Italian research in CORE 0.11

[unmerged(51143)]

How did they operate in reality? Was their focus tactical support or was it strategic operations? What little I've read of the Regia Aeronautica is that it operated on a tactical level primarily, in support of the Army, but I could very well be wrong here. If you have access to history of the air arm, preferably in English, for it's status in 1936 I would very much like to read it (Italy is one of the nations I don't know too much about - but since I'm only human I can't know everything about everything, which you seem to think I should).

Italian Air Force developed autonomous doctrines of operation, and this is an example why Italy is so difficult to simulate, but had the planes for other ops!
I mean, RA inspired to strategic theories of Douhet, and after Balbo; but its planes (a matter that also Luftwaffe had) were all projected as light or medium bombers, Piaggio P108 (forget CORE tech-tree for this plane) came too late and was produced in a very few units even if it was a very good strategical bomber.
Thus, Italian planes were not designed to bomb strategic objectives as primary targets, but in the first months of war tried to do it as good as possible (e.g. Malta).
When war entered the phase of terrestrial and naval combats, it was evident that air support was needed, thus RA was forced to do what she did not want to, what her pilots were not trained to, with sometime good planes but then badly used; indeed, the only thing well done (in the limits of Italian planes, number or quality - Cr42 was obsolete, but "5"-class fighters were at the same level of lattest models of the main powers) was air combat, where piloting ability of Italian pilots proved very well (lacks were other, like never-built RADAR ground stations).

 

[baylox]

This could be considered an insult, and it is totally wrong: may I remember you we are the 6th world industrial power (not considering China), and that our GNP is very close to French and British one (both two overtaken by China in 2005 as Italy)? And do you believe French and Britain are all rich and heavy industrilised? But you make one more error: modern countries are post-industrialised, industry is no more the only great wealth-maker.
Southern Italy has big industrial areas (with one of the biggest European steel factories in Taranto, or the big ports of Taranto, Naples and Gioia Tauro, car-making in Naples, shipyards etc.), instead Northern is more widely industrilised beacuase of many middle and light factories even in small town, supporting other heavy industries or producing manufactured articles for direct selling or for foreign factories (e.g. all the luxury parts of German luxury cars): surely Southern Italy is not the best place for richness or production, but Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest and most productive areas in Europe.
If you prefer to point on military industry, Italy is today able to produce everything by itself, from missiles to planes, guns to rifles, tanks to lorries, RADARs to high-technologies devices; moreover, we have some world-class (or even world-leader) firms, as Beretta for rifles and pistols, Oto-Melara for light guns, AerMacchi for light ground-support and training planes, Agusta (also owner of Westland) for helicopters.

Since this doesn't regard the game I won't respond to it at length. Suffice to say that you so far haven't understood what Semi and Fully Industrialized is supposed to mean, which is what I was referring to (of course Italy today is post-industrial, most of the Western world is, but we were talking about in-game techs here).

Italian Air Force developed autonomous doctrines of operation, and this is an example why Italy is so difficult to simulate, but had the planes for other ops!
I mean, RA inspired to strategic theories of Douhet, and after Balbo; but its planes (a matter that also Luftwaffe had) were all projected as light or medium bombers, Piaggio P108 (forget CORE tech-tree for this plane) came too late and was produced in a very few units even if it was a very good strategical bomber.
Thus, Italian planes were not designed to bomb strategic objectives as primary targets, but in the first months of war tried to do it as good as possible (e.g. Malta).
When war entered the phase of terrestrial and naval combats, it was evident that air support was needed, thus RA was forced to do what she did not want to, what her pilots were not trained to, with sometime good planes but then badly used; indeed, the only thing well done (in the limits of Italian planes, number or quality - Cr42 was obsolete, but "5"-class fighters were at the same level of lattest models of the main powers) was air combat, where piloting ability of Italian pilots proved very well (lacks were other, like never-built RADAR ground stations).

It could be interesting to make the RA an Independent force, for the reasons you state, since that will hamper their tactical role - which would suit well with what you describe. Thanks!

 

[unmerged(51143)]

It could be interesting to make the RA an Independent force, for the reasons you state, since that will hamper their tactical role - which would suit well with what you describe. Thanks!

Just the last two things.
I have found no way to research "indipendent air arm", is this technology dependant on other tch trees than air doctrines? Because I saw only "inter-war army control" as previous-needed tech - and having it, I do not find any other not-researched tech that is jamming me from researching "i.a.a.".
Regia Aeronautica was the first air force to experience air supply during war operations, probably, by having done it to supply advancing Italian divisions in Ethiopia (the African country had a too bad road system to base troops supply only on that).

