Why is Italy an allied power?

@Texas:

@ch0senfktard:

Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you.

How would you balance that out?  The Allies would be crushed if the Italians joined the CPs without any other adjustments.

Who said anything about not making other adjustments?

@Suvorov:

Montanelli … alliances.

Where in your volumes of information does it discuss what would have happened with Italy if France had been snuffed out?

Interesting, so it was a treaty signed well after the Germans failed to defeat France.

Clearly, if France had gone differently, so would have Italy’s role.

Exactly the opposite as usual.

Let me help you…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Italian_Independence

about 50 years of animosity and land disputes. Italy joining any coalition with AH is like France and Germany joining a military alliance.

The rule could work if AH went neutral and pulled out and Germany decided to attack AH a second time. But then again with that scenario, this is not WW1 anymore.

I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…

We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Texas:

@ch0senfktard:

Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you.

How would you balance that out?�� The Allies would be crushed if the Italians joined the CPs without any other adjustments.

Who said anything about not making other adjustments?

Huh?  I am asking what he is proposing to balance it out.  What adjustments would he make to make the option work.  I am curious to making it a possible way of playing it.  My post wasn’t meant to shoot the idea down.  I am having trouble seeing how you can make it where Italy decides once the game has begun.  I can see two different setups for each variation, but I don’t see it being possible to make the decision once the game has begun since that would be a pretty big swing one way to the other.

Italy goes into a revolution. Then U.S.A. For some reason sends even more stuff via convoy to France and France gets 12-20  extra IPCS to spend a turn
Bam seems balanced almost ;)

@Imperious:

about 50 years of animosity and land disputes. Italy joining any coalition with AH is like France and Germany joining a military alliance.

The rule could work if AH went neutral and pulled out and Germany decided to attack AH a second time. But then again with that scenario, this is not WW1 anymore.

It’s not “WWI anymore” when the CP takes Moscow or when the Ottoman Empire takes India.  :roll:

Imagine this: Late fall, 1914. France is overrun, and the CP turns on Russia. The Ottoman Empire threatens the Suez canal. For help in threatening the British Empire, the CP offers Italy large swaths of North Africa. Only purely out of stubbornness at this point can one say that it is still implausible that Italy would join up with the CP.

But then one might lamely claim “Oh no! If something like that happens in the game, the Allies will be having insult added to injury.” Well, an Italy on the CP side being balanced in the basic outline of the game has nothing to do with whether that was historically plausible or not.

Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.

Does that make Italy joining the CP historically implausible, especially in the case of much greater CP success? Of course not.

Let me state a few things here:

1. I provided you with extensive quotes from a book of recognized quality that covers nothing but Italy during World War I, and all you could counter with was the same old tired arguments.  I could continue to argue, but at this point it reminds me of the old quote about how arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics.  The entire point was to show you that what you are talking about is historically implausible, but you just don’t want to admit it.

2. If France had fallen in 1914 the other Allied Powers would almost certainly have entered negotiations for a peace settlement immediately, and given the way the Central Powers thought (certainly nothing like the Nazis in World War II), they probably would have gotten it.  Willy didn’t want to see Nicky killed along with his whole family; he just wanted colonies at the expense of Great Britain and France, and a fleet that would rival Britain’s.  Austria just wanted expansion in the Balkans.  It would have been 1870 all over again, not 1940.

@ch0senfktard:

I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…

We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”

Well, if you’re going to do that just treat the whole thing like Diplomacy and let anyone ally with anyone they want to.  You’re free to make up any game you want to.  Just don’t think it has anything to do with the historical conflict of World War I.

@Suvorov:

Well, if you’re going to do that just treat the whole thing like Diplomacy and let anyone ally with anyone they want to.

No, I wouldn’t go as far as letting everyone ally whoever they want.
Or maybe I would, the more I think of it the more fun it sounds, but of course I wouldn’t call that WW1.
But we’re not talking about changing the game to Diplomacy…

@Suvorov:

You’re free to make up any game you want to.

Yes, we are.

@Suvorov:

1. I provided you with extensive quotes from a book of recognized quality that covers nothing but Italy during World War I, and all you could counter with was the same old tired arguments.  I could continue to argue, but at this point it reminds me of the old quote about how arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics.  The entire point was to show you that what you are talking about is historically implausible, but you just don’t want to admit it.

It’s historically implausible for the Axis powers to control much of the world then stage an invasion of the Americas. But it can happen in an A&A game. And it sounds like a fun scenario to play (Quite interested in that “Amerika” game.)

My point is, whether its historically plausible or implausible… Why not give it a go? It is a GAME after all, not an actual representation of the war (which would suck cause the centrals would lose every game.) Of course, I’m not saying that you have to play this, but I don’t see everyone’s zeal for not having something just because it seems like a historical implausibility.

