gazfun wrote:When Austrian political attitude to France is neutral, Then mid way through the first year, a script writes in the Austrian Alliance with GB without any diplomatic visit on both sides and in fact Austria trying to negotiate a deal with France and diplomats being exchanged and both sides to try and get an alternative result IS interfering. A truly independent game should allow for these factors.
Imagination or skill should be encouraged, rather than forced to conform to a narrative view.
Colonel Marbot wrote:I enjoy charting my own path in the campaign games and rarely use the peace treaty scripts, as I am too far along with my own agenda. I pretty much follow 1805 and 1806 with attacks on Austria and Prussia as it happened historically, but from 1807 on I am on my own. I attack Russian earlier, and go through the Ottoman empire before heading west towards England and finally Spain. I am saying this, because although the scripts are there and give the game a historical feeling, you can divert from history in many enjoyable ways.
Captain_Orso wrote:I'm assuming that the January 1805 scenario is in question here.
I have a fairly limited knowledge of Napoleonic history, but from my understanding, Austria joined the Third Coalition in reaction to Napoleon declaring the Kingdom of Italy in the territory of what is now northern Italy, which was at the time historically a sphere of influence of Austria. So in my mind Austria remaining out of the Third Coalition would be tantamount to rescinding her claim to northern Italy.
This however does not mean that France would abandon her ambitions on Austrian territory. In fact, it would give France an even better situation in some aspects. Western Austria would be extremely exposed with French allied Bavaria in the north and the Kingdom of Italy in the south, both easily reinforced with French forces, of which Austria, standing alone outside of the Third Coalition, could do nothing.
So, how to put this into game terms. Let's say, Austria remains out of the Third Coalition. But she still has historical claims on the territory of the Kingdom of Italy. This is a point of contention with France. So there should be a strong discontent between France and Austria on this point alone. One might create an option for Austria to rescind her claim to northern Italy, but that would have to be at a cost to Austrian NM. This might mitigate Frances ambitions against Austria, but certainly not ban them. And with Austria outside the Third Coalition, she would be standing alone. That seems to me to make Austria an easy and logical target for France, for England could hardly unite her forces with Russia in western Europe with neutral Prussia and Saxony in between. France would have her choice of what to do next.
If Austria did not rescind her claims to norther Italy, that might be an automatic CB for France. Now France would not necessarily have to attack Austria on that fact alone. But with Austria outside the Third Coalition, with the threat of intervention from Austria over the Kingdom of Italy, it would give France not only an incentive against Austria, but also make Austria a most logical target.
But if I were France, I would not only want Austria to rescind her claims to the KoI, but also to the rest of historic Italy (Triest and the territory west of there), and anything else I might be able to take. With Austria, basically isolated, it makes every move against her that much easier.
So, it would be possible to have Austria be able to decide to remain outside the Third Coalition, but I would find it to be a very poor decision.
So my question is, what would be the point of keeping Austria outside of the Third Coalition? What possibility would be gained by this?
Users browsing this forum: veji1 and 5 guests