Italian Industry

[unmerged(16045)]

A few months I posted a thread (‘Regio Esercito’) in which, along with other arguments, I sustained that Italy has too few ICs in all the scenarios, and I showed some calculation to sustain my affermation, based upon the real industrial outputs and military production of Italy from 1939 till the armistice (1943). But it was told me that it’s not just a matter of historicity, because HOI need its balancements and Italy might become too strong if its ICs would be increased.
In the last weeks I made an experimental game, playing Italy the more historically possible with the 1936 scenario. I invaded Ethiopia and Albania, I sustained Franco in Spain, and I finally joined Axis when France was close to collapse (April, 1940).
Well, optimizing my economy, and expending about 60% resources into technology and 40% into new units, by 1940 I roughly reached the right technological level for that period, but I just was able to build 1 battleship, 3 cruisers and 2 mountain divisions, and to upgrade existing airplanes by one level. This means, in April 1940 Italy had, with respect to the starting situation of the 1939 scenario (September 1939), 1 battleship more (but not four under construction, to be ready in une 1940!), 1 cruiser less, 17 subamarines less, an unknown number of transports and destroyers less (I didn’t verify, but I wasn’t able to build any), about 50% of the due Air Force (only one new unit, still under construction), and some 10-15 ground divisions less (again, I didn’t made the calculations, but I builded 2 new ones only).
In the same period, France and U.K. had builded the dozens of new divisions, and had massed them on my borders!
So, may be italian ICs are REALLY too few? Please, consider that this might be true, after all.

 

[Montemurro]

The question is not only what a human player can do, but also whether the AI can manage a bigger industry with the same amount of resources available as before. It isn't unlikely that the AI industry would collapse because a lack resources would cause it to make a lot of stupid trade deals, while the human controlled industry might flourish.

Another matter is that, unlike IRL, Italy in HOI don't really need to expand/modernize their navy and airforce because neither is really necesarry, so the player can focus all their research/production on improving the army and make it much stronger and bigger than IRL. Only if you play historicaly and try to improve all three branches of your armed forces will you have a more realistic result. If 1.06, when it is released, forces the player to play more historical and presents a AI capable of better handling the industry, then it might be an idea to reevaluate the industrial capacities of Italy (and others.).

 

[unmerged(16045)]

The problem is exactly this. Despite I being a human, and thus presumably using my resources better than the AI usually does, my Italy, started in 1936, in 1940 was considerably weaker than the default Italy of 1939 scenario and, what's worst, even weaker considering that France and UK were stronger than in the 1939 scenario.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

A few months I posted a thread (‘Regio Esercito’) in which, along with other arguments, I sustained that Italy has too few ICs in all the scenarios, and I showed some calculation to sustain my affermation, based upon the real industrial outputs and military production of Italy from 1939 till the armistice (1943). But it was told me that it’s not just a matter of historicity, because HOI need its balancements and Italy might become too strong if its ICs would be increased.
In the last weeks I made an experimental game, playing Italy the more historically possible with the 1936 scenario. I invaded Ethiopia and Albania, I sustained Franco in Spain, and I finally joined Axis when France was close to collapse (April, 1940).
Well, optimizing my economy, and expending about 60% resources into technology and 40% into new units, by 1940 I roughly reached the right technological level for that period, but I just was able to build 1 battleship, 3 cruisers and 2 mountain divisions, and to upgrade existing airplanes by one level. This means, in April 1940 Italy had, with respect to the starting situation of the 1939 scenario (September 1939), 1 battleship more (but not four under construction, to be ready in une 1940!), 1 cruiser less, 17 subamarines less, an unknown number of transports and destroyers less (I didn’t verify, but I wasn’t able to build any), about 50% of the due Air Force (only one new unit, still under construction), and some 10-15 ground divisions less (again, I didn’t made the calculations, but I builded 2 new ones only).
In the same period, France and U.K. had builded the dozens of new divisions, and had massed them on my borders!
So, may be italian ICs are REALLY too few? Please, consider that this might be true, after all.

Sounds as if you did no Industrial growth. historical or not, within the game you can and as ITA you should. Remember, HOI is not a historical simulator, but a game with historical context and basis.

The data you presented [excellent detail BTW], would to me substantiate that ITA IC are in fact close enough to reality given the game balance issues which dominate. If you wish more IC for ITA, simple, trigger event 1013 or 1006 as you feel you like. Or edit province.csv and add IC to Roma or Napoli.

