Soloing as Italy

Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Soloing as Italy

Re: Soloing as Italy

by AnimalsCS » Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 pm

Enriador wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:25 pm
My linked source *does* explain where they collected their data, you just didn't follow it. Burton, in the very first lines, mentions his FRIGATE program to read through his dataset *and* that it is further introduced in his first article.

If you follow through his first article - http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2006M/ ... owers.html - you will see him mention Doug Massey's JDPR (which rated games from the DP Diplomacy judge, in a way similar to how Ghost Rankings used to work here). There were literally thousands of games stored there, most of which have been lost to time. Yet, thankfully, their analysis survived.

In case you wish to cross-check the findings, "the Scribe" has gathered around 600 games - http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/S1998M/Anon/1901.html - with similar records regarding who takes what in 1901, among other interesting stuff.
Thank you for providing that link. The link to the article about the data collection in the article you sent before did not work – I tried it a number of times and searched the web for the author and "FRIGATE" to no avail.

Your wealth of sources is certainly helpful in any debate such as this!

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Enriador » Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:25 pm

Oh I don’t disagree with you that the geography of the board makes it more difficult for Italy to win or that this is backed up by data. I just think your arguments for why this is the case are quite pedantic and require some very big assumptions :)
I am sorry if I sounded like that; like I said, I was trying to be thorough and cover all bases. No clue what you mean by "big assumptions" though, as any kind of theoretical debate on subjective matters (such as "is Italy hard to solo with and if so, why?") will have assumptions.

Trick is finding out whether they are close to the truth.
There is a much simpler explanation: Italy sits on the East of the stalemate line. The eastern half of the map has 5 landlocked centers and a number of key land spaces like Galicia and Armenia. However, Italy needs fleets to attack Marseilles, Spain and Portugal. Italy has difficulty winning because, more than any other country, they must split their forces between fleets and armies and between the eastern and western halves of the board.
You raise an excellent point regarding Italy's position on the eastern half of the Main Stalemate Line. Let's see your "big assumption" on saying Italy has to "split their forces" between Army vs Fleet or East vs West "more than any other country".

I will let Josh Burton - noted statistician on the Diplomatic Pouch for many years - show off some sweet maps:

SCs typically held by Italy when Italy solos: http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007R/ ... solo-I.png

SCs typically held by Russia when Russia solos: http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007R/ ... solo-R.png

SCs typically held by England when England solos: http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007R/ ... solo-E.png

The data above confirms what you said about Italy going west and east - Marseilles, Spain and Portugal seem to be well within a soloing Italy's sphere of influence. It requires crossing the stalemate line and building fleets (also needed to take Turkish home centers!), while armies are a necessity to dive deep into Austria and Russia.

Interestingly, the data on England and Russia show similar aspects, but on different spheres. England (as most Diplomacy regulars know) cannot win with fleets alone - "there are no supply centers in the sea", a fellow hobbyist once said. To invade and hold the likes of Munich, Berlin, Paris and Marseilles, England (a naval-sided power in the early going) must cover up its continental presence with land forces. A soloing England, I suspect, has a similar ratio of armies-to-fleets compared to a soloing Italy.

Russia, on the other hand, has a whopping six supply centers on the other side of the Main Stalemate Line. Unsurprising given its status as the only power with home supply centers on either side of it, but we can safely "assume" that Russia can pull it off with a greater proportion of armies rather than fleets.

Italy has both characteristics at once, which is yet another drawback to add to Rome's long list of woes. However, little in the game of Diplomacy is, as you have put it, "simple". Beneath the clarity of its rules lies deep layers of profound mechanics that are interwoven in many different ways. Ascribing Italy's poor performance to just one (or two, or three) factor(s) is a simplistic view of the situation (pun not intended :razz: ).
Your linked source does not explain where they collected their data from or when so it is difficult to draw conclusions from it.
My linked source *does* explain where they collected their data, you just didn't follow it. Burton, in the very first lines, mentions his FRIGATE program to read through his dataset *and* that it is further introduced in his first article.

If you follow through his first article - http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2006M/ ... owers.html - you will see him mention Doug Massey's JDPR (which rated games from the DP Diplomacy judge, in a way similar to how Ghost Rankings used to work here). There were literally thousands of games stored there, most of which have been lost to time. Yet, thankfully, their analysis survived.

