Why is Italy an allied power?

Then the French High Command must have been insane too for stationing parts of their armytroops at the italian border instead of throwing all of them into the north against invading Germany Â

Did nort want to read all 15 pages ;), but…

The Dreibund was already dead before 1914

Saying Italy broke the treaty is also not correct: it was a defensive treaty - and Germany and A-H waged a war of agression

Italy had economic reasons to side with the Entente - British coal and other assets which could NOT be provided by A-H and Germany

Aside that - Italy wanted territory that was owned by both sides (Nice, Savoy, Trento, Istria… - Tunesia) - but the base decision was made by economic reasons not territorial.

The best the CPs could hope was a neutral Italy (a possibility and if A-H had offered more earlier a very realistic possibility)

and now for the ingame perspective: - Shifing Italys unit from CP to Entente and the better strategic position of A-H wiould totally upset the current setup positions - You would requirea different setup to balance things - possible, but deciding on turn X would be too late the decision should be made before setup is even done …

PS - If my post reads a bit apologetic to teh Italian decision  - I may remeber you I am Austrian ;)

Did nort want to read all 15 pages Wink, but…

The Dreibund was already dead before 1914

Saying Italy broke the treaty is also not correct: it was a defensive treaty - and Germany and A-H waged a war of agression

Italy had economic reasons to side with the Entente - British coal and other assets which could NOT be provided by A-H and Germany

Aside that - Italy wanted territory that was owned by both sides (Nice, Savoy, Trento, Istria… - Tunesia) - but the base decision was made by economic reasons not territorial.

The best the CPs could hope was a neutral Italy (a possibility and if A-H had offered more earlier a very realistic possibility)

and now for the ingame perspective: - Shifing Italys unit from CP to Entente and the better strategic position of A-H wiould totally upset the current setup positions - You would requirea different setup to balance things - possible, but deciding on turn X would be too late the decision should be made before setup is even done …

PS - If my post reads a bit apologetic to teh Italian decision � - I may remeber you I am Austrian

Right, Italy could not well swallow her pride and side with her natural enemy (Austria) since Napoleonic days. Many Italians lived in disputed areas shared between Italy and Austria. Italy wanted these people to be integrated into what they felt was part of their country.

Germany came close to victory on both fronts in early 1914 and yet what did Italy do? They went neutral. And don’t let the low information Historian tell you this trick: “They were allied, so they were friends”  The travesty of this fake trick is the alliance was purely a defensive one predicated on the protection of Italy from foreign wars. It was the signatory of Germany ( of which Prussia and Italy were close allies since the 1860’s) that made Italy even marginally comfortable into joining.

On top of this and early CP successes, Italy immediately pulls out of this alliance reasoning correctly that AH was the aggressor in this new war. The CP could not mitigate this by offering all the tea in China and Italy decided it could never join Austria and in 10 months signed on to the Treaty of London.

So for this smallest of margins of Italy actually changing her mind, it is so argued that if the war quickly ended in terms of France falling and success on the eastern front ( much more than Tannenberg victory) and within this same 10 month window, that Italy could join/rejoin the CP.

The other point is if were this to happen, the war would basically be over and in terms of this game the conditions would need to occur on turn one ( remember they join the allies in 10 months which is turn  2). The practicality and sensibility of these ideas is so remote from the Historical record and a game standpoint, it is really a stretch. The proper analogy would be knowing about the the History between Germany and France 1795-1870 and the disputed prize to the former of Alsace Lorraine taken in 1870, that somehow by osmosis they discover they are magically friends. Out of the blue they forget a hundred years of mutual warfare and team up? Hardly. Nothing but rubbish.

BTW Chamcool, The sock puppet account above ( an account created 3 days ago by vonLettowVorbeck1914 and now with 75 posts and Vorbeck1914 magically gone from this debate at the same time Ripeters70 appears) is giving you misinformation. We said the note triggered US entry, which is a fact. It was not the cause, only the trigger for a long list of causes going back years.

The low information student might miss the actual claims because ignorance often obfuscates the actual and far more reasonable point of view in order to “puff” it’s own bankrupt claims.

I’m just a new poster who figured out in a few hours that Imperious Leader’s an asshole (I mean, his Battlestar Galactica name alone is enough for you to figure out he’s kind of a jerk).  He hates that someone, particularly a new poster, has the audacity to call him for what he is.

You see all the sock can do is bring up names rather than substance to his posts.

Check out my post on the previous page on the causes and triggers of the American entry into World War I.  If you think that the Zimmerman telegram was the straw that broke the camel’s back, you simply don’t understand American history.