The arguement you are going to face in upward adjusting ITA IC is that in terms of game balance it would be detrimental. If you wish to have lengthy discussions with other experts, post into the CORE Italy thread. Most of that discussion is that ITA has TOO many IC [based upon game balance not historical build.

Why? because HOI does not model all of the issues that prevented ITA from focusing its military might in WWII. So one way to handle that is to manually handicap ITA via its IC to a point that abstractly resolves itself to the same point. Make any sense? BTW ITA is not the only country handled this way, several others are too, USA is a prime example. Go back and load up v1.01 and see how many IC have been taken away from pre-war USA. Discussions are that maybe even more need to be taken away ...

BTW i always enjoy your postings. Your depth of knowledge of Italy history during this time period is considerable. Keep up the work ....

 

[unmerged(16045)]

Sounds as if you did no Industrial growth. ....

Oh, yes, I did. All proinces startng with 1 or 2 ICs were upgraded by 2 or 1.

...If you wish more IC for ITA, simple, trigger event 1013 or 1006 as you feel you like. Or edit province.csv and add IC to Roma or Napoli.....

Eheh! :rofl:

... So one way to handle that is to manually handicap ITA via its IC to a point that abstractly resolves itself to the same point. Make any sense? ....

Yes, it does. My proposal to resolve this problem, was to have a weaker Italy (militarily speaking) by 1936 and 1939, and a stronger industrial capacity. This is both historical and balanced: weaker in the start, but potentially stronger then, if disastersdon't occur. About 1941 scenario, Italy is highly understrength with respect to its historical situation (and there are even gross deployment mistakes).

BTW i always enjoy your postings. Your depth of knowledge of Italy history during this time period is considerable. Keep up the work ....

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your words!

 

[unmerged(14102)]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your words!

nema na cema ....

 

[unmerged(26474)]

I'm with Hurin, italy starts with too many low IC points st the start of '36 scenario...I also know that we entered war without having the preparation of germany or UK but i read a lot about it and italy was in an interesting situation because industry wasn't prepared to war but had the potential and tecnologies to reach the level of other nations...The only problem is that chiefs in charge to take decisions choosed bad. My english is not very good sorry i'll try with some examples: Ita started the war with the biggest submarine fleet in the world but were only short or medium range submarines...and also the mainstay of the surface navy was made by very modern ships built in the second half of the '30s, very fast ships that lacked armour but were extremely fast(Vittorio Veneto BB after the battle of Matapan escaped to Taranto after being torpedoed by UK's planes and even damaged her velocity was around 22 knots!!! ).
So i think that are the ministers, the commanders and not industry or the soldiers that lost the war.
These are facts and italy wasn't so poor at the brokeout of the war...we only lacked inteligence at the head of the governament, then u can say what u want...

 

[unmerged(13914)]

Well, optimizing my economy, and expending about 60% resources into technology and 40% into new units, by 1940 I roughly reached the right technological level for that period, but I just was able to build 1 battleship, 3 cruisers and 2 mountain divisions, and to upgrade existing airplanes by one level. This means, in April 1940 Italy had, with respect to the starting situation of the 1939 scenario (September 1939), 1 battleship more (but not four under construction, to be ready in une 1940!), 1 cruiser less, 17 subamarines less, an unknown number of transports and destroyers less (I didn’t verify, but I wasn’t able to build any), about 50% of the due Air Force (only one new unit, still under construction), and some 10-15 ground divisions less (again, I didn’t made the calculations, but I builded 2 new ones only).

I don't think the problem is that Italy has too few IC. Italy had 38 million people in 1923 (which gives maximum number of adults in 1941) and has 124 IC at start. This gives Italy 3.2 IC per million, better than USSR (2.6), Japan (2.2) but not better than France (5.0) or Germany (4.8). This seems right historically.

The problem is that research costs in HOI are too high. I did a similar study to yours of Poland and Germany, to see how much of the economy in 1936-39 had to go to research to get all the techs that are added by 1939.

Germany gets no more than about 450,000 IC during that time, after subtracting consumer spending. It needs to spend 384,000 just for all the tech it should have, plus 154,000 for new units and supplying existing ones. Because the AI usually doesn't spend more than about 25 % of IC on tech, it will always do less research than Germany did historically, and have more units.

Poland gets about 100,000 IC during that time, after consumer spending, and needs 51,000 for tech, plus 63,000 for new units and supplying existing ones. Again, because the Poland AI doesn't spend 50 % on tech, Poland winds up with more units but less tech.

Germany can make up some of the difference with tech sharing, but most minor countries can't. Rather than give Italy more ICs, research costs should be cut.

