Anyone out there given this a crack after DoMan and I put it together?
Why is Italy an allied power?
-
I know some folks say that each turn is 12 months, because the US can only declare war (if not attacked) by Turn 4, and the US didn’t enter the war until 1918, but it sounds like a number of games are going to Turns 7 and 8 (or more), which would make the war last until 1921 or 22. I didn’t see in the rules anywhere (unless I missed it, very possible) that turns were 12 months. It may be that the design of the game is such that each turn is 6 months, given that it seems to take 8 turns at least to win; just that the US is allowed to enter the game too soon.
The rules do not allow US to enter till turn 4 or tanks, which in terms of passage of time is 1917. Ergo the result. The war could continue into 1922. It could be the allowance for early entry and early tank is less realistic an explanation than a game where turns are 6 months. Obviously the game does not follow any realistic measure of time, but what we do have is two events that occur in the same time frame and that is more or less realistic to assign turns as 1 year as opposed to anything else.
-
And again you cross the line between game arguments and historical arguments at will, ignoring the distinction. There are at least two issues here. 1. Is it plausible, that, especially given CP success, Italy would have pursued its national self interest through cooperation with Austria and Germany? (I have been saying yes) 2. Would such an idea be a good thing to implement an official rule for in this game that has already been released? (to that I have been saying probably not/no).
Yes you can hold on to that slim chance, but that is not a concern for this game and the OP posits the concern regarding this game, not the fantasy game. based on the information provided the same chance exists for Germany and France to team up in the Great War.
i am not sure you are are incapable of seeing the distinction between my argument of what is historically plausible and what I think would be good or bad to include in an already-released game, or if you are just taking another opportunity to attack me personally because of your vendetta against me.
The argument you make is not for this thread, either for this game or Historical plausibility. It would be like me suggesting that US joins the CP because it’s “possible”, which it is but ridiculously implausible.
-
You’re making a statement (“Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.”) and pretending it is fact. It is not. It is simply an analytic assertion. Others here have offered alternative analyses. Now, we can argue the validity of the various analyses and arguments, but no one can say “X was the only way things could have played out” and pretend it is a “fact.” It is at worst an assertion, and at best, an outcome of analysis (which in and of itself is open to dispute).
In a strict sense anything is possible. Wormholes can be entered, etc
But the degree which you and another think here that Italy teams up with Austria is a chance more like wormholes…Logically it is possible but practically impossible.
-
Where is it claimed that AH was supposed to get territory deep in France? �
And, your response did not address my question of what is so implausible that Italy having designs on the Riveria and Provence and Corsica (to say nothing of North Africa or East Africa). � Especially when these were precisely the same things that the Italians fought over 25 years later.
Well take a number, 90% of my factual data posted got ignored because it destroys the argument that Italy and Austria were great buddies ready to fight together, with only a minor factual point made that they were in an alliance and ignoring the fact that it was a defensive alliance that protected Italy from war with AH ( that is Italy does not start any war and are protected by other nations is a good thing) Just like Stalin signed a pact with Hitler, knowing it was temporary, and war was looming he still signed it.
Nations don’t sign pacts for one reason, they sign it for many.
-
Dude, if you think what you posted constitutes “factual data” you don’t know the definition of “data.”
Instead of failing to defeat arguments, defeat semantics.
-
I ask again, where is it posited that AH was supposed to get territory deep in France as a result of WWI?
You misunderstood. Italy was promised areas by the Allies that the CP could not deliver. Those parts were currently part of AH and AH was not going to give them up. That on top of hatred for AH interference against Italy in 1866 and other events made it really impossible.
-
Words matter. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand how to construct an argument. They are the building blocks of analysis. If you don’t understand the definition of words, you don’t have ���� for an argument or analysis
.
…and you don’t have an argument that fits this forum topic.
-
Your “factual data” was not ignored; a counter-argument based upon analysis was offered. � You get the difference, right? � Even if you don’t agree with the analysis, you do understand the difference between something being ignored and a counter-argmument being offered, do you not?
What i understand is you said nothing in terms of any argument backed up by links or anything that puts Italy into the arms of AH or offers anything remotely feasible in terms of evidence that Italy would join the CP.
-
Ok, now I understand what you’re saying… even though it is a response to a question I didn’t ask (originally, I was asking how was it so implausible that Italy would join the CP if they saw a reasonable chance to seize areas they believed were historically a part of Italy, specifically Riveria, Provence, and Corsica; you responded those areas were part of AH, referring to areas in Trieste and the Dalmatian Coast without naming them. � Not sure why you made this switch without referring to those areas specifically; would have been a clearer argument). �
I never denied that, what i said was If that was the situation, the war would be over or the game would be over. So why even bring it up because it helps nobody here in this game. Yes at some point all the fantasy must be put aside and realistic outcomes should only be considered. Italy didn’t join after Tannenburg or after Germany getting 40 miles from Paris in 1914.
That doesn’t change the validity of my argument: � That if Italy believed the CP were going to come out the victors, they could well have joined the CP in order to secure holdings in South eastern France and North Africa–areas which they valued and saw as having historical meaning for them.
I don’t care about your argument, for it to work the games victory conditions would be too close to being a CP victory and that would need to occur on turn one anyway. In terms of Historical relevance, it would need to be a really short war and it wasn’t.
-
Ok, great, so you choose not answer my questions and just ignore them. � Fair enough.
