Why is Italy an allied power?

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.

And we may also point out that some here are no longer interested in anything more than trolling and hijacking this thread. Arguments could still be brought up with proper links to support this thing about Italy and Austria joining up, but alas we are now dealing with typos and trolling.