 

[unmerged(19411)]

In the Super AI Bundle research costs have been reduced based on Math Guy's calculations.

Give it a try.

 

[unmerged(16966)]

its pretty easy to kick butt as italy anyway

Its easy to kick butt as Italy, more IC's would make it even easier, but if the resources dont go up accordingly, than yeah, it would more accurately model italy's lack of resources. Many Italian battleships didnt even have enough oil to leave port. The thing about countries like Italy and Romania in this game, is that their biggest weakness was a lack of leadership. That is what the human player provides and thats what makes them kick more ass than they could back then

 

[kionas76]

Actually Italy was very poorly industialised compared to Ger/Fra/UK not to mention USA/USSR,infact Italy and Japan had the smaller IC historically and a great need for raw materials.If you include the bad italian civil and military leadership you can understand the reasons for defeat(some of them).There is 1 bonus:its up to you as Italy to deside when and if you will join the war and therefore you should wait untill you forces have build up so to overcame Mediter. allies and only!!.You are not Germany to wage war against anybody.So be patient and clever is the way to have a superb HoI game with Italy.

 

[unmerged(23946)]

After you subtract the CG requirements for the UK in prewar years, aren't Italy and GB's available IC's about the same anyway? Italy also has the benefit of conquering Yugoslavia and Brazil so I think its IC base should stay the same.

 

[unmerged(16045)]

The problem is in these terms, in my opinion:

Italy starts too strong in the begin of HOI 1936 and 1939 scenarios, but too weak on the long terms. :wacko: It is far too easy to conduct a victorious war for Italy, if it declares war sufficiently fast; but, if it waits and relies upon industry, the other powers grow enormously more, and a war becomes much harder a matter.

Historically, the problem was exactly on opposite tems. In 1936 Italy had very few military resources; moreover, all of better troops and materials had been sent to Ethiopia, or were to go to Spain; the army left home was little a thing, and there weren't storages for eventual new recruits. For example, a few later, when Germany invaded Austria, Italy mobilized, but new troops lacked even of uniforms and barracks. Many had to sleep massed aside the roads! o
In 1939, despite a considerable output in new ships, airplanes, and infantry divisions, Italy was still not ready. In May 1940, the HQs asked Mussolini to wait entering war, for they would have been ready only in 1943. Mussolini didn't listen them, but only because he believed the peace treaty to be behind doors. Even so, he ordered that Navy alone was to took initiative, for it was the better suited, while the other two forces had to stay in defence, as they were clearly not still fit to face the British and French.
Finally, the military situation of Italy was not bad by 1941, because troops were better equiped, and with the experience of war the new fighting tactics had been sufficiently understood. Italians fought well from that moment onwards, but their behaviour is still generally understimated, because their initial loss of prestige had made them just a support for the Germans. They weren't any longer the poor army of 1940, but their fate was now bound to that of Germans, and they were eventually defeated along with them on all fronts.

By the way, fuel became a real problem only by the mid of 1942, but supplies were never sufficient throughout the war. Whilst military production of new units and machines never decreased until armistice (1943).

I say, a balanced and historical Italy sould have less troops and awful supplies in 1936 and 1939 scenarios, but better ICs, as to be terribly weak in a too early war, but able to prepare well if it can resist the temptation of breaking neutrality.
All the contray, Italy in the 1941 scenario is considerably below its real military strength of that period, but most of its armies should be under German control.

 

[unmerged(16966)]

My strategy as Italy

WHen i play as Italy, i take eithopia and albania since they are of no risk, than i take all my forces out of eithopia, cancel supply shipments to eithopia, transport all the troops to north africa, build up a powerful force, while also improving my industry, and than I take egypt when war breaks out. I also sure up the med. I take gibraltar, suez, malta etc. Seems to work well for me

 

[unmerged(23663)]

A few months I posted a thread (‘Regio Esercito’) in which, along with other arguments, I sustained that Italy has too few ICs in all the scenarios, and I showed some calculation to sustain my affermation, based upon the real industrial outputs and military production of Italy from 1939 till the armistice (1943). But it was told me that it’s not just a matter of historicity, because HOI need its balancements and Italy might become too strong if its ICs would be increased.
In the last weeks I made an experimental game, playing Italy the more historically possible with the 1936 scenario. I invaded Ethiopia and Albania, I sustained Franco in Spain, and I finally joined Axis when France was close to collapse (April, 1940).
Well, optimizing my economy, and expending about 60% resources into technology and 40% into new units, by 1940 I roughly reached the right technological level for that period, but I just was able to build 1 battleship, 3 cruisers and 2 mountain divisions, and to upgrade existing airplanes by one level. This means, in April 1940 Italy had, with respect to the starting situation of the 1939 scenario (September 1939), 1 battleship more (but not four under construction, to be ready in une 1940!), 1 cruiser less, 17 subamarines less, an unknown number of transports and destroyers less (I didn’t verify, but I wasn’t able to build any), about 50% of the due Air Force (only one new unit, still under construction), and some 10-15 ground divisions less (again, I didn’t made the calculations, but I builded 2 new ones only).
In the same period, France and U.K. had builded the dozens of new divisions, and had massed them on my borders!
So, may be italian ICs are REALLY too few? Please, consider that this might be true, after all.

