I haven't played italy in awhile. I think italia will be in my cards next round which will be interesting.

I've done the opening you describe a few times and when you end up having to remove austria from venice it really sets back both of your games, but I think a good austrian player who opened with a tap on venice and found himself there would likely vacate it in the fall. I've also had mixed results with that opening unintentionally sending France to Spain SC.

I think the Piedmont opening can have its uses, especially because France has the easiest 1901 of any country in gunboat, with its only possible threat coming from England, and that one little move can shake things up a bit with a minimal negative effect for you.

In my opinion, any gunboat opening should providethe maximum amount of options going forward. By moving to TYR you cut out one option and you likely define Austria's play as aggressive towards you.

As with any stab, you should only make it if you are sure you will succeed or, the other power will win without it. Stabbing Austria in 01 will not cripple Austria nor does it prevent a solo. Why rmeove the lepanto option so quick? Why stab Austria in a weak way wheny ou could set up a good stab in 02 or 03?

There's lots to be said here, and people will always have their own opinions (I will never open A ANK-ARm, for instance, but plenty do - the logic in my mind is the same). Part of the game is the variability in people's opinions and strategies.

What I will assume is that no Italy had success in round 1 stabbing Austria in 1901. I might be wrong.

Lando, what do you think about A Ven-Pie?

FYI - as CStein pointed out, his aggressive Italy openings, in this case, did yield in the end pretty good results. Though as he also pointed out, 3 games a good sample, does not make...

yes, you will never open A ank-arm, since that doesn't exist. ;)

I agree with what Barnett alluded to, opening to tyrolia/armenia can both be very effective, against lesser competition. A better turk/italian player will take advantage of the opening at either ionian/aegean and recognize that only one power gets control of the sea.

I think there is more value in this one. The difference being that this weakens France and makes him a target for E and G (much like the Italian anti-AH opening does for Russia and Turkey). The difference is that E and G are not going to be battling you for the same centres.

I really don't see a big value in a France/Italy war for either party, though, so I wouldn't normally go that route. Turkey and Italy are the only two powersI play the same opening for every time.

Big fan of Ven-pied, Rome-ven, nap-ion. This usually results in a play on Marseilles, hitting every so often, or occasionally a play on Trieste, while ion lands in tun. My basic reasoning is that this move is central to Italian territory, and gives you incredible flexibility for '02. I never understood Italy convoying to Tunis in '01 for gunboat. The 2 armies already in position to defend the peninsula is crucial to blocking any funny ideas from Austria, and fleet Tunis gives you the option to contest Spain in 02 potentially. Keeping ion into spring '02 only serves to go fight turkey, but that's never the right play for Italy in the early years of gunboat.

Landed me 2 draws in the tourney, so can't complain too much about it yet from experience.

The problem with going for Marseilles and Spain is that you leave it up to Austria to fight off the combination of Turkey and Russia, which is only a matter of time before that combination breaks Austria and you have a five or six center Turkey. If I decide to make a play for Spain or Marseilles, keeping a fleet in the Ionian is always a priority, since you can use that leverage to effectively prop up an Austrian defense or even an Austria attack.

In the first game of group C, I did just that and moved to the Ionian. When Austria started doing well and grabbed Rumania, I bailed to go more at France and it failed and was able to go turn on Austria. I kinda did the same in game 4, with the turn on Austria early on. Basically, it always seems like I get an easy door into Austria as Italy when I get those 2 armies into Ven/pied and leave him fully alone in '01.

And if he does well, I move on France. I like the options the opening affords me.

The best reason not to open A Ank - Arm is because it means you've set up the board wrong. :)

I think it's funny that I'm getting a reputation out of this for being a player who likes to attack Austria as Italy. My plan for playing Italy definitely leaves that as a possibility, and I did so in 1901 with all three Italys I played in the first round. However, it wouldn't be fair to say that my plan consists solely of options for Austrian attacks.

@Lando, I felt that I did have success with these three Italys in Round 1; they ended up a 4-center survival (my side of the easy-to-hold stalemate line held), a 17-center draw (I had three 50/50 guesses for a solo and missed all three) and a 8-center draw (with Russia and Turkey still both viable).

