Why is Italy an allied power?

I have already admitted that this game, AAWWI1914 is not a good place to implement an official rule of a flip-flopping Italy.

Right and i have already said to stop arguing for it in that game.

An Italy with a vastly different role, including the possibility of fighting with the CP, is historically plausible, and people who think that such a thing would be plausibly historical in an AA game are right, I believe.

Yes vastly is the word. Akin to allowing the plausibility of France and Germany teaming up in 1914.

I don’t recall making an claims about the implementation of such a rule in a created game being easy. Only that it would not be implausible from a historical standpoint.

I recall you posting about it in a forum about AA1914…big mistake.

I really don’t have much more to say, if anything, other than of course the straw men you set up for my arguments.

I just expose them for what they are. For somebody to argue about something they don’t believe would work in AA14 is a waste. The OP question was answered by facts which you never brought up for somebody who claims Italy had a snowball in hells chance of joining the CP. Italy had close to zero chance of joining any alliance with AH…of course unless by the standards of victory in the game and German war aims the prerequisites would have meant a very short game or a short war. That does not benefit this game or this discussion.

And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?

I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.

That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!

It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta

A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?

I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.

@Imperious:

And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?

I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.

That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!

It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta

A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?

I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.

And again you cross the line between game arguments and historical arguments at will, ignoring the distinction. There are at least two issues here. 1. Is it plausible, that, especially given CP success, Italy would have pursued its national self interest through cooperation with Austria and Germany? (I have been saying yes) 2. Would such an idea be a good thing to implement an official rule for in this game that has already been released? (to that I have been saying probably not/no).

i am not sure you are are incapable of seeing the distinction between my argument of what is historically plausible and what I think would be good or bad to include in an already-released game, or if you are just taking another opportunity to attack me personally because of your vendetta against me.

Don’t think anyone is going to win this argument.  Could any country have allied with the opposite faction?  Sure.  Did it? No.  This should go to the house or general discussion.

@rjpeters70:

@Imperious:

And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?

I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.

That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!

It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you)�  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta

A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?

I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.

I know some folks say that each turn is 12 months, because the US can only declare war (if not attacked) by Turn 4, and the US didn’t enter the war until 1918, but it sounds like a number of games are going to Turns 7 and 8 (or more), which would make the war last until 1921 or 22.  I didn’t see in the rules anywhere (unless I missed it, very possible) that turns were 12 months.  It may be that the design of the game is such that each turn is 6 months, given that it seems to take 8 turns at least to win; just that the US is allowed to enter the game too soon.

That’s an excellent point. Some people assume that because X event happened in Y year, that the game turn where an event happens MUST BE the time in history that it did happen. This kind of thinking leads to a scheduled and closed-minded game where there is little acting out the situation as it started in 1914 and a lot of going through the same steps, perhaps because the idea that things that happened were not destined to is scary.

It’s been said a thousand times “Gameplay considerations often outweigh historical ones.” Who knows what the time for a turn is, but it’s quite plausible that the imagined time is a lot shorter than 1 full year and that the USA entering later “on time” would have been too long a wait for a game.

Even if Larry says turn 4 is 1917, that doesn’t make it a good idea to assume that.

Also note that this would allow the Austrian navy to pass through the (neutral) Italian SZ without rolling for mines or running afoul of the Italian navy.

But would they be allowed to do this, then use that move to launch an AA on Libya? You can hardly say that all movement is simultaneous, when the landing on the beaches of north Africa clearly occurs after Austria has used neutral Italian seaspace.

@Imperious:

Before Italy’s first turn, flip a coin. Heads, and it declares war on the Central Powers, tails it stays neutral.

If neutral, repeat every round until it goes to war.

Right. Only neutral or at war with central. But use dice 1-3 or 4-6

Okay, guys.  You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to.  You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown.  I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible.  Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.

Nice job Flash trying to get this thread back on track.

Guys, don’t get sucked into the “IL Twilight Zone”.

Larry has always stated that a round of play (turn) isn’t relative to a certain frame of time (months), it is abstract. The first turn/round might be 2 months, and the second 1.5 years. He try’s to keep the events in a historical order, but historical correctness will take a back seat to game play. With Italy he said he kinda explored some options, but decided it would just be easier to put them at war from the get go. Other wise it could take a whole page of rules and conditions etc….kinda like the optional Rus Rev rules.

@Flashman:

Also note that this would allow the Austrian navy to pass through the (neutral) Italian SZ without rolling for mines or running afoul of the Italian navy.

But would they be allowed to do this, then use that move to launch an AA on Libya? You can hardly say that all movement is simultaneous, when the landing on the beaches of north Africa clearly occurs after Austria has used neutral Italian seaspace.

@Imperious:

Before Italy’s first turn, flip a coin. Heads, and it declares war on the Central Powers, tails it stays neutral.

