Why is Italy an allied power?

It was for simplicity; Larry did not want a rule where Italy would switch.

This topic will shed light on it.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18018

Would be extremely difficult to balance without some overcomplicated rules

If there is no Itailian player, who would decide which side they join?? The game was play balanced for them to be on the allied side from the start.

Historically they were neutral for the first 10 months of the war, so perhaps it would not be unreasonable to treat Italy like the U.S. as being neutral for turn one.

Kim

The only thing is it could be a limited neutral for 1 turn then go on the entente side.

But for practical purposes, they can barely be reached by Germany or Ottomans anyway.

Of course, Austria-Hungary could attack first and activate it.

let that person decide which alliance he or she joins after the first turn or two.

Sure and let the game go totally out of balance? Let UK join Germany and Russia and US fight as a third coalition against the Entente, etc…

I feel Italy should be neutral for one turn, then decide if they want to go to war or wait till turn 2 and be automatically at war.

However Austria Hungary or any other central power can decide to attack Italy during that time period because they feel Italy is going to ‘Betray them’. This may balance what people say about the allies bossing!!!

If Italy switches to the CP the scenario is unbalanced.

The game is designed for ‘historical accuracy’.  In ww1 Italy decided the allies and made it even.

No, a neutral Italy that decides in Turn 2 or Turn 3 which side it joins (which, again, reflects what actually happened)

No it joined the Allies. Thats what actually happened. It’s not the case where it flips a coin and “decides” in reality or a game. Also, each turn is one year since US enters on turn 4.So they join on turn 2, not 3 because Italy joined the war in a limited fashion in May 1915 against Austria-Hungary ( 10 months latter)

OK recognizing the reality of History, but also recognizing playability, as Larry Harris admittedly does, why not allow Italy to go to war in turn 2, but each side as a whole at the beginning of turn 2, bids IPC’s to:

Proposal A: delay Italys entry into the war by one turn

or

Proposal B: to ally Italy to either side for the duration.

The United States can not bid until the 4th turn.

Comments???

Besides which, if you really wanted the game to be historically accurate, you’d design it so that the Central Powers lost every single time… because that’s what happened historically.

Then allow UK to Join Germany to fight France?

Sure reply with another crazy tangent. The game has to follow some basic foundation based on the facts. It must be balanced allowing each side to win regardless of what happened. YOU CANNOT JUST ALLOW ITALY TO GO TO THE CENTRAL POWERS AND HAVE FRANCE FACE DEFEAT IN 3 TURNS, GO FIND OUT HOW THAT HAPPENS BY PLAYING IT THAT WAY.

Proposal A: delay Italys entry into the war by one turn

But that’s what i said before. turn 2

Ok, so you want the game to be about what “actually happened”?  So, the British Empire must try to force an amphibious landing at Gallipoli, because that’s what actually happened?  Why make it possible to invade Holland and Switzerland then, since that did not happen?  How about every opening German move being a mandatory watered down Schlieffen Plan?  I mean, if we’re being historically accurate above all else…

NO. The game should have the basic foundations of what happened and be designed around that. This means the Martians and Godzilla are not involved, nor the Roman Empire. Nor the influenza of 1917, or this and that. The game if based lightly on the war should contain the basic fundamentals of who is at war and with whom. This is not Parker brothers Risk where you can fight anybody at anytime. The game is not about fantasy.

The game allows attack on the Swiss and it does not allow Italy to flip flop.

Look, make Italy choose which side it joins no later than Turn 2, that’s fine.  My point is, it adds a complexity to the game that is fun, not that difficult to grasp, and forces the Central Powers in particular to think long and hard about their grand strategy, as well as force posture.

It does not add complexity. It adds an unbalanced game because you just took 25% of the allies and padded 25% more units to the central powers. Great job.

If Italy went to the Central Powers France would fall in 2 or 3 turns. Russia would be destroyed in 4. It would completely ruin the balance of the game.

I am telling you something you should have figured out by now. You can’t just take a balanced game and switch one nation to now fight on the other side. It does not make the game more balanced. You should find no satisfaction in your own proposal without me prompting you. Think it out.

To which I answer, so what?

Because the Central powers will win every time.

Let me help you.

Lets have Italy go central. Now take off all the allied pieces except for one infantry in Paris. Then throw the game in the trash because you will never play it past that point. It won’t be balanced.

How about having the US have the same option?

Let them decide which side to join. There was seniment in the US at the time to support Germany before she started using un-restricted submarine warfare.

Got any problem with that?

Kim

I think you overstate things.  There was no alliance with the Central Powers, as there was with Italy.  And while there was some sentiment for joining the German side, it was pretty minor.