@josunice: Like with all gunboat openings, the right answer is almost certainly a mixed strategy. As I've said, in the middle of the tournament, and given that I'm apparently unlikely to draw Italy in the next round, I feel it's...unwise to take this opportunity to introduce what I think is a new approach to Italy in gunboat. What I will do, though, is mention two factors that make playing Italy challenging, and that are the two main motivating factors for the approach I've developed. In other words, I'll remind you of the two main problems, but not give you my solutions for now. Fair compromise?

1) Distance -> advanced planning, the "fifth center" problem.

OK, you don't have to take much time to prep a stab for Trieste. But, in every other respect, you have this problem. To borrow a concept from chess, Diplomacy is a game in which you have to develop your pieces, bringing them to the front, before you can use them. This is most noticed as a problem for Turkey in the mid to late game, because it struggles to effectively convert builds into the power to acquire more builds. But, Italy has a similar development problem. After Tunis, any additional centers will require multiple units to take. Trieste is close at hand, but there are myriad problems with trying to take it, and even more with trying to hold it if you do take it. Greece is often Austrian if you haven't attacked Trieste, but if it's Turkish, you need to breach the Aegean to take it. Smyrna or Con are far further than Greece. On the other side, Mar is an investment requiring at least F GoL, and often a second fleet, because otherwise Spa S Mar is a line that France can easily hold.

In other words, getting a fifth center either requires an investment of several turns in one direction, with massive forewarning to everybody on the board (you might as well send an embossed declaration of war), with the one exception of Trieste, which you probably don't keep and is probably a poisoned pill. Solving the "fifth center" problem is necessary if you ever want to be a major player in the game. If a hostile Turkey gets a third fleet, it's necessary merely to survive.

2) You are in a bad position to gain from your attacks.

The good news is, when Italy jumps into an attack, there's a tendency for other powers to pile on, especially because they can usually see it coming (see point 1). The bad news is, they usually win. There are three possible realistic targets for expansion (sorry, Munich isn't one of them).

France: England and Germany will often jump in and help. Once France is gone, you're likely in for a fleet war with England. To get a good share of the breakup of France, you need to reach either Por or Par. England is much closer to Por, and Germany likely gets Par, with England also being closer.

Austria: When Austria breaks up, whoever keeps Budapest probably is the winner in the breakup. Russia is closer than you are, and Turkey is equally close.

Turkey: You'd better get Con, or you've gone all that way to pick up one center. Smy and Ank isn't enough because of what it does to you tactically. If Russia is part of the breakup, it's much closer to Con (and to Arm...). If Russia is dying in the breakup, then you need to pick up a third center as well.

To summarize:

There are three powers you can attack, and in each case, the key center is tougher for you to get to than your "allies". It would seem that it's a mistake to attack France unless you have a plan to get Por, a mistake to attack Austria without a plan to get Bud, and to attack Turkey without a plan to get Con+. And, you don't have the element of surprise. This is probably why Italy fares so poorly on the scorecard in gunboat. Having laid out the problems, I shall now refrain from offering solutions. :)

CStein - thanks for the thoughts, and great summary. I think that is why Italy sometimes does very well being defensive and cautious, and everyone's friend, until someone overextends. However, that will usually end in a draw, and rarely a win.

Y2K - I understand not convoying away the army, and indeed keeping both units on the mainland is the best defensive position, but I would suggest at least in 1901 you want Austria to have the strongest first year. Austria is able to hold off Russia and Turkey pretty well if you let him keep Russia out of Galacia and get the two clean builds. Then you can consider attacking France without immediate fear of Austria's collapse....

cSTEIN has articulated my thoughts on Italy better than I ever could have.

I solo more with Italy than any other nation (which still isnt much) but I get defeated with that country more than any other also. I am very rarein the draw, and I will explain.

My tendency is play more defensive (not always, but more often than not), and playing such with Italy is generally suicide for me. I can never make up my mind, and am alwasy reacting, and never have the 'initiative' so to speak.

I am far more aggressive with Austria, probably because I see it as a "all or nothing" situation with them.

As italy, I very rare attack Austria from the start, and take the usual Rome to apulia and convoy to tunis.

