I always thought Milan Diplomacy + second fleet would be a good balance. It basically moves Venice's SC west to a new zone, Milan, which connects to Piedmont, Tyrolia, Venezia (now not an SC), and Tuscany.

there's a variant called fleet rome

Dick Sharp didn't know what he was talking about, quite simply.

There's no doubt that strengthening Italy somehow would make the game more balanced - but the question of 'how' cannot be answered by talking about Italy alone.

Giving Italy 2 fleets for example can totally fuck Turkey over. Imagine a Turkey that is unable to stop an Italian fleet entering East Med in 1901 itself (Turkish fleet can't do anything in 1901 to stop this)
Similar problems for France - Italy can be in Tunis and WM in 1901.
It also makes things easier for Austria as a 2-army attack on Trieste is now not possible - this is good since it makes things a bit easier for Austria, almost guaranteeing Austro-Italian cooperation, possibly making that alliance quite frightful.

Merge Tuscany and Rome into a single province. This also puts more pressure on France which is strongest since Italian armies and fleets can now make it to Marseilles in one year.

+1 Lando

Thanks @ssorenn.

@orathaic True. But I think it would be fun to try with 2 fleets. You could defend the opening by sliding around from Naples to Apula to support Venice in fall, if you wanted to. Or, as @Sh@dow says, two fleets out to sea in the first year could be a big boost.

Thanks for the Milan note @Chaqa. That Milan variant does look interesting.

Once you look at the consequences of all these variants to all the other countries, though, you realize how balances could be thrown off in so many other ways.

Maybe just play Italy like @Lando and enjoy it's special position and skills needed :)

In a high-level game I actually like Italy more than a lot of countries - you're very unlikely to be screwed over too early, and that gives you more time to work your diplomatic magic. Italy is also close enough to the middle to be able to have a lot of interesting options with adventurous players. To top it all off your hard to be stabbed really hard and quickly. In terms of fun and ease for myself Italy would come above a fair few countries.

@CSteinhardt hinted some time ago that he had a different approach to Italy, but declined to elaborate since he was in the midst of a tournament at the time. Maybe he is lurking here and could comment. Personally, I find it easier to survive early than some of the more stabbable countries, but harder to develop a coherent long term approach.

+1 lando. Italy is an awesome country to play in a high class game. The diplomatic press is more dynamic then any other country and allows you to influence every country on the board with your opening decisions.

Two quick examples of successful Italy positions in high class games. Look at Babak, MadMarx, djbent, or others on the Hall of Fame to see additional successfully played Italy's

gameID=22518
gameID=13087

+1 SD. I agree. Love Italk in high grade games

I don't think the argument is that Italy *cannot* ever be played well - so a few examples of well played Italys is not a valid counter argument at all.
Socrates makes valid points as well - about the difficulty of being stabbed early, about the diplomatic fun etc - but once again it is not a counter argument to the proposition that Italy is far more difficult to solo with than any other country.

I am very sure that even if you take a look at the records of the best players and Hall of Famers on the site - on average, their solos with Italy will be far less than their solos with other countries.
It is a statistical reality that solo-ing with Italy is very difficult relative to other countries. Thus the game is unbalanced in that respect.
Making arguments about how fun or interesting Italy is to play does not change the above fact. Neither does examples of some well played Italian draws or soloes.

the bohemian crusher is feared by all, it breaks the dmz line from north africa to finland, which too is broken by a lack of lapland in classic, thus encouraging an england/russian war

Italy certainly isn't underpowered - +1 to Lando on that.

Even if you did want to strengthen Italy, Fleet Rome is a terrible way of doing it. It opens Italy up to an Austrian attack on Ven in F01, which cannot be stopped by Italian units unless Italy moves Nap-Apu, meaning Rome is forced to go to Tunis if you want it in 01 and worrying Austria if he doesn't move to attack you, as it looks like you'll move to Adr from Apu.

It also completely prevents any anti-Austrian opening in S01, which combined with the above means you're forced into attempting to ally them for the first year.

And what do you gain from all this? Essentially nothing. You can make a strong anti-French opening in F01/S02 if you ignore Austria, but that's dangerous and opening west leaves you vulnerable to a juggernaut before you've got much out of it. The fleet in Rome is useless if you intend to move east, except for taking Tunis and so allowing your Nap fleet to go and try for Greece, which you'll either not get because Austria will have enough units to bounce you there, or you won't benefit from because Austria will have taken Venice.

Fleet Rome is a huge nerf to Italy, not a buff.

Milan Dip I don't think I have tried, but iirc it helps Italy's security at the cost of Austria's (and they hardly have any to begin with). I don't think that was a good way of doing so either.

