See, e.g., this ongoing game...

gameID=89012

I'm not correct in all scenarios. As I said before, I favor attacking Italy early, but it is hardly a universal rule of thumb in gunboat. Austria and Italy coexist very nicely in gunboat, better than most alliances, since it takes a while before they start to impede each others progress.

Gunboat, at the start at least, is a game of probabilities, though. If your diplomacy leads you to think there's opportunities in Austria, by all means, go for it. But S1901 in gunboat, you have no idea where your opportunities are going to lie, nor your threats. given that, I just don't see the sense in taking a poke at Austria in 1901 in gunboat.

An opening I've found to work fairly well and might try using more is sending Ven to Tyr, but convoying Rom to Tun in the fall anyway.

The army in Tyr can be used to prop up the Austrian defense against Russia more effectively than Ven. Also, since it can be so dangerous to Austria, is a valuable bargaining chip to Turkey should you need to sway him away from an alliance with Russia. Should Germany or England ask for your help against France, Tyr is no farther away from Mar than Ven is, so your options in the west are still open as well.

Yes but tyr does threaten munich, so germany may see this as a problem (unless you agree with germany in the first place

Yeah, but convincing Germany that Tyr isn't a danger to him isn't exactly a difficult argument to make. It may be tense for a year or so, but after that Tyr is actively engaged in one of the actions outlined in my post.

Italy is terrible. Any Italy who goes after Germany deserves immediate death. You're just sabotaging the center of the board for Russia & France's gain when Germany is not even a threat. It annoys me when people think they're clever by attacking a country you have no business attacking. The only reason to go after Germany would be to assist France, and France would get all the benefit out of that.

Italy has terrible position. Italy needs France or Turkey to die quickly to survive, so it can take the corner position. Unlike Germany, it has no access to neutrals. It's just an annoying country to play. Peace with Austria means very slow growth, as France is well-defended. Lepanto's almost never work, unless Turkey is blind. Attacking Austria doesn't do anything for Italy except unleash the Turk.

I rarely chime in, but I have to. Putin: well done sir, you not only managed to make multiple over-generalizations, and two complete lies. Example: "It has no access to neutrals," then what are Tunis and Greece? "Attacking Austria doesn't do anything for Italy except unleash the Turk. " sure it does something else, unleashes the Russian.

Yes Putin, very few nations have access to more than 1 UNCONTESTED neutral. England has none (maybe norway, depending on how things shake loose)
Germany 1
France 1, maybe 2....maybe none (If England goes to EC and Italy to piedmont, amkes life difficult)

Austria has only Serbia
Russia has none
Turkey 1.

Everything else can and usually IS contested.

Italy requires insane patience, and better also, timing.

It is not an impossible situation at all though.

It has access to Tunis yes, that's it. One neutral, and no corner position to compensate for it. Greece I rarely see taken by Italy early in the game.

Destroying Austria helps Turkey more than Russia. Turkey is in such a strong position that it must be kept in a box. Without Austria it can quickly expand through the Balkans and take all those goodies, while building up its fleets which can only mean trouble for Italy.

going for Greece or Munich is silly ... take Tunis, make friends with Austria and France, and wait it out ...

As many others have indicated, if you have patience and some creativity then Italy can be astoundingly effective.

There's a difference between being potentially contested and requiring a lot of support to get a hold of something. Austria controls access to the Balkan peninsula by land and by sea you need to get into the Aegean.

Germany almost always gets two neutrals by '02. Ditto France & Austria. Russia starts out with a unit adv. and gets one. England & Turkey usually get one but they have strong defensive positions.

Italy isn't weaker. It's just more difficult to play. Being in the center of the board is only a weakness if you're concerned with tactics. You don't win with Italy by running to the corner of the board and trying to play a tactical game. You win with Italy by using your central position to influence both the west and the east and by manipulating them both to your advantage.

Like I said, I think playing Italy is more difficult than other countries, but that an entirely different matter than saying it's bad.

I'll agree that Italy is terrible in gunboat, but that's not really Diplomacy is it?

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/W2003A/Hunter/Solo-Percentages.html

Enough said.

webDiplomacy numbers compiled by Tru Ninja basically indicate that the non-Italy/Austria powers are demonstrably better than those two. The difference between Germany (the weakest of the five)'s win+draw rate and France (the strongest)'s is less than 4%. The difference between Germany and Italy (sixth) is over 10%.

