david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/17/85)
[Diplomacy is the art of thwarting line-eaters...say, who said that?]
Andrew Reibman is correct (well, at least *I* agree) that Italy must
pay greater attention to the balance of power than others. While
worrying about what's going on all over the map is merely good policy
for other countries, for Italy, as the MOST central power, it is a
matter of survival. Let's look at the view from Rome in early 1901.
From sunny Italy, it is clear that there are two groups of three
powers. To the east are Austria, Turkey, and Russia; to the west,
England, France, and Germany. With the exception of Russia, which
usually treats the West as a secondary front anyway, the two groups
usually have very little to do with each other. It therefore follows
that "progress" is usually made in the West or East when two of the
powers in that region set upon the third.
If Italy were able to act to prevent any such alliances from arising,
we'd have a lot of seven-way draws. That this is not the case
indicates that, while astute Italian diplomacy may keep the pot
boiling a while longer (and make no mistake: for Italy, the longer,
the better), Italy cannot forever prevent the resolution of regional
dominances. It therefore follows that Italy ought to strive to bring
about those alliances that threaten Italy the least.
In the East, the choice is clear. If Austria is odd man out, Turkey
will be building fleets, and many of them. If Russia is odd man out,
Turkey will again be building fleets, and many of them. It is
desirable, then, to have Turkey be odd man out, as this is the only
way in which Turkey is likely to concentrate on army building to the
extent that it will not pose a great threat to Italy.
In the West, the choice is almost clear. If Germany is odd man out,
France will likely invade the Mediterranean in force. If France is
the odd man out, England will invade the Mediterranean if the
Ango-German alliance holds up. If England is the odd man out, no one
will be bothering Italy from that direction for quite a while.
Italy therefore PREFERS an Austro-Russian alliance against Turkey and
a Franco-German alliance against England. The former is common, and
can be strongly encouraged (see below); the latter is unusual, as most
French and German players prefer alliance with England than with one
another (except for Kaiser Wilhelm, but he hardly plays anymore...).
To bring about the desired situation in the East, I have followed the
following course the last two times I've drawn Italy. Once was in a
game with weekly moves, and it succeeded dramatically (it was the last
time I've actually won outright); in a FTF game, without the necessary
time to impress the logic of my case upon Vienna and St. Petersburg,
and with a superior Turkish player and an inferior Austrian one, it
led to a free for all that resulted in a five-way draw.
(1) Inform Russia that should the Russians ally with Turkey,
Italy will come to Austria's aid; should Russia ally with
Austria, Italy will NOT intervene upon Turkey's behalf;
and should Russia face an Austro-Turkish alliance, Italian
intervention on Russia's behalf is certain. You may also
wish to mention your interest in divvying up Austria, but
only AFTER Turkey has been defeated.
(2) Inform Austria that should they ally with Turkey, Italy
will come to Russia's aid; should they ally with Russia,
Italy will not intervene upon Turkey's behalf; should they
be attacked by Russo-Turkish alliance, Italy will aid
Austrian defense. Mention firmly, but in a friendly
fashion, that Italy would view the construction of a
second Austrian fleet VERY dimly, and that Italy would
prefer to provide Austria what naval assistance was
necessary rather than permitting that second fleet.
(3) Try to persuade the Turks not to introduce more than one
fleet west of the Bosporus. You probably won't succeed,
though this is only way you're likely to be able to live
with the Turks. If you do succeed, and you really believe
they mean it, then is the only time to consider altering
your quiet, but very anti-Turkish, policy.
Hopefully, this will result in an Austro-Russian alliance against
Turkey, securing Italy from naval attack from the East. If things
turn out well in the west, Italy will have much freedom of action. If
England and Germany ally against France, Italy can participate (if
Germany will ally against England afterwards) or help defend (if not).
If the feared Anglo-French alliance materializes, Italy will be able
to aid Germany.
My point is, I suppose, that Italy must secure a favorable alliance
structure in either the West or the East, as she rarely can intervene
effectively in both areas militarally. My proposal concentrates on the
East, as Austria begins inclined to ally with Russia (France does not
begin inclined towards alliance with Germany), Austria often
voluntarily discards naval ambitions (not so with France), and Italy
can promise massive assistance to Austria if necessary (not as easy if
France is threatened). Italy thus begins the game with far more
leverage in the East. I say, use it to free oneself to seek similar
leverage in the West.
Long Windedly,
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
P.S. Oh, yes, what of Italian moves?!? A little reflection makes it
fairly clear that I advocate
A Ven -> Pie
A Rom -> Ven
F Nap -> Ion
under most circumstances, though if you are fairly sure that France
and Germany will ally with England, go for the Lepanto
A Ven Holds
A Rom -> Apu
F Nap -> Ion.
Only if Austria threatens to ally with Turkey should you order
A Ven -> Tyl
A Rom -> Ven
F Nap -> Ion.
Finally, if you are SURE that Austria and Russia will ally against
Turkey (or that Russia will remain neutral in an Austro-Turkish
struggle) AND that Austria is trustworthy, may I suggest consideration
of
A Ven -> Pie
A Rom -> Tus, Nap, or Holds
F Nap -> Tyn
to be followed by a convoy to Tunis and invasion of Wes? A rare bird
that I may yet find occasion to use...