The issue with that quote is that his book was published in 1978. I can't verify when the Edi Birsan popularized the Lepanto, and it's conceivable that it was before this book was published. This is a move that changed the landscape for Italy.

But things have changed. In that time, apart from face to face games the game could only be played by mail. These took a long time, there was less sample size. Recently, games can be played online, on mobile phones, over email, etc. The amount of games being played has increased exponentially.

So, now, people have more experience to draw from. It's not just about the Lepanto, but the game is designed in such that nobody has an inherent advantage because the mechanics of the game - alliances and power dynamics are all adjusted to match the results in the game. Italy always has a chance. I would say even, based on where this power's builds are located it has the easiest path to a solo once it has some momentum, even more so than Russia.

^what Lando said.

Italy has a great chance to solo. Just look at the SoW game.

Italy is the most fun country to play, I think. I do a hell of a lot better as Italy than Austria.

Italy is hard to play well, but if you can survive into the midgame with more than half a dozen SCs, you've got a pretty good chance. it isn't nation that allows a gung-ho approach to the game, but once you get over the 4SC hump, it's actually pretty decent

There are a multitude of reasons why Italy tends to play a bit differently than other countries. One that hasn't really been brought up is the inaccessibility of neutral supply centers.

The lone Italian fleet is the only unit that can take (or convoy to) Italy's most accessible neutral centers, Tunis and Greece. Taking both is impossible, and the only other reachable neutral center is Serbia, which requires walking through Austria.

Consequently, Italy is forced to either engage in conflict with another power very early on, or sit on only 4 SCs while waiting for an opportunity. While England, Russia, and Turkey occasionally have this problem, it is never so certain from the outset. All three of these powers can routinely surpass 5 SCs through negotiation alone, and it is almost impossible for Italy to do the same.

To oversimplify, the game tends to require Italy to either be very aggressive, or very patient. It is difficult to find a middle ground.

I agree with Lando. I liked Richard Sharpe's book, but to say that Italy has a 0 percent chance of winning discounts every tournament win with Italy.

If Italy wins in any game, you're essentially saying that at least one person on the board is not a high-quality player, and that's not a leap I'd dare make. It says "the only reason you won as Italy is because someone here sucks".

Anytime any player fails to win with any country, it's because their diplomacy has failed.

Italy is one of the best counties regarding solo potential in high quality games ( and also fun of play). Whoever says Italy is underpowered in these, has never seen a good player play it. Similar for Austria. Both are way way way easier to solo with than turkey which is next to impossible given competent opposition and no one throwing.
(That said, competent opposition does make any solo very tough)

chluke: There are a couple common variants meant to address this perceived flaw, yes. The two most common are Milan Diplomacy and Fleet Rome.
Milan Diplomacy:
http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/m/milan.htm
Fleet Rome:
http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/f/fleetrome.htm

I've also heard it wondered why Montenegro was cut from the game, since adding it and making Montenegro or Albania a supply center would have added to Italy's options. But I don't think a variant to this end exists.

I can't remember where I read it, and can't find it now, but there is a variant where North Africa is made a neutral supply center. It gives Italy a bit more flexibility in looking for that fifth SC, but since it would be a lure for France as well, it might not actually strengthen Italy. Anyone ever tried this? I thought it sounded interesting.

I think Italy is a lot like Austria, in that it's easier to screw up as Italy than as, say, France. And, poor play by one's neighbors can sink an Italian game the way that it usually can't for England or Turkey.

It's the opposite of what Sharp says - Italy is in better shape in a high-level game than in a lower-quality one.

Richard Sharp originally proposed the "fleet Rome" variant. His suggestion and overall of views on the game are highly biased by his strong preference for playing as Austria or Germany.

While he wrote very nice and detailed chapters for Austria and Germany in his well-known book, other chapters, particularly those for Italy and Turkey, leave much to be desired and seem to reflect his strong biases against seeing those countries doing well.

He advises those playing Italy to basically play for a strong second and loyally support an ally to victory. For Turkish players, he advises that Turkey has no natural allies and little hope for success. It's almost as if the book is an extension of his game, to negatively affect the general play of Turkey and Italy of players that he might happen to later meet over the board.

Italy is certainly interesting to play. In between control of a major stalemate point (Ionian Sea), which can be levied to gain a spot in a Draw in an otherwise failed game, a great natural defensive position, and several routes to 18 centers. The only country that even gets close to the Italian possibilities for expansion is Russia, and then Germany. It's compensated by poor immediate opportunities for expansion, but with proper diplomacy, any country can expand.