It was the trigger of which you NEVER refer to it that way knowing factually it is true. This is why you use other words like “straw that broke the camel’s back” rather than the exact word which is TRIGGER. And the fact that vonLettowVorbeck1914 argued against this a few months ago, and this fake account brought it back up out of the blue can only be surmised as using the sock puppet account to re-fight lost debates using another name.

Pretty shameful.

Walks like a sock puppet, posts like a sock puppet, it’s a……

Sock puppet…lol!

And back to bickering…

Well first of all, the game is clearly not balanced for Italy to be on the CP side. It would take some drastic reorganizing of the E. Powers forces if you are going to let a major front just switch to the other side. For that reason alone I obviously agree with the lack of an official “optional rule.”

Second, as if game balance wasn’t enough of a reason, the sheer lack of probable plausibility is enough to avoid any “optional rule.” The culure of Italy at the time, the political situation at the time, the fact that the Austrians really didn’t like the Italians either, yeah, I don’t see it happening. Think about it. Within the first few weeks of the war Germany seemed to have outflanked the entire French army, annihilated an entire Russian army in the east, and within a few months the Ottoman Empire would join in completely shutting of a vital supply lane for Russia. Yet Italy didn’t join (regardless of whether her army was ready or not, which it wasn’t). Italy, more importantly the Italians in control of the goverment, REALLY hated Austria-Hungary…like a lot. For the situation to appear where Italy has more to gain by fighting with it’s hated enemy instead of against it would have required almost literally impossible German victories against the French and Russians, things which never materialised and if you look closely at logistics, probably wouldn’t have happened.

I realize there is a lot of posting here, so I apologize if anyone has seen this before but since I know some haven’t, here it is.

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

No one is saying that Italy should be allowed to switch sides and that everything else should stay the same. As far as I can tell, no one has said that either.

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

Right and by the same token expect the Allies to “lose every time the setup is not mostly changed”.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

It’s not completely irrelevant. Having Italy potentially flip-flop is an interesting what-if, even if it’s not well grounded in historical hindsight. But the placement of Italy’s forces on the game board might have to reflect that. Because they did not enter the war until May 1915, the Austrians had left a token force in the Alps and had pulled a great deal of artillery out of that region. Italy was not at all prepared either when the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine bombarded its Adriatic coast; just about the only time all major units of the navy sortied. They spent a lot more time hiding or becoming floating artillery. They were a bit caught off guard at the Austrians doing so, and the Italian navy even set up an armored train to help prevent it again.

The White War, 1915-1919: Life and Death on the Italian Front might be an interesting read in that regard.

As far as I know, the Italian colonial units were usually kept at a fairly high strength. In Libya, they had only captured it 1911-12, so it still had internal security problems. Over 60,000 Italians were eventually kept busy by the Senussi during the war, and the battle name escapes me… but they suffered a rather stinging defeat in 1915. You almost never read about this, or the Portuguese border war with the Germans in Angola.

So if you want to have Italy change alliances, it might be best to reflect that with a decreased mobilization on the board.

My pet peeve is how weak Russia starts the game in terms of infantry/corps/whatever. Not so far fetched (infantry=corps), for in Africa, the German forces did approach 20,000 troops and carriers under Lettow-Vorbeck. That’s probably adequate to qualify it is a corp equivalent in Africa. Even a brigade was tough to utilize in GEA; units like the KAR had better luck. In New Guinea, the Germans barley mustered 350 men to oppose the Australian landing.

If someone were to put some time into it, you can really crank out some very spiffy house rules for A&A 1914. I am hard at work on that…

We all would love to see them.

@Imperious:

We all would love to see them.

They are still in the prelim stages at this point, but it would basically call for a more vigorous Eastern Front. I am ambivalent with the RR rule at this point. I think it serves a valid historical point, but there is no way the CPs advanced that far into Russia (as the rules require for the event to trigger). And the turning point came with the offensives launched by the Kerensky govt. that produced empty victories and more horrendous casualties. Enter, Bolsheviks.

Anyhow, adding some of the historic fortress complexes might make for a more interesting game. It would certainly slow down steam-rolling advances, and create more of the static warfare that you saw in the Carpathians, Alps, and even near some portions of the Western Front. Games like Paths of Glory or Guns of August can help to identify those fortresses. You could keep the rules simple but interesting. I think a small siege element would be a fun factor in the game, but I would keep the number for forts down to a manageable number.