@Texas:

Huh?  I am asking what he is proposing to balance it out.  What adjustments would he make to make the option work.  I am curious to making it a possible way of playing it.  My post wasn’t meant to shoot the idea down.  I am having trouble seeing how you can make it where Italy decides once the game has begun.  I can see two different setups for each variation, but I don’t see it being possible to make the decision once the game has begun since that would be a pretty big swing one way to the other.

Well, I don’t have anything specific, I’m just saying the idea can work if you put in other adjustments. But before I ever try to do such a thing, I need to play more actual games of A&A 1914.

I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…

We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”

The same number of people would also be against France and Germany fighting on the same side. Just a level of ridiculousness that some cannot accept. WW1 is not alternative History BTW.

Some events could clearly be different but Italy joining the central powers with AH is not one of them.

Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.

Then don’t argue the opposite just for the sake of argument.

@Imperious:

Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.

Then don’t argue the opposite just for the sake of argument.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would see that is not what I am doing. I do not support a flip-flopping Italy in this game (A&A WWI 1914), but I do support that idea as plausible inside a WWI game depending on the causes.

I do not support a flip-flopping Italy in this game (A&A WWI 1914), but I do support that idea as plausible inside a WWI game depending on the causes.

Then post this in another forum, this is for 1914 only.

@Suvorov:

Let me state a few things here:

1. I provided you with extensive quotes from a book of recognized quality that covers nothing but Italy during World War I, and all you could counter with was the same old tired arguments.

Â

Your ignoring them does not make them tired, it makes them ignored. This game is full of hypotheticals, and much is plausible beyond what actually happened in history, unless you insist on destiny (which makes studying history a lot less worthwhile). Does your book cover a lot of hypothetical Italian history? I didn’t see that if it did.

@Suvorov:

2. If France had fallen in 1914 the other Allied Powers would almost certainly have entered negotiations for a peace settlement immediately, and given the way the Central Powers thought (certainly nothing like the Nazis in World War II), they probably would have gotten it.  Willy didn’t want to see Nicky killed along with his whole family; he just wanted colonies at the expense of Great Britain and France, and a fleet that would rival Britain’s.  Austria just wanted expansion in the Balkans.  It would have been 1870 all over again, not 1940.

Thanks for addressing the situation, finally. Your hypothesis is quite plausible. So is one where Russia and England fight on. This would put Italy in a very interesting situation. Considering how Italy was chomping at the bit to gain the territories the Allies promised, it’s not a stretch at all, in fact it’s quite plain to see, that if they saw the CP clearly on its way to decisive victory, they would have took what they could have gotten.

Unless of course you want to insist that “Italy” hated “Austria” so much that they would have passed on large chunks of North Africa just to give the Austrians the finger.

@Imperious:

I do not support a flip-flopping Italy in this game (A&A WWI 1914), but I do support that idea as plausible inside a WWI game depending on the causes.

Then post this in another forum, this is for 1914 only.

The topic developed naturally into this discussion. Some made arguments (including and especially you yourself), saying that Italy flip-flopping would be totally implausible. I debated and am debating that. Why aren’t you telling yourself to go to another forum? (Rhetorical question)

Some made arguments (including and especially you yourself), saying that Italy flip-flopping would be totally implausible.

The people here are dealing with 1914 only. If you don’t support an Italian flip flip either, then stop arguing for it in some other game nobody is talking about.

IN THIS GAME, Italy going to the CP is ridiculous for the reasons everybody brought up.

that if they saw the CP clearly on its way to decisive victory, they would have took what they could have gotten.

But the game would be over, making Italy flip flop impossible.

IF
1. They would not join the CP under any circumstances
2. If the CP won the war they would join in the last minute for free land

ThEN
3. They might join the CP if both the war and GAME were over, which makes for a bad GAME idea

Unless of course you want to insist that “Italy” hated “Austria” so much that they would have passed on large chunks of North Africa just to give the Austrians the finger.

They would much rather have valuable land at Austria’s expense than worthless desert. They picked correctly.

Guys this whole thread has become a pissing contest, can you just put it to rest?

We just arguing for fun when he is on my side, but still argues. Thats entertainment not ‘piss’

However you want to say who is on whose side, I do not support this for this game because the changes necessary would be far too large and complex to be undertaken officially.

However, I support those numerous voices who believe Italy could have sided with the CP, especially under conditions that this game can conceptually create.

I do not support the Italy change basically because it is too big for the game that has already come out. But to marginalize the idea by saying it’s more ridiculous than a 1914 moon landing is a disservice to consideration of historical contingency.