Why is Italy an allied power?

@ch0senfktard:

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.

+1. If anyone in the thread said that they could have italy switch sides, change nothing else, and the game would be fine, it was the minority.

The method we used in my group’s game a long time ago was to essentially bid throughout the game for italy to join your side. There’s a lot of complicated details that I don 't want to type out right now, but that’s the gist.

@Suvorov:

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.

The idea isn�t crazy, of course it was possible that Italy joined the CPs in WW1 (if the Germans had more luck with their schlieffen plan).
In my opinion (not only), the game favours the Allies in a way that is a little bit annoying.
We tested several times playing Italy as a CP. All I can say is that these games were the best and closest compared to the “original” ones. We only gave US more IPCs to make their Entry a bit more powerful. Britain couldn`t overrun the turks and had to help France immediantly. The med-sea had some naval battles and even the african campaign was more exciting.
(EDIT: Italy entered in Round 2)
But with Italy as Entente member and the original rules, the CP-Players always lost it after 6-7 rounds.

@rjpeters70
Good thing is that if you own a copy of AA1914, you can play it the way you want to get the most tension out of it. Nobody should call it crazy and unhistorical as long as the same game has a map with Eastprussia belonging to Poland, and “neutral” US that can land in France in 1915…

Ok do a test game. However give France a  extra BB, 2 cruisers in med sea. Give them a lot more units in their home Tt’s. You can’t just switch Italy to the CP’s without giving France more. You would also have to beef up Russia. The Austrians no longer have a 2 front war. This will allow then to ship all their units to wipe out Russia quickly. But wait there is more. Now you have to capture both Paris and London.

So try the game out, but make sure you add units to Russua and France greater than it equal to the initial forces of Italy. This isn’t a horrible idea. However, you need to come up with cobcrete evidence and play testing to make others believe

Historically, Italy didn’t fight with the central powers because they were the aggressors. So, any game that allows Italy to join the CPs is unhistorical because Austria Hungary has to attack Serbia. The best thing is just have Italy be neutral until turn 2 unless attacked before then. The rule about the mandatory Serbian attack could be changed, but then neither side would attack and it would turn into a continued arms race. It would be interesting to play Italy with the Central Powers, but the same way as a British alliance with Germany. Fun to play, but little historical accuracy.

The idea isn�t crazy, of course it was possible that Italy joined the CPs in WW1 (if the Germans had more luck with their schlieffen plan).

If Germany defeated France, the war and game would be over.  Italy in both wars went with the side that could convince them they best chance for Victory. In one war they picked right and in another not.  But jokes aside, they had long running problems with AH and could never join them in anything.

So, any game that allows Italy to join the CPs is unhistorical because Austria Hungary has to attack Serbia. The best thing is just have Italy be neutral until turn 2 unless attacked before then.

Exactly.

Speaking about aggressors actually the first soldiers who crossed boarders in this war were russian cavalarists in East Prussia and french frontierguards in german speaking Alsace. The Italians had no vital interests or cared about its commitmens from the Dreibund, they simply wanted to gain space, although Austria-Hungary, had in an effort to prevent the war, made territory concessions. But Rome did not compromise, it wanted war.

In fact Germany forced Austria to offer Italy its italian speaking terretories including Trentino, Issonzo and free hand over Albania but France and Britain promised Italy in 1915 also nativly german speaking South Tirol which Austria as well as any other nation in the world wouldn�t give up.
In 1914 the king of Italy Viktor Emanuel III. wished his allie the austrian emperor Franz Joseph I. good luck for winning only to switch sides a few months later after the mobile war ended and a victory of the CPs seemed impossible. Although there existed lots of italian military plans about an Invasion of Nice and Marseille and even sending italian divisions to the Rhine to fight the French together with the Germans. But most Italians didnt want to fight in this war. It can not be compared to the Party-Crowd scenarios of Berlin and Paris in August 14\. The situation in Italy 1915 could be compared with Greece which was also half way forced into the war by some bribed politicians.. You can be sure that Italy would have joined the CPs when Paris would have fallen "just to get its part of the cake". And of course war wouldnt be over after the fall of France, there is still Russia in the East! (and Britain, which never gives up by the way)
You are right Italian leaders have been quite often unreliable allies just remember WW2 when Italy switched sides aswell. Take 1940 for example: Mussolini waited till the “Blitzkrieg” against France was successfull untill he ordered his army to attack france in the south just to be on the winners side…

A scenario without the betrayel, but with an King of Italy who keeps his word is not “impossible”. It´s even more possible than invading Switzerland or Holland which is also allowed.
Its alternate history. And thats what we always get to read in the Introwords of Larry Harris-Games: Change History, what would have happen if ?

In AA1914 we payed tribute to the aggressor-argument and played a defensive Germany in the first round against an Russian attack from the East and an French assault from the vosges. It worked all without pimping France more up. Everybody is free to try it once at least…

Nah, Italy doesn’t need to be neutral a turn.  It is already at the very end of the turn order.  One could argue the end of turn 1 is already pushing into 1915 anyway.  The Ottoman Empire goes one turn earlier and they entered the war late 1914.  It makes chronological sense to me.  Romania and Portugal can both be activated in turn one but they didn’t enter the war until 1916.  This a board game based on World War I, not a simulation of World War I.

