Italian War Claims

[ringhloth]

Italy joining is incredibly biased towards the Entente, whether or not the CP gives them the provinces they want. While the CP's alignment in Italy could survive D'Annuzio with a little luck and Austria giving up claims, and the Entente player can be dissuaded from shedding NM on giving up Tunis, it's almost absurd that the event to recognize Italian claims is just as strong whether or not Austria gives up its land. Especially considering that the Italian claim event doesn't give any alignment to Austria, just the provinces in Austria. Which is essentially useless, even after the alignment drop from giving the Italians their claims. Right now, the best the CP can hope for by giving up land in Austria is keeping Italy out of the war for two years or so. I dearly hope that's not what was intended by the devs.

[Kensai]

I did it in my PBEM game. It is too early to consider the consequences, but I have to tell you that it's not that bad. Italy should indeed be "satiated" by the new Austrian territory and this is exactly what happens. Considering the 20% of alignment, it is fair to say that all other things staying equal, it should delay Italy's entry in the war for about a year or so (1% for each 1 turn that moves towards the inevitable Entente entry), without diplomatic influence. But the effect could be higher if the CP player has played it early enough when Italy is towards 60-70% CP and the rolls and proclivities are towards the other side.

From a historical point of view it is valid too, cause Italy could still be convinced to join the Entente later. Remember, Italy was off the hook because Austria-Hungary was the aggressor against the Serbs. It was not obliged to join the Central Powers in a war if it wasn't strictly defensive. By staying neutral, it was making a favor to both sides. But after the initial confrontations, it could always make up its mind if the deal is sweetened.

You can actually make a strong case for Italy if you accept some delay for Turkey's entry (and of course you are somehow lucky with the event appearance probabilities and alignment movement rolls). In our PBEM we are in February 1915 and Italy is 69% CP, one short of naturally leaning towards the Central Powers. Of course my rival hasn't played all his cards yet (literally!), only D'Annunzio. But even if he does now, Italy won't enter before mid 1916 as I see it. And that's a lot of time to finish off the Serbs or make a stand against the Russians, as Austria-Hungary, without fearing for your back!

PS. I do agree with you, though, that in case the Entente recognizes the Italian War Goals after the Central Powers have given the lands, there should at least minimize some of the damage done by the CP playing his own card, which is very deleterious for Austria-Hungary's war effort. Not only because of the NM and VP loss, but also for the horrible alignment loss. Perhaps we need to add a special condition for the Entente's decision, to check if the CP has played or not the concessions.

Regardless, it is a powerful effect I and guess a "cards shuffling" for all sides. With Italy not entering by late 1915 or early 1916, the CP could actually reverse their chances. Having a year to fight without looking over your shoulder is quite the relief.

[Jinx]

Very interesting. I wonder if anyone has succeeded in getting the Italians to join the CP.

[Merlin]

Kensai is close, though that has a fair bit to do with him being somewhat lucky with his diplos and I being quite a bit unlucky with mine. I got increases in Italy at something just under half the number one would expect, given the alignment.

[DrPostman]

I did once, but it was in an earlier beta build before the game's release. It was a trip to
send Italian troops through Southern France.

[Jinx]

That's pretty fantastic. It might actually be a very viable option to ignore the Ottomans and focus from the start on the Italians. If nothing else it will delay their arrival by at least a year.

[Altaris]

That's pretty fantastic. It might actually be a very viable option to ignore the Ottomans and focus from the start on the Italians. If nothing else it will delay their arrival by at least a year.

Yep, I agree with this. The Ottomans can be a mixed bag as an ally anyway (though useful for diverting some British attention). Keeping the Italians out of the war is perhaps a better long-term approach for the Central Powers.

I know there have been some complaints about the diplomatic scene being more limited than, say, WW1-Gold, but I think the ones presented in EAW more reasonably represent what might have actually happened. It should be fairly rare for the Italians to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers (they would've been in a very unenviable spot in the Mediterranean vs both Britain and France), but keeping them neutral should be a viable path, at least until much later in the war.

I'd love to know how things turned out in a game where the Italians were neutral or allied to the Centrals.

[Kensai]

Unfortunately, further trouble with this scenario. In our PBEM my rival enacted the Italian War Claims after I gave concessions as the CP, but my Austria-Hungary did NOT get back any alignment, although it lost its own share when the concessions were given. Please fix this for the future.