I have referenced articles, including ones you yourself have posted, but whatever. � Just say that I don’t have anything to back me up, that’s fine. � Have fun continuing to make up your own defintions and misunderstanding the nature of analysis.
Post the links to support the argument that Italy would love to stay with the CP and fight with AH. Don’t claim i’m ignoring you, i am rather waiting for the links.
Words are only getting you so far without evidence.
I have referenced articles, including ones you yourself have posted, but whatever
You copy and paste mine, but didn’t bring in your own to support the ‘counter-argument’. Nor did you address my evidence, so no.
-
Could any country have allied with the opposite faction? Sure. Did it? No. This should go to the house or general discussion.
Exactly, the OP is only asking why Italy sides with Entente. This is not about fantasy regarding Italy joining AH to fight France, UK, et al. Italy wanted nothing less than being part of a bully of nations starting wars.
-
Moreover, my initial suggestion was to let the Italian player decide NLT turn 2 or 3 (more likely, 2) which alliance it joins (CP or the Allies) based upon their own assessment of the situation and what is in their own interests
How would this be done in a two player game?
Kim
-
I don’t keep my copy of Keegan or other histories at my office, which is where I am. � Personally, I think wikipedia and online histories to be pretty weak, which is why I don’t cite them. � And quite frankly, I don’t feel the need to pour through my history books and ignore my kids when I go home in order to satisfy someone who is being a dick.
And again, I have addressed your “evidence” (which, by the way, isn’t evidence, it is an analytical conclusion, which is in and of itself subject to counter-argument; I’m honsestly wondering at this point if you even understand the differences between data, argument, analysis, evidence and fact, since you use the terms so interchangeably). �
Yea i figured as much, bring nothing then slam wikpedia. Don’t open books/sources, but surely open countless posts. Enter this site and within a day start arguing and call people Dicks.
Note i didn’t any of that. You are the worst suck puppet account i have encountered.
-
Just because Paris is in dire straits or that Italy joins the CP, does not mean that the game would have to be over. � You could fight on in USSR, UK, and USA. � It just makes it harder. �
Just because Italy joins the CP after Paris, Russia, London, and US falls does not mean the game would be over either. It just makes it harder for the allies to win. Yes i know. :-D
Moreover, my initial suggestion was to let the Italian player decide NLT turn 2 or 3 (more likely, 2) which alliance it joins (CP or the Allies) based upon their own assessment of the situation and what is in their own interests (which is how policy is very often made). � This adds a degree (but not an unnecessarily or unwieldable degree) of complexity to the game that adds a bit more realism and fun. �
we don’t posit house rules here, get another thread.
And if you say “I don’t care about your argument” than why should anyone care about yours, if you refuse to take contrarian analyses as even a plausible point of departure? � Seriously dude, it undercuts your own position…
Well you see how far you get here right? All those posts without one link to support anything and arguing with me after being here and you only been a member for 2 days ( with 25 of your posts out of 37 arguing posts)…hmmm looks like another sock puppet account I’m dealing with.
-
If by any conclusion of what is sensible, Italy would have one turn to decide either that they are neutral or join the Entente. If France falls on turn 1, and Italy remains neutral, on her second turn she can join the CP on a roll of 5-6.
But such a rule belongs in house rules.
But we all know France can’t be defeated in one turn.
-
Quote
Just because Paris is in dire straits or that Italy joins the CP, does not mean that the game would have to be over. � You could fight on in USSR, UK, and USA. � It just makes it harder. �Just because Italy joins the CP after Paris, Russia, London, and US falls does not mean the game would be over either. It just makes it harder for the allies to win. Yes i know. grin
Quote
Except, that’s not what I said at all. You’re just being absurd for the sake of being absurd.
Can i call the waaabulance?
-
Dude, I have no idea what a sock puppet account is… But I’m loving how welcoming you as a semi-official member of this board has been to newcomers, and showing surprise that a newcome would the audacity to argue with YOU! � Way to not live up to the fanboy/neck-beard/mother’s basement stereotype!
For somebody who does not know what a sock puppet account is you sure know how to make ad hominem posts. :roll:
But I’m loving how welcoming you as a semi-official member of this board has been to newcomers, and showing surprise that a newcome would the audacity to argue with YOU!
The fact that you’re whole existence was to argue with me ( about 40 posts out of 40 something) only confirms a growing contention of why you are really here for.
-
Sure. While you’re at it, read up on the definitions of evidence, data, fact, argument, and analysis. Understanding these concepts will help you in life.
I found it here the definition is: waah That’s about as much as whatever argument you made.
-
I only started it after you called me crazy for offering an addendum or house rule change with which you disagreed and after you started making dick-ish comments and using emoticons (seriously, what are you, a 13 year old girl?) to belittle others’ arguments. � You expect people to just sit there and take it, because you have something like 13 thousands posts to your account and like a dozen stars under your Battlestar Galactica handle?
emoticons are not “I’m a dick comments”. Thats on you. I never once called you any names. Sit there and take what? these? :-D :-) :-( :? 8-) :x :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :mrgreen:
You must be insane to shame emoticons. That just makes you 13 years old that it effects you so much.
BTW all but 2 of your posts are argue posts. This speaks volumes. My 13K posts are not anything like your record so far.
-
I honsetly have no idea what the above posting means…
I’m honestly waiting for some internet link to support any claim that Italy was close or had a good chance of fighting with AH during 1914-18.
Instead or arguing and calling people a Dick, perhaps you might make an argument>?
Suggested Topics