 

[baylox]

Just the last two things.
I have found no way to research "indipendent air arm", is this technology dependant on other tch trees than air doctrines? Because I saw only "inter-war army control" as previous-needed tech - and having it, I do not find any other not-researched tech that is jamming me from researching "i.a.a.".
Regia Aeronautica was the first air force to experience air supply during war operations, probably, by having done it to supply advancing Italian divisions in Ethiopia (the African country had a too bad road system to base troops supply only on that).

That is an undocumented requirement that I've forgotten to add to the FAQ (I think) - it requires 1930s Aviation Industry to research (which Italy doesn't start with).

 

[unmerged(51143)]

That is an undocumented requirement that I've forgotten to add to the FAQ (I think) - it requires 1930s Aviation Industry to research (which Italy doesn't start with).

Excellent, fortunately I have started researching it.

 

[unmerged(21069)]

yeah, FilTur is right, Italy's airforce was made an independent air arm in the late '20's, and had a highly, highly, centralized direction (to a fault, in fact), Italy should probably start w/ those techs or maybe w/ blueprints for them

 

[baylox]

Reading and thinking more about this issue I do agree that the Regia Aeronautica should be an independent air arm, but I'm not sure how to balance things - if needed. One thing that I would like to change is the 1930s Aircraft Industry requirement for Independent Air Arm. It's a gamey requirement that doesn't really fit with history, but it's also a very good way to shut minors out of it without any AI coding. Perhaps I'll just leave things as they are and give Italy IAA (breaking the requirement of the 1930s AI, but that's no big deal). Having only 4 tech slots and not very good Air Doctrine teams may be balance enough, along with some AI ignores for Air Doctrines. I'd still like to make it a bit harder for the player, to reflect the historical difficulties discussed here. I'll have to give Italy a test run and see how it looks (as a counter-argument, using in-game terms, it could be said that Italy hasn't finished researching Independent Air Arm Formation because of the troubles they had).

 

[McNaughton]

HoI2 spans an era that you are somewhat restricted as to the changes you can make on your nation's non-military development. That means, you cannot really affect your nation's industry or ability to research beyond influencing specific areas over others. You cannot simply make your nation into an industrial giant in the 4 years prior to the war, no nation can positively change their economy in that period of time.

Basically, as Italy, you have to come up with some critical decisions. How much of the industrial techs do you feel you can afford to research. Do you just focus on getting key basic industrial techs, maximizing your IC output, or, do you expend energy at reducing the time to produce (Thereby total cost) of land units by researching a choice of the weaponry techs (small arms, heavy equipment, etc.)?

Italy was actually at its peak in 1936, the economy was doing well, but was pretty much at its contemporary peak. This was why Mussolini was looking outward to find economic growth. Ethiopia was done to enlarge the colonial empire, Albania was done to improve the economy. Italy was starting a rearmanents program, but, due to the problem that a lot of industry was already expended on naval developments, meaning that the armed forces were probably not going to get their equipment until the late 1940s. I don't think that there really was much of an option for Italy, to further industralize, as it pretty much was at its maximum.

 

[McNaughton]

Regarding the CR.20 or CR.32 debate, the FACT is, the CR.20 represents the technical ability of the aircraft model used. The CR.32 is kind of a misfit, it isn't the early model, nor is it the late model. When determining models, we have decided to use models that fit in with the technical aspect of the unit, rather than the historic namesake (for example, a request was made to have the P-40 be the Dutch late war fighter, as it was used by the Dutch late in the war, but, the P-40 fits in with an early interceptor and will remain that way regardless of when a nation used the aircraft).

The CR.20 is the correct model to be used with this type of unit. Possibly it may be a good idea to give Italy blueprints for the pre-war interceptor, meaning it will be easier to get the CR.42.

 

[McNaughton]

As I am revamping the land doctrine trees, I am totally against the notion of players deciding the doctrine route that they are to use.

Do you undestand the complete and absolute ramifications a military will face by changing its historic doctrine mid-stream? I don't think that you do, as Italy actually TRIED this, and failed HORRIBLY in WW2.

The War of Rapid Decision, Italy's response to Franco-German doctrines of the time (Methodical Battle and Operation Level), was a theoretical combination of both doctrines, which in theory would work extremely well against either opponents.

However, theory is one thing, practise is another. Most Italian generals were against this new theory, which was one of mechanization and modernization. When speaking of tanks, a General admitted to their value, but, stated that for Italy, the most valuable asset is manpower.

