http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=46123#gamePanel

I'm sorry, what?

My theory is that Italy attacks Austria out his own fears. He fears that he will get stuck in Tunisia and knows of French strength. It's just an easy beginner's trap to attack Austria early with no talking.

still not a juggernaut and an incompetent austria eden

...or, Italy is competent enough to know what he's doing, mop up Austria quickly and efficiently, and able to push in one continuous wave through the Balkans for an impressive 11-center power base.

It's not a dumb move by any means, you just have to know how to do it.

Well, you can't always know a Juggernaut is on the cards, can you? I think an Italy that keeps up the attack once Austria has proven his competency in the first year is stupid, yes -- but just because RT gang up on A with I doesn't mean that RT won't turn on each other next. The RI is a superior alliance to the Juggernaut by far and while the IT is uncommon the shock value of it is quite effective.

he cant mop up a competent austria quickly and efficently.

YES!!! Why can italy never work with Austria - its madness

ha the ri and it are hard to get in gunoats.

Maybe but if Italy and Austria formed an alliance early then they can turn their attention Turkey and Russia

It's uncommon shock value has to overcome some pretty heavy drawbacks Italy wants will want to take the Southeast Corner of the board and Tureky will want to take the Ionian Sea some day

thats why it sucks it doesnt allow free expansion like the juggeraut or eng f or a i

The strongest alliance in my opinion is G and A. I"m still going with Richard Sharp phil hehe

Exactly in my opinion anyone who plays Italy should be worried about France especially if anyone who wants to eliminate Austria early during any game

Why would you worry about France in the early game? Especially in a gunboat, without the availability of communication, France is inviting disaster by invading the Mediterranean in 1902 and just hoping England and Germany (1) want a WT or (2) are so at each other's throats not to see the opening provided.

eventually hes coming and a anti autria opening bogs you down way too much and doesnt leave you enough power in the sea.

And no, TI does not provide good expansion for both sides -- the main value is the shock Russia gets, as it DOES carve Russia up pretty well, but then it's basically like an AT that conquered Italy and Russia. And that's not a knock on it: the alliance's purpose *isn't* to provide a game-long partnership, it's to meet specific objectives, and this particular objective is "defeat Austria and Russia ASAP."

But RI is definitely superior to the Juggernaut. I don't think there's even a real argument to support the Juggernaut over the RI, unless France has already attacked the Mediterranean so early as to make Italy a nonviable option.

i disagree i tihnk juggernaut is better than ri. more sustainable long run and clearer lanes of expansion. plus no one ever agrees to ri.

I agree with Centurion. Every single gunboat I've played as either Italy or Austria, the other has stabbed me by the end of 1902, regardless of how many times I have supported Trieste or Venice. Every. Single. Time. Only in one of those games did the person who stabbed me survive.

okay an austria who attacks italy is a mental incompetent that is just a failure of epic proportions waiting to happen

It's obvious. Italy and Austria are the only two countries whose home centers are adjacent. Even if 'allied' with Austria you have to constantly defend Venice. Plus you have damned Switzerland preventing any good attack on France (and vice versa protecting against a French attack). France almost never goes after Italy in 1901, so there's two sides to this coin.

ecause of those adjacent centers its often very easy to signal gunoat alliances thus making it an advantage of sorts. if you are playing with experienced reasonale players your chances of eing staed are quite low.

I generally agree with the original commenter that Italy is the most unfortunate country in this game. Prospects for victory are slim and there are few good choices. The problem with fighting Austria is that it doesn't solve your problem of getting pinched by the two southern sea powers. So you can get big at Austria's expense, but if France and Turkey are doing well - one or both of them are going to stab you. Launching an attack on Turkey is difficult, due to Turkey's entrenched position - you risk very slow development. Ditto an attack on France. It's impossible to attack with any tactical surprise. Busting your fleets into the west med seas is difficult and easy for France to form a stalemate line with a couple of fleets.

Essentially to do anything with Italy you have to be a master diplomatist. Same with Austria albeit to a lesser degree.

an alliance with austria results in gold. lepanto rarely fails you just need to be patient.

whatever strategy you choice, it sucks if th wrong players cd

Wait, what? How are there "clearer lanes of expansion" in an RT compared to an RI? The RI has an even split of Austria-Turkey-Balkans; Russia has more room for growth, getting two more centers than in an RT, and Italy carries mostly on the same route that Turkey does. The two fewer Italian centers are more than made up for by the fact that Italy is literally multiple YEARS closer to the West when he builds -- that advantage is enormous, because Italy actually has a chance of getting past the Straits of Gibraltar (read: winning without stabbing, even despite the two fewer centers than Turkey in an RT!).