In case you wish to cross-check the findings, "the Scribe" has gathered around 600 games - http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/S1998M/Anon/1901.html - with similar records regarding who takes what in 1901, among other interesting stuff.
Now here you have not provided data and I do not see why this is necessarily the case.
I must admit I have no quantitative data for that. What I do have is a qualitative analysis by some folks you might have heard of; they are not necessarily 100% right but I suspect the truth is a little bit between what they said, what you said, and what most around the thread have been saying.

Sorry if it is a bit too long, but since we don't often see so many chipping in to discuss Italy I bet you will like the references (added emphasis in bold for those who just want to skim through it):

Baron von Powell, creator of 1900 , provides even more quantitative data and points out the Venice-Trieste dilemma as a cause of major friction and weakness (DP Zine, S2007M):
In a face-to-face game, the person who draws Italy receives condolences from the other players before the game even starts. Tournaments are designed so players won’t be "burdened" with Italy in more than one game. Player rating systems that don’t weigh a win or a draw by the Pope higher than a similar accomplishment by the President or Tsar are called into question. [...] I think the game of Diplomacy suffers if, as seems to be the case, a universal perception exists that some Great Powers are inherently stronger or weaker than others.
[...]
In an article by Melinda Holley that appeared in Diplomacy World #77 ("7x7 Gunboat Tournaments — An Analysis"), the results of twelve 7x7 Gunboat tournaments, a total of eighty-four games, are examined. Not surprisingly, the results show that Italy finished at the bottom. The Pope managed just one win out of the eighty-four games played. In comparison, France ran away from the field by winning fourteen games.
[...]
Out of 3723 conventional Diplomacy games recorded, Italy has won a paltry 221 times. Italy has also suffered 2968 losses. These numbers put Italy in last place on both accounts by a large margin. Austria-Hungary, almost everyone’s consensus pick as the next weakest Great Power, looks like a titan in comparison with 284 solos and 2899 losses. Russia, with 449 solos has lapped Italy, while France has lost 360 fewer times.
[...]
The first problem that jumps out at most people is that Italy’s SC in Venice is directly adjacent to Austria- Hungary’s SC in Trieste. No where else on the map does such a situation exist. Having SCs that touch can’t help but create tension between the two neighbors since each has to worry about the other opening the game with an attack. I think Austria-Hungary has much more to fear in this regard, but the problem does work both ways, particularly as the game progresses. Each Great Power is almost forced to have one unit pull garrison duty close to home to preclude the possibility of the other building in the Winter and attacking in the Spring without warning.

There is no doubt in my mind that this situation is annoying for both the Archduke and Pope, and contributes in some measure to each Great Power’s poor record. [...]
Steve Ray, scholar of the game (F2000M), in his (superb) article titled "Winning as Italy" exposes some of Italy's weaknesses - and singles out one in particular:
The single biggest wrecker of Italian chances to inexperienced or greedy Italian or Austrian players: those two supply centers (Venice/Trieste) adjacent to each other are a constant temptation/threat to the player across the border. Luckily, there is a simple truth that balances that: Nine times out of ten, when Italy or Austria attack each other early, both get eliminated early as well
Richard Egan, who if I am not mistaken also co-edited the zine (Vienna, #10) noticed, in particular, the contrast made with key border provinces such as the English Channel:
The adjacency of Venice and Trieste is certainly a unique situation on the gameboard. Inevitably it is a real handicap to both Italy and Austria, since from the opening moves each will be wary-of the other attempting to 'steal' their home centre, a security problem which often limits the options each is prepared to consider. France, for example, can order F(Bre) to MAO content in the knowledge that if England slips into the Channel, he can retrace his steps to minimise the damage and at least stand England out of his home centre in Brest.