If neutral, repeat every round until it goes to war.

Right. Only neutral or at war with central. But use dice 1-3 or 4-6

Flash, the way that DOW works (in G40 anyway) the Austrians couldn’t do that. If they wanted to attack Libya they would need to DOW on Italy at the beginning of their turn, this would instantly make the Italian navy hostel, and activate their mines. A Power is never given the option of moving through the navy of the power they attack (even when neutral). Same if the Austrians attack Venice, the DOW would be reciprocated and the Italian navy/waters instantly become hostel.  I would think that the Austrians would be able to freely enter (or move through) Italian waters to launch attacks on the French or English though if Italy was considered neutral until its turn 1st starts.

I think we all know that Italy can’t be given the option to join the CP, because it just causes major balance issues (you would need a major offset). You might be able to do it if in the event Italy goes CP, then the Turks join the Allies but that would need to be tested and would be strictly for game play. Both powers were drawn in the war, and both sides courted them that we do know. What happened historically can’t be changed, but you could do an alternate universe scenario (that would be cool).

Even having the Italians starting neutral, but they DOW on the CP at the start of their 1st turn could throw balance off, but at this point most are saying that the CP are at a disadvantage so maybe it would bring things back to center? It would allow the CP (Austria) to move its navy, maybe get some units into Africa, the Mid East or join the Turk navy. They could make attacks on the French (equal navy + mines), or the UK Egyptian fleet, but they would be sitting ducks, and it would open their coast up to attacks by the Italians, and the other allies (unless they build a ship(s) as the move out.

Any way I don’t think you could roll dice/flip coin to see when Italy comes into the war. If they are delayed too long things get murky and again balance become a problem.

@rjpeters70:

@Suvorov:

Okay, guys. � You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to. � You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown. � I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible. � Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.

You’re making a statement (“Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.”) and pretending it is fact.  It is not.  It is simply an analytic assertion.  Others here have offered alternative analyses.  Now, we can argue the validity of the various analyses and arguments, but no one can say “X was the only way things could have played out” and pretend it is a “fact.”  It is at worst an assertion, and at best, an outcome of analysis (which in and of itself is open to dispute).

Well, now that’s starting to sound like the “evolution isn’t proven” sort of arguments.  If you want to get technical, the only thing that can be proven is hard mathematics, and that only because you are working in a system where the rules have been set a priori.  As far as facts can ever exist outside of mathematics, Italy’s antipathy to Austria and the Italian political situation are pretty solid facts.  As Imperious Leader pointed out, Italy might have joined the CPs if the war were already over (a fait accompli), but at that point the game is over anyway.  Anything short of that was as impossible as something can be short of actual physical impossibility.

From your own link, I quote:  “The territories of Corsica, Nice, and Savoy have been claimed by irredentists.”  So, yes, I get the Italians wanted pieces of Austria, and they may well have hated the Austrians, but they also wanted the Riveria and parts of Provence… just as they did in World War II.  So, if they saw a situation in which they believed the Central Powers were winning, why wouldn’t they choose to join the CPs, if they saw it possible to expand their holdings in areas in which they believed were theirs?

Those areas are promised to AH postwar, not Italy. Do you look at the map or just post?

Look, no one is disputing your claim that the Italians did not like AH and had territorial designs on the Dalmatian coast.  How is it then so hard for you to admit that the Italians similarly had designs on certain French possessions, and would take them if they saw an opportunity?  Are you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative?  How do you not see at least a degree of plausibility in the other side’s argument?

Because only Italy and Austria have a history of fighting over it recently ( 1866)  I represent the links to support my claims. Do you or do you make arguments for the sake of being argumentative?

I know some folks say that each turn is 12 months, because the US can only declare war (if not attacked) by Turn 4, and the US didn’t enter the war until 1918, but it sounds like a number of games are going to Turns 7 and 8 (or more), which would make the war last until 1921 or 22.  I didn’t see in the rules anywhere (unless I missed it, very possible) that turns were 12 months.  It may be that the design of the game is such that each turn is 6 months, given that it seems to take 8 turns at least to win; just that the US is allowed to enter the game too soon.

The rules do not allow US to enter till turn 4 or tanks, which in terms of passage of time is 1917. Ergo the result.  The war could continue into 1922. It could be the allowance for early entry and early tank is less realistic an explanation than a game where turns are 6 months. Obviously the game does not follow any realistic measure of time, but what we do have is two events that occur in the same time frame and that is more or less realistic to assign turns as 1 year as opposed to anything else.

And again you cross the line between game arguments and historical arguments at will, ignoring the distinction. There are at least two issues here. 1. Is it plausible, that, especially given CP success, Italy would have pursued its national self interest through cooperation with Austria and Germany? (I have been saying yes) 2. Would such an idea be a good thing to implement an official rule for in this game that has already been released? (to that I have been saying probably not/no).