All that means to me is that the standard-issue tactic employed by those five powers is also wrongly employed by Italy and Austria. That standard-issue tactic is "form an alliance with one neighbor against another." You can get away with it with those five, because you will be at least equal position-wise to your ally when it's all said and done, usually. England-Germany which wipes out France and Russia is probably the most imbalanced of the pair, but a cunning German player can still sting England fairly badly and win that fight - or barring that, can work its way into the draw stopping an English solo. Austria and Italy can't count on that, but oftentimes they'll try to ally with one neighbor, watch that one neighbor grow too strong to resist and get blown up by that neighbor and a more distant enemy (say, France or Germany) later on.

I believe that the ideal political atmosphere for Italy to flourish hinges upon no juggernaut. This opens up the potentially explosive (and very underrated) alliance with russia.

Italy's friends are England and Russia. Work with both of them, and make sure they're working together.

"Austria controls access to the Balkan peninsula by land and by sea you need to get into the Aegean. " Do you even know the map?

Ok smart ass, how do you attack Greece by sea? There are only two seas you can attack it from, Ionian & Aegean. Explain to me why you think it's so easy for Italy to take Greece in Fall '01.

Putin's right, Greece is *not* easy to get, especially in 1901, as Italy.

which nation has a 'sure' 2 SCS in the first year? Any? Germany or France come to mind, but of course if France has England go to the Channel and Italy to piedmont, he risks getting NONE if things fall the wrong way.

Germany will always get denmark or holland from kiel. If he does NOT, then he should stop playing.

Russia is assured NOTHING. Sweden, you are at the mercy of Germany. Romania, well, that depends.

So Italy gets Tunis, and gets her 2nd fleet, and then plays the "watch how this turns out" for a turn or two.

Does Italy develop slower? Yes.

Putin covered the neutral centers right, again. Germany has Denmark and Holland guaranteed (Kie -> Den, Ber -> Kie, Mun -> Ruh, followed by Kie S Ruh -> Hol, is unstoppable and gets +2; usually you can get away with Ruh S Kie -> Hol as France almost never moves to Ruhr in A01). France has Iberia, no one can block them, and if France arranges bounces in Piedmont and Burgundy in S01 while moving to MAO, it can cover Brest (Par -> Bre) while safely picking up Iberia (MAO -> Por, Mar -> Spa). So that's guaranteed.

Austria can guarantee 2 neutrals, just about - Italy would literally have to sacrifice its only build AND have Turkish support to deny Austria Greece, which is almost certainly not going to happen. Now, it can't guarantee 2 *builds*, certainly, but by bouncing Galicia it can ensure no more than one SC gets lost in 1901. Austria going +2 isn't that crazy.

Russia going +2 comes down to Diplomacy. It can't guarantee anything, this is true, but it's really not uncommon for Russia to go +2.

England and Turkey were already said to be slow developers.

'Kie -> Den, Ber -> Kie, Mun -> Ruh, followed by Kie S Ruh -> Hol, is unstoppable and gets +2; usually you can get away with Ruh S Kie -> Hol as France almost never moves to Ruhr in A01'

This risks munich to italy (who has no other use for that extra army when not attacking austria or taking piedmont) it also risks berlin to russia (who can afford to send warsaw to sil/pru)

Of course this russia may be better off organising a bounce to defend against austria being in gal (though if allied with italy russia can easily deal with austria... )

Weakening one of the western triple like this definitely changes the balance of the game, but england and france still have to decide how to respond...

And austria taking two may be a foolish gambit. Italy threatening trieste, russia potentially in gal and threatening bud&vie turkey doing nothing but with bul free to try for serbia/greece (leaving two needed by aus to take greece) in the case of austria having any enemies (especially italy) it's a poor risk.

I'd go so far as to open A ven - trieste and tell austria that's what i was doing just to stop this gambit in it's tracks...

"This risks munich to italy (who has no other use for that extra army when not attacking austria or taking piedmont)"

I dunno what this forum's obsession with the "do something, do anything, just don't do nothing" credo is, but I swear to Christ that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. Not taking Munich from Germany as Italy really, truly, honestly, seriously is one of those times.

"it also risks berlin to russia (who can afford to send warsaw to sil/pru)"

What the hell kind of stupid Russia would let Austria into Galicia and pass on Sweden for a crapshoot into Berlin/Munich?

"Weakening one of the western triple like this definitely changes the balance of the game, but england and france still have to decide how to respond..."

Sure - but weakening the weakest of the three and thus empowering the two strongest ones cannot possibly be good for Russia or Italy, who are next in those two stronger ones' paths. I know England, at least, really loses all use for a German who doesn't have Munich in A01, because Germany is totally incapable of breaking Burgundy after that. And France probably doesn't have much use for a German who loses Munich, because that German will be focusing its 1902 energies on retaking Munich, which probably means building armies, which means not building anything which can be used against England.