By contrast, Austria and Italy have no such 'buffer', between them and the natural emphasis placed on home centres is exaggerated in Austria's instance by the fact that Trieste is that powers only coastal home centre, where fleets must be built. For one of the Weak 'Sisters to trust the other sufficiently to move out of the offending centre is a risky venture indeed - hence (the 'Balkan Gambit' title for Austria's optimistic F.(Tri)-Alb, A(Vie)-Tri, A(Bud)-Ser opening (and even this guards Trieste from Vienna, even if other versions of this particular 'Gambit' do not). Yet the alternative is for each to sit units like mother hens on each centre, hardly a constructive approach, and surely unlikely to benefit either's poor performance records.

All too often, one or other will move out at last, only to be stabbed, and it is the emphasis placed on the 'natural' unease between Italy and Austria that sponsors the lasting popularity of the 'Tyrolian Attack' opening for Italy (A(Ven)-Tyr, A(Rom)-Ven).
Charles Roburn, long-time writer at the Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S2007R), exposes a similar line of thought:
Undoubtedly, one of the main reasons is the way that Venice and Trieste border on each other. The Ven/Tri border represents a unique situation in standard Diplomacy: it is the only spot on the board where the home supply centers of two different Great Powers border directly on each other. This one fact alone is often held to be largely responsible for the generally poor overall performance of Austria and Italy relative to the other five Powers.
Allan B. Calhamer (Variations on a Theme), creator of Diplomacy. Yeah, the man himself:
"[...] Italy and Austria are considered to be the two weakest powers in Regular Diplomacy. One of the reasons for this is their mutual lack of security, because each has a home supply centre adjacent at the start of the game [...]".
I think I have already bothered you too much on this particular topic, so I won't engage any further. I am humbled by all the fascinating discussion you have been doing so far!
So the current hypothesis is that, in a high GR game, Italy will do relatively better than in the site average?
No idea, as that depends on the platform. Weaker games (such as those played by "uneducated" masses at Diplomacy apps far more popular than webDip) tend to have very weird results, which might differ from low-pot games in a place like webDiplomacy where the average player is somewhat more strategically-minded (we do have a subforum just for strategy, don't we?).

The reason is likely that people at low-level games simply play "almost" at random, as if in a gunboat game (no offense meant). That means safe countries (such as Turkey) often win far more often than in full press games of some quality, while Italy somehow manages to fare better than poor Austria (butchered by all sides as it is).

Whether that applies to webDiplomacy would be interesting to see! The Gunboat Statistics and Opening Database is great but Full Press information is most welcome.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Yonni » Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:24 pm

So the current hypothesis is that, in a high GR game, Italy will do relatively better than in the site average? I can get that data for you at some point.

If I were to bet, I'd say that it will not.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by AnimalsCS » Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:57 am

Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:51 pm
Ha, that's the denialism I was talking about. It didn't take long. :-D
Oh I don’t disagree with you that the geography of the board makes it more difficult for Italy to win or that this is backed up by data. I just think your arguments for why this is the case are quite pedantic and require some very big assumptions :)

There is a much simpler explanation: Italy sits on the East of the stalemate line. The eastern half of the map has 5 landlocked centers and a number of key land spaces like Galicia and Armenia. However, Italy needs fleets to attack Marseilles, Spain and Portugal. Italy has difficulty winning because, more than any other country, they must split their forces between fleets and armies and between the eastern and western halves of the board.

Anyways, to address some of the points you raised in your most recent post:
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:51 pm
The vast majority of Diplomacy players are not conscious of those advantages and weaknesses, and thus do not explore them the way you propose. You and me think this way when playing, but webDiplomacy's own set of solo rates show people are either not making these coalitions (as you claim) or they are, but are simply not effective enough.
That is certainly true. It is my belief that as the competitive diplomacy scene continues to grow and the metagame develops, the game will become more and more balanced. But you are right that this is not the case for beginners.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:51 pm
"Safe neutral": a center that is... what, 50% of the time in a power's hands in 1901? 55%? 60%? Your call. Check the link, read it, embrace the facts.
Your linked source does not explain where they collected their data from or when so it is difficult to draw conclusions from it.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:51 pm
Venice-Trieste speeds up (and ranks the stakes up) conflict between Italy and Austria.
Now here you have not provided data and I do not see why this is necessarily the case.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Enriador » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:34 am

Hellenic Riot wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:18 am
A MAR-PIE; A MAR-SPA
A PAR-BUR; A PAR-BUR
F BRE-ENG; F BRE-ENG