I think that the problem is systemic. The game is not designed to have historic numbers of units produced. This may be a playability issue that the designers chose to work around by limiting the sizes of all military forces. After all there would be a lot of micro-management if you were playing the SU in 42 with +400 divs.

I played an AI game recently using, CORE 0.7, to see what would happen with Germany vs the SU. The game unfolded in reasonably historic manner, minus the Balkans diversion, with Barbarossa starting in April 1941 and the Germans winning before Christmas 41.

I had close look at close look at both sides. The AI research effort for both was reasonably historic. The Germans were ahead on tank research and lagging in aviation. However, where the real discrepancies occurred were in number of land and air units both sides had. The total Germany army had 127 inf and 15 Arm divs (all fronts) whilst the SU had 104 inf and 27 arm divs. Now Germany started the real Barbarossa with 177 divs (20 Pz) invading the the SU, whilst the Russians + 300 divs and created at least another 400 before the end of 41.

Thus it does not surprise that Italy can not build an historic number of units during the game. I would like to know which, if any, country can?

 

[unmerged(14102)]

As i said earlier, it is a balance issue. MathGuy brought up the need to adjust everything, and you would. not an easy task. and in the end, you return to where you started in terms of game balance, because most people would find the relative country strengths to about correct.

I have had games where i was over 350 active div's playing as SOV, and yes the housekeeping is horrendous.

 

[unmerged(26474)]

But instead of thinking what the italian industry have done historically, why nobody thinks about the real objective of this game ?
It give u a nation in the historical conditions of the year in which u starts and then YOU decide what to do not history!
Italy had the possibility to enter war in 1943 with a considerable force strong enough to beat or at least to face UK ? Well, game should put u in grade to do it...U have not to enter war in 1940 if u can't,u wan't or u'r not prepared to...
U are Mussolini in the game and U decide.I think italy should have the possibilities to do this(enter war in '43 with considerable forces) and not to enter war imprepared in 1940...
Am i right or i only wrote many words in horrible english ?

 

[unmerged(26474)]

The problem is that research costs in HOI are too high. I did a similar study to yours of Poland and Germany, to see how much of the economy in 1936-39 had to go to research to get all the techs that are added by 1939.

I think u are right!

 

[unmerged(23132)]

The economic model of HOI isn't historical at all. It's all play balance issue. (for a start, the level of rubber needed to run the economy is a joke).

If it was more like in IRL, it would be a great losse for Italy, not an improvement. Only Japan would lose more than Italy in relative strengh.

Unlike in HOI, Italy would have big trouble with coal and steel (Germany supplied Italy with coal), as well as fuel of course.

The reason why oil APPEARs to be a problem only in 1942 is because the planners did there job. So the level of activity took into account that the stock couldn't be properly replenished. If I recall correctly, as soon as 1941, oil was a major issue in what to do with the navy (a battleship needs so much). By the way, that was the same for Germany (availabilty of oil was a limiting factor).

From late 40 on, Germany controlled all the oil available for the Axis country in Europe, and she alone could produce a lot of synthetic oil. So almost every tons of oil "won" by Italy is a ton of oil "allowed" by Germany.

And that's without talking of the bureaucratic mess.

The level of production of most equipement was very low when compared with anybody else.

While it's true that the Italian army performed better than is usually thought, because the Germans more than once used them as scapegoat and the British often preferred being beatten by Germans than by Italians, I don't think the Italian industry suffered from the same bias. And especially not in HOI.

 

[Tamerlan]

.... not better than France (5.0) or Germany (4.8). QUOTE]

Where these computations come from? I mean the number for France seems too high, isn't it? But this does not take into account the colonial empire's population, neither the migrations flow (likely to be positive for France and negative for Italy)... I am not sure that it has a lot of impact, but such a computation might lead to the idea to some wrong ideas...