I think German/Italian alliances can work well - then again any diplomacy player worth their salt will look at different alliances and think outside of the box on occasion. The German/Austrian alliance is certainly convenient but both players should be able to give it up if it suits them.

Incidentally, this is a pet peeve of mine but "Anschluss" is a horrible name for a German/Austrian alliance. To historically minded people like me it implies Germany is going to *attack* Austria. An alliance should be called "Central Powers" or something like that. Again, it's my own peeve, butt if players are going to throw around historical terms I am going to assume they mean what the term implies. It could lead to confusion and misinterpretation. "Sealion" and "Lepanto" work because they more or less mimic what the name implies.

Sorry for the tangent. The article does make a case for thinking about non-traditional alliances. Nothing is more boring than seeing the same things happen game after game (I'm looking at you, Italy/Austria-gang-up-on-Turkey players!)

So. From Italy's point of view it's good for Germany to attack Austria. Yes, I believe that.
But is it in Germany's interests to do so?
It depends on how the southeastern triangle sorts itself out.
Situation 1) RTvA. Well, here we have a Juggernaut, without Italian and German help Austria is doomed. Russia takes Vie, Bud, Rum in quick succession. Turkey gets Greece and Serbia. Italy takes Trieste. Turkey has three fleets in the Med, Italy has three fleets but only 2 armies. Trieste falls (or else he defends Trieste and loses the Ionian). Meanwhile Russia has 3 or 4 builds, Germany probably 3 and unless Germany has wrapped up his triangle in the same quick time he's going to face a Russian bear that fancies Bratwurst for tea. I don't like his chances unless he's allied with England and France is reasonably incompetent.
ARvT. Here Italy has sided with his natural enemy against his natural ally. Are you sure this is in Italian interests? Anyway Italy probably steals Trieste but is then going to get sent home by Austria helped by Russia. What can Germany spare to aid the demise? One army max - maybe he'll get Vienna out of it and knock Austria into a cocked hat. Russia and Turkey then fight, Germany and Italy take them on and win. Good scenario for Germany - assuming he's got something sorted out in the west. Italy has the rougher end of the stick - his centres are coming from the prickly turkish porcupine but yes, this seems like a good time for G to knock A.
ATvR. So Italy joins Russia in attacking Austria. Germany joins in and then finds himself in between I/R allies. Do we believe that I/R are going to send all their strength against Turkey when there are German centres looking like lunch (especially for Russia). No, we don't.
Overall then we have a bad move when R/T are allied (if there's a juggernaut you don't clear its path) and a bad move when A/T are allied (you are setting up a strong I/R alliance and Germany is the natural prey of such a beast), however, it is a good move (possibly) if A/R are allied. It has, however, been said before [citation needed] that the Anschluss is not so much a statement that Germany does well when Austria does well as a statement that Germany does well when Russia does badly.

I would argue that it is not always in Italy's best interest to attack Austria for the many reasons stated above plus it is very predictable. If it is always accepted that Italy will attack Austria, Austria will be more likely to hold Italy at bay and allows Russia and Turkey to form an understanding so while Austria and Italy lock horns they are pressed by the R/T juggernaut.

It is often in Italy's best interests to use Austria as a buffer state depending upon the relationship of the other nations. There are times when it is much better for Italy to ally with Austria and to be patient and see how things really stand before committing itself to attacking Austria or remaining allied. There is historic precedence in this:

In the years that led up to World War I, Italy had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. In theory, Italy should have joined on the sides of these two nations when war broke out in August 1914. Italy did not. Turkey came in on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Two German military vessels, a battleship and a heavy cruiser, that had been caught in a neutral Ottoman port when war broke out in Europe were turned over to the Ottoman navy. In October they put to sea with German officers and crews and shelled Odessa and other Russian ports while flying the Ottoman flag. Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on November 5, 1914 followed the next day by Britain and France.

What Italy did was wait and see how the war progressed. On April 26th 1915, she came into the war on the side of the Triple Entente – Britain, France and Russia.

As for Germany, in most games I have found Germany not likely to involve himself in the east until things are well sorted in the west, but the position that it is in Germany's best interests to have a strong Italy taking out Austria and then Turkey, I disagree with as it is in Germany's best interests for there to be gridlock and stalemate in the Balkans as that is the surest way that Germany can get over the stalemate lines and get a foothold in the east because after Austria and Turkey are gone, Italy should be a real threat to Germany.

Italy is a challenge to play, perhaps arguably more challenging than most, but in the end, rather than tying yourself to a particular battlefield doctrine or strategy, you are better off remaining flexible and adapting to the particular game's dynamics. Each game is different and there are no perfect targets for any Great Power. I have won as each of the Great Powers and I have been defeated as each of the Great Powers and I have been in draws with and as each of the Great Powers. So while in some cases it is better for Italy to attack Austria, I would say that there are just as many reasons for Italy allying with Austria.

The truth of the matter is that it only makes sense for Italy to attack Austria if they are sure to be very successful. If Italy attacks Austria, Turkey WILL get Bulgaira, Greece, and Serbia. The question is whether Italy will gain enough to offset these gains by Turkey (which will next look toward Italy). The answer is almost always no, especially since Austria tends to want to defend their home centers more strongly than the rest of the Balkans.