Doesn't guarantee a French build unless Italy bounces Piedmont. If France is tricked into moving to Piedmont, the build is at risk.
You are correct. My memory failed me: the army that must move to Burgundy is A Marseilles. Then you have two options:

A MAR-BUR; A MAR H/A BUR-MAR
A PAR-GAS; A GAS-SPA
F BRE-ENG; F BRE-ENG

Or;

A MAR-BUR; A MAR H/A BUR-MAR
A PAR-GAS; A GAS-BRE
F BRE-MID; F MID-SPA/F MID-POR

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Yonni » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:03 am

There have been two FP games with Mar-Pie, Vie-Tyr, Bud-Tri, Tri-Adr. One of them ended in a 17-17 Italy/England draw.

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=10075
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=62662

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Hellenic Riot » Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:18 am

A MAR-PIE; A MAR-SPA
A PAR-BUR; A PAR-BUR
F BRE-ENG; F BRE-ENG

Doesn't guarantee a French build unless Italy bounces Piedmont. If France is tricked into moving to Piedmont, the build is at risk.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Enriador » Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:56 pm

Can you link a game in which France and Austria conspired to deny Italy this assured build? Because outside of the exact orders Mar-Pie, Vie-Tyr, Bud-Tri, Tri-Adr, Italy cannot be stopped (provided they open to Trieste, or Tyr and Ven). While everything will eventually happen if you set enough random monkeys to the task, I'm not sure thát one has ever happened yet.
I doubt it, but I can try. Sorry by the way, I should have been clearer: the early capture of Venice is not the point. Rather, the point is that Italy is more exposed than some give it credit for. It is no Turkey; once the triangles get solved and the race to cross the Main Stalemate Line begins, Italy is quite closer to France (and Germany) than you would think. :-)

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Enriador » Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:51 pm

Ha, that's the denialism I was talking about. It didn't take long. :-D

I need to add a disclaimer here: Italy is not impossible, far from it. It is just the worst-perfoming of them all; with seven countries, one of them gotta be last.

Yet ascribing Italy's abysmal records to anything but its natural weaknesses (no mistake, the other six have those of their own) is pure denialism. If you don't face your weaknesses, how can you shield yourself as much as possible from them? Italy can be powerful and fun; pointing out its downturns does not equate disdain for the power. Those who do soon learn their mistake.
You assume players are not conscious of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each country when they start a game. For example, France may have more geographical advantages than other countries, but most players recognize this and are therefore more likely to form coalitions to eliminate France
.

Your assumption is blatantly incorrect.

The vast majority of Diplomacy players are not conscious of those advantages and weaknesses, and thus do not explore them the way you propose. You and me think this way when playing, but webDiplomacy's own set of solo rates show people are either not making these coalitions (as you claim) or they are, but are simply not effective enough.

I concede that this is indeed the case for most cases of high-level play, but even then:

1) Italy still sucks. The Nexus Tournament and the World Diplomacy Database have plenty of data on this. Italy is the worst-performing country (or, occasionally, second-worst) in the vast majority of competitions (where, presumably, the level of play is higher than random website datasets).

2) The share of games with decent, dynamic board balancing (like the examples above) is miniscule vis-a-vis the "normal" or average board where people *maybe* know a Juggernaut is bad (thus requiring a coalition) but otherwise play without having those aspects in mind.
Tunis is one of the few neutral supply centers that borders the main stalemate line and is thus a key position in the endgame. Tunis also borders three sea spaces, making it a very useful position for a fleet.
Well said; that is one of Italy's saving graces - Tunis, as England/France/Turkey's usual last-to-18 SC is indeed a place to keep a watch on. Holding it is a crucial advantage.
In addition, the fact that it doesn't border any other centers can help Italy remain neutral and increase its diplomatic options precisely because it isn't threatening to anyone. You haven't demonstrated why neutrals bordering other neutrals are inherently more useful.
Now *that* is a fallacy: helping Italy "stay neutral" is hardly an advantage in itself; an Italy that is neutral is an Italy that does not grow beyond Tunis (or when it does, it will lag behind the "triangle winners" that grew earlier) while the other powers, mixed as they are in clusters like the Balkans, Scandinavia and the Low Countries, have superior chances to snatch more supply centers away.