Yes you can hold on to that slim chance, but that is not a concern for this game and the OP posits the concern regarding this game, not the fantasy game. based on the information provided the same chance exists for Germany and France to team up in the Great War.

i am not sure you are are incapable of seeing the distinction between my argument of what is historically plausible and what I think would be good or bad to include in an already-released game, or if you are just taking another opportunity to attack me personally because of your vendetta against me.

The argument you make is not for this thread, either for this game or Historical plausibility. It would be like me suggesting that US joins the CP because it’s “possible”, which it is but ridiculously implausible.

You’re making a statement (“Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.”) and pretending it is fact.  It is not.  It is simply an analytic assertion.  Others here have offered alternative analyses.  Now, we can argue the validity of the various analyses and arguments, but no one can say “X was the only way things could have played out” and pretend it is a “fact.”  It is at worst an assertion, and at best, an outcome of analysis (which in and of itself is open to dispute).

In a strict sense anything is possible. Wormholes can be entered, etc

But the degree which you and another think here that Italy teams up with Austria is a chance more like wormholes…Logically it is possible but practically impossible.

Where is it claimed that AH was supposed to get territory deep in France? �

And, your response did not address my question of what is so implausible that Italy having designs on the Riveria and Provence and Corsica (to say nothing of North Africa or East Africa). � Especially when these were precisely the same things that the Italians fought over 25 years later.

Well take a number, 90% of my factual data posted got ignored because it destroys the argument that Italy and Austria were great buddies ready to fight together, with only a minor factual point made that they were in an alliance and ignoring the fact that it was a defensive alliance that protected Italy from war with AH ( that is Italy does not start any war and are protected by other nations is a good thing)  Just like Stalin signed a pact with Hitler, knowing it was temporary, and war was looming he still signed it.

Nations don’t sign pacts for one reason, they sign it for many.

Dude, if you think what you posted constitutes “factual data” you don’t know the definition of “data.”

Instead of failing to defeat arguments, defeat semantics.

I ask again, where is it posited that AH was supposed to get territory deep in France as a result of WWI?

You misunderstood. Italy was promised areas by the Allies that the CP could not deliver. Those parts were currently part of AH and AH was not going to give them up. That on top of hatred for AH interference against Italy in 1866 and other events made it really impossible.

Words matter.  If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand how to construct an argument.  They are the building blocks of analysis.  If you don’t understand the definition of words, you don’t have ���� for an argument or analysis

.

…and you don’t have an argument that fits this forum topic.

Your “factual data” was not ignored; a counter-argument based upon analysis was offered. � You get the difference, right? � Even if you don’t agree with the analysis, you do understand the difference between something being ignored and a counter-argmument being offered, do you not?

What i understand is you said nothing in terms of any argument backed up by links or anything that puts Italy into the arms of AH or offers anything remotely feasible in terms of evidence that Italy would join the CP.

Ok, now I understand what you’re saying… even though it is a response to a question I didn’t ask (originally, I was asking how was it so implausible that Italy would join the CP if they saw a reasonable chance to seize areas they believed were historically a part of Italy, specifically Riveria, Provence, and Corsica; you responded those areas were part of AH, referring to areas in Trieste and the Dalmatian Coast without naming them. � Not sure why you made this switch without referring to those areas specifically; would have been a clearer argument). �

I never denied that, what i said was If that was the situation, the war would be over or the game would be over. So why even bring it up because it helps nobody here in this game. Yes at some point all the fantasy must be put aside and realistic outcomes should only be considered. Italy didn’t join after Tannenburg or after Germany getting 40 miles from Paris in 1914.

That doesn’t change the validity of my argument: � That if Italy believed the CP were going to come out the victors, they could well have joined the CP in order to secure holdings in South eastern France and North Africa–areas which they valued and saw as having historical meaning for them.

I don’t care about your argument, for it to work the games victory conditions would be too close to being a CP victory and that would need to occur on turn one anyway. In terms of Historical relevance, it would need to be a really short war and it wasn’t.

Ok, great, so you choose not answer my questions and just ignore them. � Fair enough.

I have referenced articles, including ones you yourself have posted, but whatever. � Just say that I don’t have anything to back me up, that’s fine. � Have fun continuing to make up your own defintions and misunderstanding the nature of analysis.

Post the links to support the argument that Italy would love to stay with the CP and fight with AH. Don’t claim i’m ignoring you, i am rather waiting for the links.

Words are only getting you so far without evidence.

I have referenced articles, including ones you yourself have posted, but whatever

You copy and paste mine, but didn’t bring in your own to support the ‘counter-argument’. Nor did you address my evidence, so no.