In a few games recently (not in this tourn) I havve actually allowed Englands openings to dictate my move. They open up with a F/E alliance, I have wetn against france, even though Italy generally does poorly achieving any real progress that way, unless Germany breaks into Burgandy, It gives Austria the security to fight in the east.

I hate playign Italy for this very reason though, as I am waiting to see what happens more than making things happen.

I prefer to go out in a blaze of fire than get reduced to being a 2nd rate power thru the expansion of other.

In gunboats, I prefer to Play France or England, sometimes Germany,

Why so many players name Galicia as Galacia? I've heard that so many times. Is it hard to pronounce for English speakers? Or there is something else? Bartens Sea likewise but not such often.

Split, I think it has to do with the way we pronounce it, and they are spelling it phonetically.

Players are dumb. It's Gal*i*cia. No way you get any different pronunciation out of that.

Yeah,I thought so,it might be a little bit complicated but it's written on the board clearly and we writte here,we don't pronounce.Poor Galician people.Although it's an antique nation and nowadays such country doesn't exist,it's divided by Slovakia,Ukraine,Poland and Rumania,I believe.

2nd, please slow your roll... indeed, on further review of the entomology of Galicia, the proper pronunciation is LISH, making an "a" not an option. However, I, as others as Split alluded to, have pronounced the ancient and long defunct kingdom of Galicia as LASH, instead of LISH. I did not realize this was such a dear and personal issue, bro. I promise it will not happen again!

Until this moment I had no idea that it wasn't GalAcia.

sPLIT, THERE is 2 regions of the world named Galicia (exact same spelling), the one being in Spain being pronounced differently.

So I looked it up on Wikipedia...it offers two different pronunciations: Gal-ISH-a (no -ia) and Gal-ISS-ia.

Now I'm just plain confused.

East Europe is a black hole we generally don't waste our time on in western education. O_O

2ndwl, the 2nd one is for the one in SPain.

Yes,I know that sTRESS but both pronounced with an "i". And both written with an "i". The difference is Spanish people pronounce "c" in a different way.

Thanks, Wikipedia didn't differentiate

I like to do cray stuff as Italy, because I get the feeling that I can get away with it more than with any other power. Attacking Munich in 1901, for instance (just for the build of a third fleet, not actually meaning a real war with Germany).

You play every power that way JP :P

*crazy, not cray (I mean, no supercomputers are used in my openings).

Gen. - You shouldn't be proud of that. East Europe is the place where the world came into existence.

I thought Africa was

You're going to have to explain that a little better, Split.

JP, that should be a disclaimer in your profile... No super computers were employed in achieving these results...

Yes,Africa too but the Meditterian part of it. You can see it all on the Ancient Med map - North Africa,Western Asia and South - East Europe. The civilization started there. Or I'm wrong about it?

Sumatra, Mesopotamia, all those places.

Depends on what we're calling "civilization". If you're referring to the first humans as "civilization" then you're talking about the Great Rift Valley in Uganda. First society would probably be in the Middle East in modern-day Iraq. Ancient Med map is more the classical world, long after civilization had developed.

Mapu, do you mean Sumeria? Sumatra is in Indonesia :)

O_O <---this face doesnt mean proud.

Haha yes I do. My 8th grade history memory failed me.

So is it "Gal-ISH-*ia*" or "Gal-ISH-a"?

No,I'm talking about politics,states and culture. Reffering to what Gen said about East Europe. I had a feeling he compared East Europe to American Wild West. So I wanted to say it wasn't like that,rather the upside down.

"ia"

Actually, it is Галичѧ (or Галычѧ) after the Галич dynasty that ruled that part of what is now Western Ukraine centered around L'vov (Russian spelling) or L'viv (Ukrainian spelling) or if you prefer, Львив. The modern Ukrainian pronunciation is roughly HAHL-each-ya. In no slavic dialect is the middle syllable anything other than the sound in "each" or "itch" (though in the latter case, not exactly like the English vowel sound. Our problem is that the province name comes from foreign attempts to spell and/or pronounce the slavic name. This is further complicated in modern times by our cultural aversion to studying both geography and history. It is probably also confused by the province Galatia (south-cental Turkey) which many modern English-speakers are familiar with from St. Paul's letter to the church there ("Galatians").

+1 VirtualBob.