The more supply centers you can access early on, the likelier you are to end the game with 18 of them before anyone else does. Crazy, right?

Italy is a fascinating country to play much because when it does strike fast (Illyrian Opening, Bohemian Crusher, Key Lepanto, Caesar Opening, etc) it can turn the board upside down and it is unlikely that anyone can do anything about it. The "wait and see" approach is still valid of course, but hardly superior if Italy has a solo in mind. Maybe about the same.
Um what? Italy frequently moves their fleet to ION and can often be involved in negotiations about Greece. And it is quite common that control of these centers isn't decided until 1902 anyways.
You quoted my words, but chose to ignore what I said about "responsibly" influencing the fate of those crucial neutrals - and since Belgium and Rumania are out of reach, obviously I meant Greece - which Italy cannot do without risking a buildless year (all it takes is a false promise of support). This is a unique characteristic among the seven great powers, all of whom can make plays for e.g. Belgium, Rumania and even Bulgaria (ah, the Bulgarian Gambit... another great opening) without sacrificing a shot at a neutral elsewhere.

As you can see here - http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/S2007R/ ... ician2.htm - Italy takes Greece in 1901 a meager ~3% of the time versus Austria's 66% (yup, it is 22 times more likely for Austria to seize it, not Italy). In 1902, these prospects do increase to almost 10%... yet Turkey has triple those chances in the same year. Damn.

Bottom line is, Greece is not Italy's playground in 1901 (three percent, buddy). It ends the year neutral once every five games, or ~20% - hardly "common" as you falsely claimed - and often it happens because Austria cannot claim it, with its fleet stuck defending Trieste (either with or without reason) which works for Turkey's advantage, as the statistics show.
The lack of definition for "central power" and "safe neutral" here make this point vacuous at best. Why is Russia not considered a "central power" when it borders as many powers as Italy? Why is it that you consider Russia to have two "safe neutrals" when it frequently gets neither Sweden nor Rumania in 1901?
You made some fair points here, yet I see another claim statistically-proven as false. I will try to elaborate.

"Central power": a country that does not have a "safe border" on at least one of its flanks. That includes Germany, Austria (those two diplomatically, but not physically, protected to the east and west respectively due to the Barren Zone making any early advances often disadvantageous) and Italy (again, protected to the west only by the diplomatic convention that France should not attack Italy early on).

Contrast it with Russia's eastern border (which is physically impossible to flank) and you have a country that works kinda like a corner power... but, like in so many other aspects, also behaves as a central power. Russia is both in the north and in the south (as Calhamer would famously draw himself) so it has many frontiers indeed, but do note that Italy is just 1 tempo away from an Austrian home center, 2 tempi away from French, German home centers and 3 tempi away from Turkish home centers (8 tempi in total). Russia is 2 tempi away from Austrian, German and Turkish home centers, and 3 tempi away from an English home center (9 tempi in total). So yeah, Italy is actually more physically (though not diplomatically) exposed than Russia. Simple geography.

Diplomatic weaknesses can be neutralized by a silver tongue. Physical limitations are permanent, and must be examined over carefully in order to have its maluses reduced in some fashion.

"Safe neutral": a center that is... what, 50% of the time in a power's hands in 1901? 55%? 60%? Your call. Check the link, read it, embrace the facts. Your claim that Russia "frequently" gets neither Rumania nor Sweden is clearly false.
I don’t see how you consider the Trieste-Venice border substantively different from other contested borders like Black Sea, Burgundy, and English Channel. Garrisons are not exclusive to Austria and Italy. In addition, the fact that these centers border each other presents the opportunity for Italy to capture Trieste in 1901, which can provide Italy with a second build (sometimes even without angering Austria).
Whoa, there is a lot wrong with this one. Hmm, let me do this in parts:

1) If you cannot see how a home supply center - the most important piece of territory a country has - is "substantively different" from border provinces like Burgundy, I need to remind you of the basics: losing a border province is bad precisely because, once taken over, home supply centers are in danger. And losing a home supply center - a permanent risk for Italy and Austria as long as the other is around - is so much worse because not only you get behind in the race for 18, but you lose the crucial strategical power of releasing new units at that province.