Apart from the arguement that Italy should never attack austria to begin with - i think it is fair to suggest that if itlay can replace austria quickly enough it Germany should support him as he would an Austria.

Austria gains much from germany as an ally against Russia, Austria really needs someone to keep Russia in check. Germany needs A strong southern partner for the same reason (he can't hold off Russia all on his own) now the problem is if an Italian invasion means Russia gains Rum, Bud, and Vie (fairly easy from galicia, war, ukr)

A better option for Italy is to work with Austria.

However looking at Germany - he is either busy in the west or has units free to help out in the east - with Italy : one unit may get Vienna, but one unit alone is not usually enough to hold anything especially when his Italian allydecides to take it.

Many players would prefer to avoid decicating another unit to Austria when the chances of them supporing themselves are slim. For germany a unit in Tyrolia is appealing because it can be used to defend Munich or head toward piedmont to break through the french line, but few italians would want this. Only when Russia and Turkey are at each other's throats, and germany has at least two units available would i consider helping italy out.

Also, for the German, Austria alive is great - he can't afford to attack Germany. Even upon conquering the balkans (greece, rum, serbia, and bul) Austria is busy dealing with three turkish and probably two russian units (if russia is dead, probably 4 turkish units and German ones in russia) Austria will take a long time before heading north.

Spling!*

"As for Germany, in most games I have found Germany not likely to involve himself in the east until things are well sorted in the west"

- I find this EAST/WEST division a little misleading - a northern opening by russia usually signals the opening of the northern triangle - Germany, Russia and England fighting over three neutrals, each able to build fleets (but only Russia able to buidl north and south of the neutrals...) meanwhile Italy-Turkey-Austria are busy fighting in the Southern Triangle and France is left alone and seperate (except you can never ignore france... unless he accidentally bounces himself in spain... but let's not talk about that game while it is still going on)

The theory is alright, although the article is riddled with typos and written in a generally inappropriate style for any kind of "article".

Sharp writes that the Central Triple is a natural, and powerful, extension of the Anschluss, so you're ignoring a decades-old solution to the Italy problem - let him in on it! Italy and Austria are weak early, so having them fight each other is senseless. Germany might propose to Italy that he attack Austria, if Germany has a sensible alternative plan to the Anschluss, but he'll take advantage of the distraction to sort out England and France, not to send armies charging against Austria.

Now, another issue is that, if things work out and Austria goes down, the gains will accrue to Italy's true ally, Russia. I/R is extremely powerful, and finally offers the underpowered Italy a real chance (a draw or a strong second). Remember that the Anschluss profits Austria in the early game, but GERMANY in the middlegame, because it provide a powerful buffer against Russia, while making sure any Italian aggression is met swiftly and decisively.

The extension of the Anschluss to the Central Triple facilitates a game-breaking stab by two of the allies on the third at some point. In my experience, it's been easier for Germany and Austria to stab Italy, but I think that's an artifact of poor play across the site - I think it makes more sense for Italy and Germany to attack Austria, but not early, as you propose. France and England should be sorted out before a stab, and Russia should be significantly weakened as well.

I would still prefer Germany-Austria and vastly prefer the Triple Alliance Germany-Austria-Italy.
Some holes I see include...Like said earlier Turkey and Russia will be able to ally and gain ground without Austria in the way. Italy replaced a land threat for a more dangerous land and sea threat, hardly a bargain. Germany has little to gain much to lose. A single holding in Vienna under siege and Russian armies invading the fatherland. Also I would like to know what in your opinion should Germany do with Sweden? Obivously, with Austria; Germany can bargain for her survival. But, what can Germany bargain for if Italy is an ally? You also make no statements about how to handle a very real possible jugg. Alliance nor what should Germany do about the West while in it's eastern venture.

"But, what can Germany bargain for if Italy is an ally?"

He offers to give Russia Sweden if Russia attacks Austria as well? That gives more of the pie to Russia and dooms Germany.

I do believe Edi came up with a way to deal with Austria in a Germany-Italy. Looking thur the archives I believe this is what he had in mind. http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/koniggratz.htm

I've read it before, and you'll want to note this: "That is, this is not a prescription of the 'best' or optimum opening for all occasions, but a specific solution to a tactical problem given a set of strategic perceptions and goals by the player."

And: "The strategic setting is rather unusual."

Sorry for the double post.

Indeed Acosmist, I'm a total Austrophile so you wouldn't find a lot support from me.

Interesting article. I think I need a little more strategic detail on exactly how the initial diplomacy would run and the opening moves and possibilities.

One thing to keep in mind is that, according to this article (http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/strategy/articles/basics_germany.htm) on German opening strategy;

"The case for Germany's fate being dependant on Austria is beyond doubt. In The Numbers Game _13 Richard pointed out that ignoring games where Germany or Austria dropped out, there have been 392 finishes where Austria has been eliminated early (5th or worse) and of these games Germany has only won 7% and drawn 18%. In games where Austria has managed 4th or better, Germany has won 16% and drawn 30%."

I'd love to get hold of these "The Numbers Game" articles, but can't seem to find them published anywhere on the interweb!