And no one ever agrees to it? You're doing it wrong, plain and simple. What Italy wouldn't agree to carving up Austria and Turkey? That's his best shot at getting position in the east (even if only to stab Russia and make a minimal commitment west for the win, instead of carrying it through to the end). And Russia gets two more centers, plus his ally builds MUCH further away from the Russian homeland.

I also don't see how the Lepanto and an RI are mutually exclusive. Lepanto to kill Turkey and get Italy a couple centers; Russia, if it plays its cards right, should have a couple builds in Scandinavia plus his share from Turkey and Rumania, and can jump Austria next.

(Though, I am partial to the Austrian carveup first; I find Lepantoes rarely work, because any Turkey worth its salt sees the convoy to Tunisia and builds F Smyrna. It's just how things go.)

gg

you too that was fascinating play as italy some of the best i have ever seen. it also stunted me early on and we were very lucky that rt were fighting

if just Russia hadn't given up

naw he was on the downturn anyway it let me get to 12 crazy fast but i still would have kept expanding it might actually have been for the best that way because you all wouldnt have taken notice and banded together so quickly then

A Gunboast strategy question relating to Germany & Russia:

When playing Germany, and moving to Kiel in Spring of '01 - are there any sets of moves which Russia could have made that would cause you to not bump them in Sweden in the Autumn turn?

I have a very difficult time playing Russia in Gunboats - but would think something like: StP to FIN, WAR to GAL, MOS to UKR and SEV to BS or RUM would be read as a pretty German Friendly open for Russia. But I rarely have success with it.

i agree, xpedior. to me, russia is the toughest draw in a gunboat. i've tried that opening and still was blocked from swe.

i've been messing around with some other ideas, not on how to get ger to allow rus into swe, but how to punish ger for trying to block it. one is a rus opening of war-gal, sev-blk, mos-ukr, stp-gob, followed by war(assuming a spring bounce in gal)-sil and gob-bal. it's risky, but considering i have a 0% survival rate with russia in gunboats, i plan to give it a try.

gameID=45564

i was able to pull it off in the above game in '02, but had ger built f-kiel, i doubt it would have worked. obviously every game is different, but i think it's a solid move if possible. it may actually be a better move in '02 as taking bal in a-'01 will almost certainly force ger to build a fleet.

that game also doubles as one of the best gunboats i've seen, and the most gut-wrenching defeat i've taken on this site. oh how i wish i'd have moved on bul and supported boh to vie in a-'12.

its a known move lol

trip:
I agree that that was one of the best gunboats I have played :)

i know that cent. i just said it was an idea, not that i came up with it.
it is a move i rarely see in gunboats.

There's a tack a friend of mine came up with (crediting him because I haven't seen it described in any Diplomacy literature to date) called the "Berlin Basher." Ideally you run it in full press so you can negotiate in the south, and probably in the north too (but unless England is actively anti-Russian in Scandinavia, to the tune of F BAR/A Nwy, you can probably get away with it). The idea is to have an army in Galicia and a fleet in Sweden (or in this case GoB) by the start of W01. You build an army in Silesia with the Rumania build and move:

A Gal -> Sil
A War -> Pru
F GoB -> BAL

There are two results from this. Either one, Germany was just bouncing to be a dick and keep a build away, in which case he probably won't expect this extreme play and Berlin and maybe a second center are yours. Or, two, Germany's bounce was the prelude to an all-out blitz of Russia in S02 (especially if, say, Germany used its 3 builds in F Kie/A Mun/A Ber and blitzed Pru/Sil/BAL himself), in which case Germany's entire strategy is foiled while you retain a pretty solid southern position if Turkey is cooperative.

I doubt it'll be as successful in gunboat because you can't negotiate to make up for weakness in the south, but if Turkey and England aren't out-and-out hostile from 1901 (in which case you have time to bail on this strategy and work with whatcha got) and especially if Italy appears to be attacking Austria (almost guarantees War -> Gal works unsupported in S01, which will keep you from being stood out of Rumania), this is probably worth a shot. You can even do it if Germany lets you into Sweden -- but that'd be kinda mean, huh? ;)