So yes, there is an ocean of difference here.

2) Easier Italian capture of Trieste is an early game advantage that might lead to sequential disadvantage. A weak Austria makes for a stronger Russia and Turkey, and both countries can advance on the Balkans with far better effectiveness than Italy can ever hope to do (likely having sway over Rumania and Bulgaria/Greece already, respectively). I do like the Go Fasta approach of hitting Austria hard and furious but this is not something I would ever do without the right context (e.g. Turco-Russian war right off the bat).
Also, you ignore the obvious fact that any neighbors eventually must come into conflict if they are both trying to win, or otherwise trying to survive to a draw. The potential for Austrian-Italian conflict is not special.
It is precisely because this is so obvious a fact I thought unnecessary to mention what should be crystal clear: Venice-Trieste speeds up (and ranks the stakes up) conflict between Italy and Austria. It doesn't guarantee it, but it is certainly a burden more than a blessing for both countries.

Don't take my word for it, though. Here is a challenge for my fellow database-seekers around: find me *any* total of Full Press Classic games where Italy and Austria are in positions different from 7th or 6th (or vice-versa). I suspect you won't find many.

And no, they are not invariably last (rarely, Austria gets worse than Italy) because the average player really sucks and you and me, fans of Italy, are geniuses. It is because the average player is very so-so and Italy and Austria are permanently handicapped. The skill bar is way higher.
First of all, this is an extremely pedantic point, since the situations you must come up with in some of these cases are truly unlikely. And even if you get a build when attacked by 3 enemies, you are still unlikely to survive
.

They are unlikely, true. But hey, an Italian victory between seven players of identical skill is also unlikely so I wanted to be thorough in examining Italy's unique weaknesses.

Besides: if a country has a higher theoretical likelihood of e.g. 2 builds (like Germany or France), it will also have a higher likelihood of e.g. gaining 3 builds (idem). Similarly, a country that can be theoretically attacked from many directions (to the point it can be besieged and made buildless) will also have a higher likelihood of elimination.

Still following me? Okay, now guess which four countries are eliminated the most in our Hobby? Yup, that's right. Austria, Italy, Germany, Russia (not always in that order). France, England and Turkey smile from afar.

Speaking of being pedantic, I just realized two other things that Italy may suffer from due to geography.

1) Italy has a hard time allying with Turkey. There are certain workarounds to geographically-challenging alliances like G/E or A/T, but I/T is really tough. Turkey can't build fleets in such a setup, yet how can Italy head west while Turkish armies encroach upon Italy's Austrian spoils? One wonders.

2) Italy is the only country on the board that can have one of its home supply centers (Venice) attacked in 1901 by all three units of a same power (Austria), making its fall certain. Ah, and before you tell me "this is unlikely!", such an early, quasi-suicidal Austrian attack is not the point (as should be obvious). The curious thing is how Italy has the initial upper hand against Austria, but once both grow Austria has three home centers - and thus possibly three freshly-built units - surrounding Italy's flank. Austria can invade Italy's homeland easier than the other way around once their alliance advances into the endgame.
And anyways, both France and England can be prevented from getting any builds in 1901 relatively easily depending on the exact moves.
This is another false claim - regardless of "the exact moves" it is downright impossible to leave England and France buildless in 1901. You should really think this through:

A LVP-YOR; A YOR-LON
F EDI-NRG; F NRG S F NTH-NWY
F LON-NTH; F NTH-NWY

A MAR-PIE; A MAR-SPA
A PAR-BUR; A PAR-BUR
F BRE-ENG; F BRE-ENG

No possible combination of moves by Italy, Germany or Russia can do anything about it. And look, these are under the worst possibly doomsday scenarios. As the link I gave you shows, good luck finding a game where England or France (or Turkey) go buildless. If you do, I wonder if it is the same kind of game where people build dynamic coalitions to fight against the heavyweights, so to speak.
Well I do agree with you on this point!
I live to reach consensus.
Edit: I didn't realize how long this post was. Apologies for that! Got a bit bothered by some of the arguments here.
No need for apologies, my friend. Despite our mutual passive-aggressive remarks here and there I thoroughly enjoy these kinds of exchanges - I could talk about Diplomacy game theory for hours. Always an opportunity to learn more, and I have certainly learned reading through this thread.
The opening proposed by Enriador has been played precisely once in gunboat. The Turkish player survived with 1 center.
Disclaimer: I cannot remember who created this. I found it on a long-lost 1980s Diplomacy World article, I believe; it has been since added to the Pouch's Library of Openings (which I had the pleasure to curate for a time).