Military commanders were entrenched in their theories, so too was the pre-era of training. Italy's armed forces had remained in-tact post-Great War, and thereby had a continual line of power in the nation. Their military thinking was linear, being a progression from experiences and developments from those experiences. Germany lost everything post-Great War, thereby could start from scratch, and had many lessons to learn. It is easy for a nation like Germany to create and correctly implement such a doctrine, when their military was really lacking a post-war doctrine. Italy had baggage in 1936, Germany didn't, it is easy to say "I as a player want Italy to fight just like Germany", but not in CORE2, as we try to keep a semblence of reality.

The military was designed, up to 1936, to fight a war against Yugoslavia, France, or other southern European nations.

This after Italy changed doctrines to semi-represent Germany's armour and motorized heavy doctrine. Imagine the disaster should Italy have tried to copy it exactly! Frankly, Italian ability in WW2 would have been much greater had their doctrines been reinforced to fight a war that their military had been preparing for ever since 1919. Changing focus in 1938, so close to the next war, left Italy in chaos.

xxxxxxxxxx

In future CORE2 doctrines, you will face a much greater degree of choice, where no doctrine is totally overbearing in every aspect for a period of time (say like Operational Level is initially in the game).

What I did, was to streamline each doctrine to initially be exactly the same from one another. Each has similar choices (to mechanize, to not mechanize, to focus on offense or defense, etc.). However, unlike in Vanilla, CORE2 doctrines will add bonus' not just to entire land units, but, actually increase stats for specific land units, and even decrease for others.

Italy and Japan share the same doctrine (War of Rapid Decision), since their general doctrine supported a shorter war of a decisive battle concluding the conflict. However, both historically went different ways. Japan took a non-mechanized, more offensive aspect of warfare, while Italy took a mechanized, more defensive aspect of warfare.

In the future CORE2 doctrine, paths such as mechanization will give bonus' to specific unit types (anything large armoured and fast), but, also take away from other areas (faster units get more focus, thereby slower units aren't quite as capable). As Italy, if you choose the mechanized role, your motorized military will be very capable, but, since most of the military are unmotorized forces, you will actually be handicapping the bulk of your troops. The same thing will be done for Germany's doctrine, as taking the mechanized route, your motorized forces will be strong, but a handicap for your unmotorized forces (this is felt less due to Germany's better NCO and lower officer class). So, even if you do give Italy, Germany's doctrine, you still will face the same problems, as the bulk of your troops organization and morale will actually be lower than if you take the non-mechanized route.

Attachments will have organization increases. For example, if you choose non-mechanized tech, armoured battalions get organization increases (as the potential of the tank was recognized by all, but, the impression on how it should be used is different), along with artillery. This way, you are encouraged to develop a specific range of attachments as well as divisions that may suit your doctrine development. As Italy, it will be expensive and difficult to field a modern mechanized army, like Germany, but, it is possible.

Realistically, Italy did develop a good doctrine, very capable of dealing with German and French opposing doctrines. However, it lacked the industrial ability to develop its military to have enough of the equipment required for this doctrine. Combat in North Africa required the rest of the military to have virtually all of its motorized equipment stripped to replace losses (most Celere divisions lost their motorized artillery for example).

So, it isn't that Italy is given a bad doctrine (rather, it won't be), but that it was unable to meet the strengths of the doctrines due to other constraints.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Reading and thinking more about this issue I do agree that the Regia Aeronautica should be an independent air arm, but I'm not sure how to balance things - if needed. One thing that I would like to change is the 1930s Aircraft Industry requirement for Independent Air Arm. It's a gamey requirement that doesn't really fit with history, but it's also a very good way to shut minors out of it without any AI coding. Perhaps I'll just leave things as they are and give Italy IAA (breaking the requirement of the 1930s AI, but that's no big deal). Having only 4 tech slots and not very good Air Doctrine teams may be balance enough, along with some AI ignores for Air Doctrines. I'd still like to make it a bit harder for the player, to reflect the historical difficulties discussed here. I'll have to give Italy a test run and see how it looks (as a counter-argument, using in-game terms, it could be said that Italy hasn't finished researching Independent Air Arm Formation because of the troubles they had).