But you said before this:

Ok, so you want the game to be about what “actually happened”?  So, the British Empire must try to force an amphibious landing at Gallipoli, because that’s what actually happened?  Why make it possible to invade Holland and Switzerland then, since that did not happen?  How about every opening German move being a mandatory watered down Schlieffen Plan?  I mean, if we’re being historically accurate above all else…

So what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. On the one case, you argue why shouldn’t the game allow things that didn’t happen, then when faced with your own argument, now side for what actually happened. Excellent use of the same argument to prove any side could be right. :mrgreen:

It’s just a harder job for them

Right, like having to roll 1-2 in every battle…it’s possible so keep it in your new “balanced vision of Italy joining the central powers”

It was never a 50-50 decision which side the United States would join, as it was with Italy.

Find any source that puts Italy into a 50-50 decision. Any published author that says " Italy could not decide anything so they drew straws like gentlemen"  or as if they just flipped a coin in 1915?

Before proposing any more crazy ideas, play a game and see if your idea is balanced and report back?

To coin a phrase: “You’re making a huge assumption about the balance of the game, without testing the theory.”

Italy was never going to join the Central Powers.  Austria was Italy’s primary enemy in Europe; they had gone to war in 1848, 1859 and 1866 with Austria.  The Triple Alliance was entered into primarily because Italy saw Bismarck as an ally following the defeat of Italy’s prior protector (Napoleon III), and Germany as a force to restrain Austrian ambitions in the Balkans (the House of Savoy being connected by marriage to the royal family of Montenegro).  Italy even signed an agreement with France in 1902 that effectively moved Italy back to its natural position of alliance with France.

Salandra’s government was being pushed by the nationalist press to join the war against Austria so as to get Tyrol, Fiume, Zara, and the Dalmatian coastline.  The only way Italy could ever have entered the war was on the Allied side.  A good reference is L’Italia di Giolitti, by Indro Montanelli, which covers the period for anyone who reads Italian.

Having said that, the way I would handle it in the game is simple: Italy cannot attack any CP territories on Turn 1 unless it has been attacked by any CP.  It can occupy Albania or attack a neutral, but it can’t attack the CPs directly on Turn 1 unless it has been attacked.  Period.  Simple.  Easy.

Exactly. The reasoning defiles any cursory reading on the topic.

Italy and AH hated each other.

The only plausible Historical idea is not allowing UK to enter war till Belgium is attacked, but that will unbalance the game.

I’ve never advocated for doing absolutely what actually happened. � You are the one who keeps saying “but, it didn’t happen like that!”, to which I responded with the reducto ad absurdum argument, of saying “ok, by that standard, let’s just force the UK to invade Gallipoli; or change the rules so as to ensure that the Central Powers lose every time” etc.

What you did however was argue that any idea based on what happened Historically, should be liberated based on the most loose interpretation of events. The very idea of Italy being in some 50-50 toss of joining either side is totally bankrupt.

What I’ve always offered is a modicum of historical accuracy: � An Italy for whom it was unclear which side they would join. � Since that was a plausible outcome. � What was not a plausible outcome was either the US or the UK joining forces with Germany. � How is this hard to understand?

I understand. If 3 people in Italy love Germany, that qualifies for “modicum” excellent.

As for history, I don’t have my copy of Keegan in front of me, so I’ll go for the weak man’s argument: wikipedia: � A few days after the outbreak of the war, on 3 August 1914, the government, led by the conservative Antonio Salandra, declared that Italy would not commit its troops, maintaining that the Triple Alliance had only a defensive stance, whereas Austria-Hungary had been the aggressor. In reality, both Salandra and the minister of Foreign Affairs, Sidney Sonnino, started diplomatic activities to probe which side was ready to grant the best reward for Italy’s entrance in the war. Although the majority of the cabinet (including former Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti) was firmly contrary to the intervention, numerous intellectuals, including socialists such as Ivanoe Bonomi, Leonida Bissolati, and Benito Mussolini, declared in favour of the intervention, which was then mostly supported by the Nationalist and the Liberal parties. � http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_World_War_I

That sinks you’re own argument. The dissenters are in the minority.

Again, not sure why you keep making ad hominem attacks, calling people’s ideas crazy, just because you don’t like them.

They are crazy, not because i don’t like them but because they just are totally unrealistic and unbalance the game which you admit.

And I’m not positing an assumption about the game’s outcome (you’re the one doing that). � I’m offering a hypothesis of what a variation in rules might look like. � There’s a difference, you know…

Play it out first then report the idea. Do at least that much.

Obviously you’ll need to do more to the game than just change the political situation of the Italian player.

Things that will need to be changed are the set up and perhaps add new rules. There is no way the game will be balanced with the way it is now when you let Italy decide to flip to either alliance.

It sounds like a fun idea though. There’s no need to stomp down on it and say it can’t or shouldn’t be done.