Is it too easy to bring Italy to the center ?

[vonRocko]

What is wrong with having this "what if" situation in the game?
It is interesting to explore. Purist don't have to use it.

[Offworlder]

JastaV: since you're Italian you know exactly what I'm talking about. The Italian army in WWI had all the technical services (artillery, engineers etc), made up of Northerners while the PBI's were mostly southerners. Southerners were by temperment not up to the rigours of mountain warfare (they come from a different climate after all) and were driven mercilessly forward by northern generals who continually dispariged their compatriots efforts. This was a weakness that only the Rumanian army shared with the Italians. This divisevness was carried on in WWII with more or less the same result (appies to the Rumanians too).

As to Cadorna, he was a fool. He insisted on the same tactics despite horrendous losses. Caporetto was a disaster because he had the bulk of his divisions deployed well forward despite the fact that there were clear indications that the CP were planning a counterstrike. He suffered one of the only outflanking manouvers in west in the whole of WWII, losing massive numbers of men and more importantly, guns. True they were faced with some of the best mountain warfare units of the time like the Alpenkorps which included several would be generals of WWII in their ranks, but it was Cadorna's dismissal of the possibility that the enemy was able to strike back that really nearly destroyed the Italian army. Incidentally Cadorna's executions etc, didn't really have much effect on the army. It was the milder regime of Diaz, which was very similar to the one that Petain adopted at Verdun for the French army, that restored the Italian army.

It is noteworthy that even the AH army, despite its divisions in national formations, normally included officers of the same nationality in command. High command was reserved for Austrian and Hungarians though. Only Slav formations had 'foreign' officers, which partly explains their dismal performance.

[jastaV]

JastaV: since you're Italian you know exactly what I'm talking about. The Italian army in WWI had all the technical services (artillery, engineers etc), made up of Northerners while the PBI's were mostly southerners. Southerners were by temperment not up to the rigours of mountain warfare (they come from a different climate after all) and were driven mercilessly forward by northern generals who continually dispariged their compatriots efforts. This was a weakness that only the Rumanian army shared with the Italians. This divisevness was carried on in WWII with more or less the same result (appies to the Rumanians too).

As to Cadorna, he was a fool. He insisted on the same tactics despite horrendous losses. Caporetto was a disaster because he had the bulk of his divisions deployed well forward despite the fact that there were clear indications that the CP were planning a counterstrike. He suffered one of the only outflanking manouvers in west in the whole of WWII, losing massive numbers of men and more importantly, guns. True they were faced with some of the best mountain warfare units of the time like the Alpenkorps which included several would be generals of WWII in their ranks, but it was Cadorna's dismissal of the possibility that the enemy was able to strike back that really nearly destroyed the Italian army. Incidentally Cadorna's executions etc, didn't really have much effect on the army. It was the milder regime of Diaz, which was very similar to the one that Petain adopted at Verdun for the French army, that restored the Italian army.

It is noteworthy that even the AH army, despite its divisions in national formations, normally included officers of the same nationality in command. High command was reserved for Austrian and Hungarians though. Only Slav formations had 'foreign' officers, which partly explains their dismal performance.

My post was not aimed to correct your observations, mostly right, but to add some ones, and to enlarge speculation to whole conflict.
One of the aspects not yet evidenced here is the National Question.
While most european powers found their national "character" so to form National States in late middle age, (Britain, France), in the XV century, (Spain), in the XVII-XVIII centuries, (Russia, Netherland) Italy was unified in 1870! That was just a territorial and administrative unification indeed! It's definitly true your observation as regard the low regional cohesion of the Italian Army.

Then, a matter to point out and to exploit in game term is the paramount influenece of the geographical nature of the theater of operations over the "positive" performance of Italian forces in WWI.
Italian Armies performed very bad in the wars for Italian Indipendence and Unifications of the XIX century. It was only by active support of France and Prussia that Italy could claim territorial gains against Austria.
It's noteworth in 1866 a country with a strong navy tradition as Italy was beaten by Austria at Lissa!
Possibly Italian Armies would be wiped out of the scene soon in a manouvering war. The high mountain nature of the Alpine Front on the north and the rought nature of the Carso terrain to the Eastern Front greately help Italian to hold for years in a trench war.
Having not played the game yet, have no idea as things work there...... [color="Purple"]but having to balance things on the Italian front I guess terrein and its effect over combact is the card to play![/color]

[Nikel]

Just a side note jastaV

Do not know when spanish national character was formed if ever was, but I know where it is right now, my location in Expaña is not casual


Sorry for the side note, I know that modern political discussion is not allowed