Also, it might deserve a different thread, but I think London bombings by Zeppelins don't work either. It's April and I have been bombing London since January and no rebel alignment raised for the British, with or without rival fighter CAP. Moreover, my own Zeppelins don't seem to take any damage. How does this decision work exactly?

I'd love to know how things turned out in a game where the Italians were neutral or allied to the Centrals.

This is very difficult to happen unless the WE player is eager to bring the Americans early in (which as a plan has its own merits). I am very curious to see what happens in the long term and which situation damages the WE player most: the Italians or the Americans coming late to their side.

That said, I feel that even six months of delay can change the course of the war, all other things being equal. The Italians can pin down the Austrian Army and prevent it from doing a good defense-counterattack against the Russians, on the other hand the USA in the Entente is well, the USA...

Kensai is close, though that has a fair bit to do with him being somewhat lucky with his diplos and I being quite a bit unlucky with mine. I got increases in Italy at something just under half the number one would expect, given the alignment.

I am not sure how you calculate, but I have been quite unlucky myself in Persia and Greece. Persia had risen and then fell again (by your own streak of lucky rolls) and Greece was stuck to 51-52% and always coming down to neutrality (which means I was failing a lot there). Italy swept out of your control when it passed the 60-65% mark, but the WE has so many decision events to bring it down again, if the WE player wants to take the costs.

Given that we play together I am not entirely sure which one of us does worse in insisting on Italy, given that (as in real life) its armed forces are overrated. I wonder if, in hindight, one of us does not feel remorse by not influencing the USA earlier. I wish I knew which course of action is best, especially now that the USA is still high in CP and I could probably delay it a lot. Still, I am afraid to lose grip.

[Merlin]

Unfortunately, further trouble with this scenario. In our PBEM my rival enacted the Italian War Claims after I gave concessions as the CP, but my Austria-Hungary did NOT get back any alignment, although it lost its own share when the concessions were given. Please fix this for the future.

Also, it might deserve a different thread, but I think London bombings by Zeppelins don't work either. It's April and I have been bombing London since January and no rebel alignment raised for the British, with or without rival fighter CAP. Moreover, my own Zeppelins don't seem to take any damage. How does this decision work exactly?

I noticed both of these as well. I was expecting Austria's alignment to be around 12% without the concessions you played this turn.

After the Zepps kept coming, I thought:

I am not sure how you calculate, but I have been quite unlucky myself in Persia and Greece. Persia had risen and then fell again (by your own streak of lucky rolls) and Greece was stuck to 51-52% and always coming down to neutrality (which means I was failing a lot there). Italy swept out of your control when it passed the 60-65% mark, but the WE has so many decision events to bring it down again, if the WE player wants to take the costs.

Given that we play together I am not entirely sure which one of us does worse in insisting on Italy, given that (as in real life) its armed forces are overrated. I wonder if, in hindight, one of us does not feel remorse by not influencing the USA earlier. I wish I knew which course of action is best, especially now that the USA is still high in CP and I could probably delay it a lot. Still, I am afraid to lose grip.

It was an observation about Italy. I don't think with normal rolls that major investment for the CP is worth it. Given the way it played out, obviously it was worth your time. I think the true value of Italy is the new front no matter which side it takes. Since no player wants his 1915-1916 plans to be pure static defense, getting Italy is important.

[HerrDan]

Yep, I agree with this. The Ottomans can be a mixed bag as an ally anyway (though useful for diverting some British attention). Keeping the Italians out of the war is perhaps a better long-term approach for the Central Powers.

I know there have been some complaints about the diplomatic scene being more limited than, say, WW1-Gold, but I think the ones presented in EAW more reasonably represent what might have actually happened. It should be fairly rare for the Italians to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers (they would've been in a very unenviable spot in the Mediterranean vs both Britain and France), but keeping them neutral should be a viable path, at least until much later in the war.

I'd love to know how things turned out in a game where the Italians were neutral or allied to the Centrals.

I agree completelly with you Altaris and I very much prefer this realistic aproach that we have than the " diplomatic freedom" some "sandbox's lovers" here want. Italy would hardly ever join the CP, the best the CP can expect from the italians is neutrality and even this shouldn't be easy at all (even though I agree that it should be possible). I only wished the italians were easier to stop as the austrian than they are now, Italy should always have a very hard time to press against Austria's good defensive positions as happened IRL.