Let’s get real. If the Italian decisionmakers felt it was more in their interest to join the CP than the Allies, they would have.

There are plenty of things that could happen in the game that did not happen in the war that would influence Italy; plenty have already been posted.

Does that mean that Italy should be allowed to switch sides in the official game? Probably not, IMO. However, it’s not like a WWI game that allowed that would be like it was allowing sharks with laser beams.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Let’s get real. If the Italian decisionmakers felt it was more in their interest to join the CP than the Allies, they would have.

There are plenty of things that could happen in the game that did not happen in the war that would influence Italy; plenty have already been posted.

Does that mean that Italy should be allowed to switch sides in the official game? Probably not, IMO. However, it’s not like a WWI game that allowed that would be like it was allowing sharks with laser beams.

You mean if Germany doesnt invade Belgium first round, Britain would still declare war against them? Thats disgusting!

Any notion that Italy was serious about potentially joining the Central Powers is completely misguided.  Salandra’s government was actually worried that the Austrians might provide major concessions to Italy because the press was already so anti-Austrian and whipping the middle class into a frenzy demanding war against Austria, and Italy had already made serious promises to France and Britain.  The military may have had plans for all sorts of eventualities, the same way that I’d bet the Pentagon has some dusty old plan for invading Mexico that no one would ever seriously use as evidence of aggressive intent, but it was clear from the beginning who the enemy was going to be.

As I mentioned earlier, the only reason Italy even entered the Triple Alliance was because after the crushing French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, Italy wanted to have Bismarck on her side, and saw Germany as a valid counterweight to Austria.  Because Bismarck had no interest in the Balkans (cf. his famous quote about them not being worth the bones of a single grenadier), Italy and Germany saw eye to eye while Bismarck was in power.  However, as soon as Bismarck left and German foreign policy changed in a variety of ways (all of which were to prove disastrous for Germany in the end), favoring Austria over Russia and alienating Italy in the process.  From that instant, Italy was looking for ways to graciously bow out of its Triple Alliance.  Giolitti, Salandra - basically, every government of every stripe - all were trying to realign Italy with the traditional ally, France.  The only issue was whether or not Italy would join the war.  The “notabili” seemed to want to stay out, but due to changes in Italian voting laws party politics were beginning to count for more than personalities.

I’m sure there’s some author out there who has tried to make the case that Italy might have stayed out, because of course that’s the nature of academia.  However, I haven’t seen any respected or compelling arguments to that effect.  In addition to Montanelli (his 22-volume history of Italy is truly epic), reading Martin Gilbert’s history of the war, or Hew Strachan, or any of the other noted historians of the war, will quickly impress upon the reader the impossibility that Italy would join the war as an ally of Austria.

Really? So if the German attack on France worked the Italians would have still switched?

It’s only misguided if you consider Germany taking Paris in 1914 to have been impossible in all possible worlds, in which case that possibility in the game should also be frustrating to you.

If Germany won in 90 days and France was defeated, Italy might stay out of any war. Still don’t think they join the central powers unless the Allies provoked war first in some obvious fashion.

Once again, we need to think realistically. If the CP dangled colonial gains out in front of Italy after success in France, it’s not hard to imagine what Italy would do.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Once again, we need to think realistically. If the CP dangled colonial gains out in front of Italy after success in France, it’s not hard to imagine what Italy would do.

But they did.  Italy still refused.  Again, Italy never seriously considered joining the Central Powers.  If Germany had won in 90 days, Italy would have just stayed out of the war because it would have been over quickly.

@Suvorov:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Once again, we need to think realistically. If the CP dangled colonial gains out in front of Italy after success in France, it’s not hard to imagine what Italy would do.

But they did.  Italy still refused.  Again, Italy never seriously considered joining the Central Powers.  If Germany had won in 90 days, Italy would have just stayed out of the war because it would have been over quickly.

How could they have dangled colonial gains after success in France when the CP did not have their success in France? How do you know the war would have ended so soon?

This is the same old assumption that plagues the study of history: That things happened as they did because that was the only way they could have happened.

Changing causes change effects. Italy joined the Allies when Allied victory was more in doubt than CP victory would have been if the CP had taken France.

Another thing that isn’t doing anyone any favors is this belief that Italy in an act of nobility of soul stayed out of the war at the start because the CP were the aggressors. Sometimes there is a difference between why countries say they are doing something and why they actually do something.

Ok, well this sounds like an interesting house rule, but the game’s politics are unlikely to be changed.

Like I said before, I don’t expect or even want this to be in the official game.

But some on here are acting like Italy joining the CP is more ridiculous than the Germans replacing their subs with sharks that have laser beams.

Considering Italy switched sides in both World Wars, I don’t think we need to have any illusions about them being particularly stalwart in international commitments.

Both sides held postwar goodies for Italy, but they wanted disputed areas which Austria-Hungary controlled and not dried up desert in Africa.

I could accept that Italy might have switched sides after a German victory against France. But, this should not be included in this game. If Paris is captured things are already looking bleak for the allies. If Italy joins the Central Powers immediately after, there is no chance for an allied victory. It might be historical but no one would want to play the game.