Another point that was not brought up is UK and French naval control of the Mediterranean. If Italy sided with AH and Germany, and retained a few tidbits of African colonies, she being bound to help from the Austrian navy would more or less kiss those prizes goodbye.

However, joining the allies would give Italy joint control of the sea, and potential help to protect her trade and any post war territorial gains.

Italy would feel much more comfortable and natural fighting her old enemy. And the Ottomans really had no navy to speak of ( two second rate dreadnoughts).

I have a new idea: Ottomans and Italy stay out a turn. They can build and do everything but no attacks. They can also protect their forces with having the additional builds.

Plus Ottomans didn’t really jump into the war, so one turn might be realistic anyway.

@protevangelium:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

It’s not completely irrelevant. Having Italy potentially flip-flop is an interesting what-if, even if it’s not well grounded in historical hindsight. But the placement of Italy’s forces on the game board might have to reflect that. Because they did not enter the war until May 1915, the Austrians had left a token force in the Alps and had pulled a great deal of artillery out of that region. Italy was not at all prepared either when the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine bombarded its Adriatic coast; just about the only time all major units of the navy sortied. They spent a lot more time hiding or becoming floating artillery. They were a bit caught off guard at the Austrians doing so, and the Italian navy even set up an armored train to help prevent it again.

The White War, 1915-1919: Life and Death on the Italian Front might be an interesting read in that regard.

As far as I know, the Italian colonial units were usually kept at a fairly high strength. In Libya, they had only captured it 1911-12, so it still had internal security problems. Over 60,000 Italians were eventually kept busy by the Senussi during the war, and the battle name escapes me… but they suffered a rather stinging defeat in 1915. You almost never read about this, or the Portuguese border war with the Germans in Angola.

So if you want to have Italy change alliances, it might be best to reflect that with a decreased mobilization on the board.

My pet peeve is how weak Russia starts the game in terms of infantry/corps/whatever. Not so far fetched (infantry=corps), for in Africa, the German forces did approach 20,000 troops and carriers under Lettow-Vorbeck. That’s probably adequate to qualify it is a corp equivalent in Africa. Even a brigade was tough to utilize in GEA; units like the KAR had better luck. In New Guinea, the Germans barley mustered 350 men to oppose the Australian landing.

If someone were to put some time into it, you can really crank out some very spiffy house rules for A&A 1914. I am hard at work on that…Â

You misunderstand. One of the reasons why the idea of Italy flip-flopping is being ridiculed is because some are saying that those that like the idea believe that Italy can be allowed to do that, nothing else will change, and the game will be fine. The issue is that no one who supports the idea has insisted everything else remain the same, only those seeking to ridicule the idea or those who have not been reading carefully assert that.

You misunderstand. One of the reasons why the idea of Italy flip-flopping is being ridiculed is because some are saying that those that like the idea believe that Italy can be allowed to do that, nothing else will change, and the game will be fine. The issue is that no one who supports the idea has insisted everything else remain the same, only those seeking to ridicule the idea or those who have not been reading carefully assert that.

You misunderstand. One of the reason why flip flop has no legs is the likelihood of that happening is allowing Germany and France to team up. Since nobody is advocating that, their is no reason to allow this other ridiculous situation to be allowed. Game changes should reflect what is possible or plausible and Italy and AH fighting together wars of aggression with 100 years of incessant fighting is not that.

Perhaps just let Ottomans and Italy sit out a turn as neutral and nobody can attack them. That is much more sensible.

Or they just go to war at the the start of their own first turn.

So for example the Austrian navy can move through SZ17, or the Russian Black Sea cruisers into the Med without being intercepted.

Q: can the other Allies activate Albania in this scenario?

……http://www.stanford.edu/...oh what’s that? Stanford University? Weird…

Can you two leave your little lovefest out of the public eyes? No one wants to see that kind of PDA.

University of Stanford, that is where they teach in history that Hannibal Barca was born in Turkey not Carthage.  I have it on very good authority that is the case….

Crunch you trolling again?  You still fighting wars across the “oceans” that were never fought that way?

BTW That was a typo because i was quickly sending in my reply and was tired. I sent you a short PM ( not email)
.
Now lets defeat you again.

No one who goes to a school for 2-4 years would not understand the difference between a PM and a Email. You make the same simple mistake as i did. I’ve done multiple searches trying to see if PM’s and emails were the same in different parts of the world, either in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Maybe I’ve somehow missed them but it might exist… but I don’t think so.

If you honestly don’t understand the difference of emails and PM’s you are helpless.

I personally won’t be having any more exchanges with him.

Probably the greatest lie ever told by a sock puppet account.