I know it may look strange but...giving Italy air industry '30 would not be an historical mistake for most aspects: Italy was very advanced in aerodynamics (having one super-sonic wind tunnel since mid '30ies), Italian industry designed excellent transport planes until the end of the decade (like SM81, pressurised cockpit, oxygen and radio, and capacity to fly from Ukraine to Japan without any stopover in 1942) and was engaged in other advanced projects, but Italian industry failed to develop a self-made powerfull engine, so from Re2001 and Mc202 on Italian industries had to build German engines on patent.
Surely this aspect is to be examined deeply.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

HoI2 spans an era that you are somewhat restricted as to the changes you can make on your nation's non-military development. That means, you cannot really affect your nation's industry or ability to research beyond influencing specific areas over others. You cannot simply make your nation into an industrial giant in the 4 years prior to the war, no nation can positively change their economy in that period of time.

Basically, as Italy, you have to come up with some critical decisions. How much of the industrial techs do you feel you can afford to research. Do you just focus on getting key basic industrial techs, maximizing your IC output, or, do you expend energy at reducing the time to produce (Thereby total cost) of land units by researching a choice of the weaponry techs (small arms, heavy equipment, etc.)?

Italy was actually at its peak in 1936, the economy was doing well, but was pretty much at its contemporary peak. This was why Mussolini was looking outward to find economic growth. Ethiopia was done to enlarge the colonial empire, Albania was done to improve the economy. Italy was starting a rearmanents program, but, due to the problem that a lot of industry was already expended on naval developments, meaning that the armed forces were probably not going to get their equipment until the late 1940s. I don't think that there really was much of an option for Italy, to further industralize, as it pretty much was at its maximum.

I agree: my suggestion was that, if Italy gives up to her military "heavy" programs, could become a more advanced country by investing her resources only on civilian purposes.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

The CR.20 is the correct model to be used with this type of unit. Possibly it may be a good idea to give Italy blueprints for the pre-war interceptor, meaning it will be easier to get the CR.42.

No need, Italian start with Cr42 as her top-level fighter, only starting squadrons have Cr20 instead of Cr32 but have to be upgraded.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

As I am revamping the land doctrine trees, I am totally against the notion of players deciding the doctrine route that they are to use.

Do you undestand the complete and absolute ramifications a military will face by changing its historic doctrine mid-stream? I don't think that you do, as Italy actually TRIED this, and failed HORRIBLY in WW2.

The War of Rapid Decision, Italy's response to Franco-German doctrines of the time (Methodical Battle and Operation Level), was a theoretical combination of both doctrines, which in theory would work extremely well against either opponents.

However, theory is one thing, practise is another. Most Italian generals were against this new theory, which was one of mechanization and modernization. When speaking of tanks, a General admitted to their value, but, stated that for Italy, the most valuable asset is manpower.

Military commanders were entrenched in their theories, so too was the pre-era of training. Italy's armed forces had remained in-tact post-Great War, and thereby had a continual line of power in the nation. Their military thinking was linear, being a progression from experiences and developments from those experiences. Germany lost everything post-Great War, thereby could start from scratch, and had many lessons to learn. It is easy for a nation like Germany to create and correctly implement such a doctrine, when their military was really lacking a post-war doctrine. Italy had baggage in 1936, Germany didn't, it is easy to say "I as a player want Italy to fight just like Germany", but not in CORE2, as we try to keep a semblence of reality.

The military was designed, up to 1936, to fight a war against Yugoslavia, France, or other southern European nations.

This after Italy changed doctrines to semi-represent Germany's armour and motorized heavy doctrine. Imagine the disaster should Italy have tried to copy it exactly! Frankly, Italian ability in WW2 would have been much greater had their doctrines been reinforced to fight a war that their military had been preparing for ever since 1919. Changing focus in 1938, so close to the next war, left Italy in chaos.

xxxxxxxxxx

In future CORE2 doctrines, you will face a much greater degree of choice, where no doctrine is totally overbearing in every aspect for a period of time (say like Operational Level is initially in the game).

What I did, was to streamline each doctrine to initially be exactly the same from one another. Each has similar choices (to mechanize, to not mechanize, to focus on offense or defense, etc.). However, unlike in Vanilla, CORE2 doctrines will add bonus' not just to entire land units, but, actually increase stats for specific land units, and even decrease for others.

Italy and Japan share the same doctrine (War of Rapid Decision), since their general doctrine supported a shorter war of a decisive battle concluding the conflict. However, both historically went different ways. Japan took a non-mechanized, more offensive aspect of warfare, while Italy took a mechanized, more defensive aspect of warfare.

In the future CORE2 doctrine, paths such as mechanization will give bonus' to specific unit types (anything large armoured and fast), but, also take away from other areas (faster units get more focus, thereby slower units aren't quite as capable). As Italy, if you choose the mechanized role, your motorized military will be very capable, but, since most of the military are unmotorized forces, you will actually be handicapping the bulk of your troops. The same thing will be done for Germany's doctrine, as taking the mechanized route, your motorized forces will be strong, but a handicap for your unmotorized forces (this is felt less due to Germany's better NCO and lower officer class). So, even if you do give Italy, Germany's doctrine, you still will face the same problems, as the bulk of your troops organization and morale will actually be lower than if you take the non-mechanized route.