"And austria taking two may be a foolish gambit. Italy threatening trieste, russia potentially in gal and threatening bud&vie turkey doing nothing but with bul free to try for serbia/greece (leaving two needed by aus to take greece) in the case of austria having any enemies (especially italy) it's a poor risk.

I'd go so far as to open A ven - trieste and tell austria that's what i was doing just to stop this gambit in it's tracks..."

Really? Firstly, you should be bouncing Galicia 11 times out of 10 as Austria, and that goes double with the Balkan Gambit. That only leaves you Italy, and it's not like Italy is beholden to attack you or anything. It's expected that you're supporting yourself to Greece so Turkey really isn't relevant - and you wouldn't want Serbia doing anything else anyway, lest you accidentally vacate due to a misfire in covering Trieste. And, most importantly, you don't play the Gambit if you think there's a chance you have an enemy.

In fact I'd say that the whole basic assumption behind the Balkan Gambit is a friendly Italy. You leave yourself exposed to him with it anyway by sending two units to the Balkans, so the best thing to do if you're going to use it at all is to carry that logic out to its conclusion, say you trust Italy as an ally, move to Galicia and see what happens. If you're having reservations about Italy, you shouldn't be playing the BG in the first place, and if you don't, then there's no reason not to move to Galicia.

Yes and so the version of events where austria can 'guarentee' two builds leaves italy with the option of taking tunis and trieste. (as unfortunately tunis and greece is impossible, and tunis+serbia is rather more dangerous)

Russia arranging a bounce in pru/sil doesn't necessarily prevent him from taking sweden - germany still has the same reasons to gift or not gift russia with a build (and i often give nothing to russia... ) meanwhile germany is not guarenteed two builds.

Frances can try a bounce in piedmont, but italy can agree and then open to tyrolia and defend venice with rome (or any other combination which safe-guards his own territories while letting france advance) but still france has a much better shot at two or three builds than anyone else.

If france takes bur while germany take ruhr, you inevitably see ruhr protect munich while bur hits bel...

I'm begining to like italy even more :)

"Yes and so the version of events where austria can 'guarentee' two builds leaves italy with the option of taking tunis and trieste. (as unfortunately tunis and greece is impossible, and tunis+serbia is rather more dangerous)"

Well, if you go there in S01, sure. If you wait until A01, Austria probably covers Trieste then, since it can recover Galicia in S02 with the 2 army builds.

"Russia arranging a bounce in pru/sil doesn't necessarily prevent him from taking sweden - germany still has the same reasons to gift or not gift russia with a build (and i often give nothing to russia... ) meanwhile germany is not guarenteed two builds."

Eh, firstly, if I'm Germany, I'm setting the price for Sweden to be DMZs in Prussia/Silesia/Baltic Sea at a minimum. And I usually give Russia Sweden unless he gives me a reason not to do so, simply because there's little point in weakening Russia before you know you don't need his help. England doesn't have to reveal anti-German sentiments until A01 moves at the absolute earliest, by which point you'll already be alienating Russia with the Sweden bounce... and an Anglo-Russian alliance is probably the quickest way to bring down Germany of any 2-power alliance available at the start, because Germany's weakness is in the north. So it's really not wise to throw your fate entirely in the hands of another power - but that's exactly what bouncing Sweden does.

All that to say that there's no reason for Russia to assume Germany is disingenuous about Sweden, and if he assumes Germany is genuine then Germany can easily just say "Well, DMZ Prussia/Silesia, and you can have Sweden," and that's that.

...

But even if we assume a bounce, that still requires England to bounce Holland in A01, which is really rare in and of itself. So even then it's unlikely that Germany doesn't go +2.

re: France - Sure, but if Italy's going to Tyrolia anyway, then there's really no reason for Italy not to be honest and say "Let's DMZ Piedmont." After all, you're a big fan of Italy taking Munich in A01... if you knew you were going to Tyrolia and were at least open to that idea, why not tell France "Let's DMZ Piedmont and if you want to stay in Marseilles, support yourself to Burgundy instead"? Then you've got a chance to get French support into Munich instead of making an enemy for no good reason.

I'm really not sure what your point has been with any of these objections. If it's been to needle away at "guaranteed" to make it "almost guaranteed," okay, then it's "almost guaranteed," but it's going to happen the vast majority of the time so there's really no point in contesting it. And if it's been to make a more substantial objection... I'm not seeing where that's being made.