Cheers.

[BBBD316]

Just throwing this out there, would it be possible as the CP to offer the return of Nice and Savoy to Italy as sweetener?

I know these weren't really core provinces, but perhaps if the CP offers Austrian lands it could then play the second card?

[Kensai]

This is an interesting idea. For starters, there are many regions on the map that could have mixed alignment (allegiance) so they could abstract local population feeling on the wrong side of the borders. This was a big deal back then.

In game terms this has its own implications (for example between Austria-Hungary and Italy, Austria-Hungary and Romania, etc) given that alignment could provide for local information (detection levels).

[HidekiTojo]

Well Salandra was able to land Italy in the Entente camp through a conspiracy worthy of a tinfoil hat wearer.

Then you have to consider that it was widely known before the war that Italy was the most unreliable member of the Triple Alliance. The Italians hated Austria-Hungary, a hatred that only deepened after unification. There was outrage in nationalistic circles over the 'ugly border' as Garibaldi called it. The claim to Trentino was the single most important reason for Italy entering the war, this desire for the border to end on the Isonzo.

Also there was an equally fervent desire among many Italians to establish total control over the Adriatic, this also meant that the Italy would have to control the Balkan Adriatic coast. At least that was their reasoning.

France had helped Sardinia-Piedmont to unify Italy so the new country had a much better relationship with their Western neighbor than their Eastern nature.

Perhaps just as important as 'Italia Irredenta' was the nature of the Triple Alliance. It was a treaty of mutual defense. Now the two Germanic countries would clearly stick together regardless of the circumstances, but Italy had always felt a little uncomfortable being allied with the Austrian bloc, and the irredentist movement violently opposed it.

When Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia it gave Italy the perfect excuse to abandon the Triple Alliance and remain neutral. The treaty was only binding if any of the Triple Alliance signatories were attacked, since Austria began the initial hostilities, legally Italy was not obligated to enter the war on their behalf.

There were very vociferous supporters of the TA anyway, the most notable one being the General-In-Chief who preceded Cadorna. The name escapes me atm but he supported Germany and A-H all the way, even offering to ferociously attack France! He also proposed to deploy the army on the opposite side of the country along the French border.

An extremely intriguing what-if scenario. He was certainly a competent leader who had an exceptional grasp of the kind of tactics that were going to be necessary to effectively fight this war well before most everyone else. Then he died, and was replaced by Cadorna, often referred to as the bull. He wrote a tactics manual which had become the standard for the Italian infantry. It was the epitome of early war thinking, it would have perhaps made some sense many decades previously but since Cadorna was the head of the army he applied his tactics manual every single time he engaged the CP with utterly disastrous results.

I think what made it much worse, like salt in a wound, was that this infantry tactics manual was Cadorna's pride and joy. He didn't write anything else, and his idea of fun was to revise the manual again. He did so like twenty times by the time the war broke out.



Ultimately when you combined the Irredentist sentiment present in a significant part of the population, a peasant class that couldn't care less about politics and therefore just kinda went along with whatever happened, a very weak king who had considered abdicating many times, a Chief-of-Staff who was to put it mildly mind numbingly stupid and possibly the most stubborn human to ever live.

When you combine all this with a conspiracy initiated by Salandra, whom Giolotti had appointed as a filler candidate in the interim between his next government allowing Giolitti to get his supporters back in line, that was so well executed it is terrifying.

Salandra essentially managed to drive Italy into the Allied camp without the population at large and nobody in the government noticing at all. For nearly every single person in Italy, including the king, their head of government had gotten them into the war almost overnight once events were set in motion.

It also really helped that he was able to use D'annunzio to drive Italy into a frenzy.

Seriously though, there were only two or three people who knew what was really going on and what Salandra was doing, which was selling the country to the highest bidder. The CP problem was that Germany couldn't get Austria to budge and offer anything really substantial until it was too late. Whilst the Allies could basically promise Italy the moon since they wouldn't be giving up anything to get Italy into the fight except for a few promises.

[Kensai]

Well said. However, it should still be possible, albeit remotely. I think the game should allow for chances (events firing or not firing) at the right moments so they give this or that temporal advantage to either side. This could help, in ideal situations bring Italy to the CP or, the opposite, allow it to enter the Entente without too much effort.