Attachments will have organization increases. For example, if you choose non-mechanized tech, armoured battalions get organization increases (as the potential of the tank was recognized by all, but, the impression on how it should be used is different), along with artillery. This way, you are encouraged to develop a specific range of attachments as well as divisions that may suit your doctrine development. As Italy, it will be expensive and difficult to field a modern mechanized army, like Germany, but, it is possible.

Realistically, Italy did develop a good doctrine, very capable of dealing with German and French opposing doctrines. However, it lacked the industrial ability to develop its military to have enough of the equipment required for this doctrine. Combat in North Africa required the rest of the military to have virtually all of its motorized equipment stripped to replace losses (most Celere divisions lost their motorized artillery for example).

So, it isn't that Italy is given a bad doctrine (rather, it won't be), but that it was unable to meet the strengths of the doctrines due to other constraints.

My suggestions was to give the player the capacity to rebuild, fully and from the beginning (so abandoning all, or nearly all for navy, of the combat bonus he had previously), his army/navy doctrine: overall army doctrines, I think it is right that Italy or UK start with the same Great War-like doctrine, but I was very disappointed seeing that no modern evolution of this doctrine in the sense of a mechanised army is really possible; but, with a good revision of doctrines, the matter could be easily solved without "jumping" from a tech tree to another.

 

[McNaughton]

My suggestions was to give the player the capacity to rebuild, fully and from the beginning (so abandoning all, or nearly all for navy, of the combat bonus he had previously), his army/navy doctrine: overall army doctrines, I think it is right that Italy or UK start with the same Great War-like doctrine, but I was very disappointed seeing that no modern evolution of this doctrine in the sense of a mechanised army is really possible; but, with a good revision of doctrines, the matter could be easily solved without "jumping" from a tech tree to another.

It isn't possible, too much baggage for this to be a realistic option. You are merely getting a snip of history in this game, things, a lot of things, happened before this, and cannot be ignored.

However, you should note that doctrines are not 'new and old', or 'better and worse', as in the Grand Battleplan doctrine currently in HoI2, the later techs are comparable to the Operational Level in ability and focus (of you take Operational Stages, for example).

As I said in my description, no doctrine is 'the best', but will offer players different opportunities. The Methodical Battle doctrine (replacing Grand Battleplan) has potential to be very powerful, very useful against Operational Level, just depending on your situation, and what units you actually build as a result of your doctrine choices (mid to late war doctrines are very effective at countering bonus' of Operational Level).

Germany's Mechanized Operational Level doctrine is a blitzkrieg doctrine, but, that doesn't mean that it is the best doctrine in the game. War of Rapid Decision's Infiltration doctrine is just as effective in combat, but on a different focus (relying on non-mechanized forces, in different, harsher terrain unsuited for mechanized).

 

[unmerged(26501)]

Very pissed of Italian

I think this just goes to show that most people on this forum and doin the work are bigoted against Italians. It is almost impossible to play as italy. and when someone points out stuff that was left out to make italy better, it is immediateley countered with, well it would screw things up. If its historical include it, and dont be bigoted against italians, by making them shittier just cause you want them to be. So include all the things that were suggested, and quit being bigoted against Italians, you fucks

 

[unmerged(19841)]

I think this just goes to show that most people on this forum and doin the work are bigoted against Italians. It is almost impossible to play as italy. and when someone points out stuff that was left out to make italy better, it is immediateley countered with, well it would screw things up. If its historical include it, and dont be bigoted against italians, by making them shittier just cause you want them to be. So include all the things that were suggested, and quit being bigoted against Italians, you fucks

EASY dude It's just a game.....If the change that you want are not there tweak it yourself its your game,I do it all the time

 

[JRShield]

It is almost impossible to play as italy.

Did Il Duce have it easy in real life?

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Did Il Duce have it easy in real life?

If someone "played" bad in real life, the Duce was, not Italy: it is right that, keeping Italy and only It, it is very difficult (at a not easy level) to make the same historical things; but Mussolini, if he had been a real statist and commander, would have "played" in a better way with the same resources, so a good player should have this option during the game because the way Italy made the war was not the best Italy could make it.

 

[JRShield]

So what you're saying is that Italy should have more IC. but Mussolini as HoS would have a negative modifier on it.