modern countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan) and Anatolia, to be the true dominant Mediterranean power in a new Roman Empire that stretches to territory they never even had, talking about East Africa here. But that's just how I view the game, a minor should want to become a major minor or minor major, and minor majors/major minors should want to become majors while majors should want to become supers, you should want to level up your country, of course this would be more the fascist/communist/monarchist stuff, democracies will usually have a different opinion then that.

What I would say? Italy was surely bad, but I think that it was accentuated by the context where it was put. Probably 'putting' Japan in the middle of the Mediterranean sea we would have had quite the same behavior...

Doubt it, I don't think the Japanese would've faired fantastic, but they would've realized what they need and where to get it, oil in the Middle East. If you need oil so much for your two fronts, you don't start a new front by attacking a different country in the mountains when they don't even have oil.... I'm not trying to say Italy was the worst country ever in the war, but it's impossible to deny that they made the wrong choice for almost everything they did during the build up to war and the war itself. Japan also knew to make allies for their own use, such as Siam and Manchuria, Italy just didn't seem to care except for establishing puppet governments in their occupied territory, such as Albania, Montenegro and Croatia. Who knows how things could've gone if Italy had attempted to persuade Turkey to their side, maybe they push the Arabic countries more like Germany, we'll never know.