A Con H is a thing with some theoretical merit behind it, if a fringe one at that. Whether it works better than the likes of A Lvp-Cly, A Rom-Tus or F StP-Fin is for us to try out.

And my goodness, what did that player drink to try such a combination of moves in a gunboat game? Gotta be some good stuff.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by leon1122 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:57 pm

Yeah, the Smy-Ank, Ank-BLA line seems somewhat more popular than Smy-Arm, Ank-BLA when holding Constantinople.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Yonni » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:37 pm

In full press games, Turkey has not moved Con (held or supported) AND not held Ank and Smyrna in 1.15% of all games played. In those games, they drew 12.3% of the time and solo'd 3.3% of the time.

Latest solo is this one:
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=326988

Note: Excluding games that did not make it past 1903 (I think that was the cutoff)

Re: Soloing as Italy

by leon1122 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:05 pm

Oh yes, you're right. In fact, the particular opening I was looking at (the third most popular opening for turkey) was all holds.

The opening proposed by Enriador has been played precisely once in gunboat. The Turkish player survived with 1 center.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by jasnah » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:20 pm

leon1122 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:01 pm
As for Turkey, the same database shows that opening ACon H is the third most common opening for Turkey, with 730 games played. It has an abysmal performance though, winning on average only 7.6% of the pot. I imagine it would be slightly better in press, where Turkey can communicate his intentions to Austria. It would probably still be pretty bad though.
Most of those were probably S01 NMRs

Re: Soloing as Italy

by leon1122 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:01 pm

As for Turkey, the same database shows that opening ACon H is the third most common opening for Turkey, with 730 games played. It has an abysmal performance though, winning on average only 7.6% of the pot. I imagine it would be slightly better in press, where Turkey can communicate his intentions to Austria. It would probably still be pretty bad though.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by AnimalsCS » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:00 pm

Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
Italy is the weakest country in the game . . . by simple geography
I've seen people try to make this argument before. Let's break down the fallacies here:

You assume players are not conscious of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each country when they start a game. For example, France may have more geographical advantages than other countries, but most players recognize this and are therefore more likely to form coalitions to eliminate France.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
It is the only country on the board whose "safe neutral" (Tunis) does not border any other SCs, severely harming its ability to negotiate short-term actions with other powers.
Tunis is one of the few neutral supply centers that borders the main stalemate line and is thus a key position in the endgame. Tunis also borders three sea spaces, making it a very useful position for a fleet. In addition, the fact that it doesn't border any other centers can help Italy remain neutral and increase its diplomatic options precisely because it isn't threatening to anyone. You haven't demonstrated why neutrals bordering other neutrals are inherently more useful.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
It is the only country on the board that cannot responsibly (i.e. by not risking a buildless first year) engage in the battle for the centrally-located neutrals (Belgium, Greece, Rumania) that direct the major diplomatic triangles.
Um what? Italy frequently moves their fleet to ION and can often be involved in negotiations about Greece. And it is quite common that control of these centers isn't decided until 1902 anyways.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
It is the only country on the board to both be a "central power" (alongside Germany and Austria) and have only one "safe neutral" to lay claim on (Tunis). Alternatively, it is the only country on the board with just a single "safe neutral" (alongside England and Turkey) but without a nice corner to rest its back upon.
The lack of definition for "central power" and "safe neutral" here make this point vacuous at best. Why is Russia not considered a "central power" when it borders as many powers as Italy? Why is it that you consider Russia to have two "safe neutrals" when it frequently gets neither Sweden nor Rumania in 1901?
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
It is one of two countries on the board with a home supply center (Venice) sharing a border with another power's home supply center (Trieste), subtly guiding them into either short- or long-term conflict or, most often in competent play, the unoptimal placement of an unit for semi-permanent garrison duty.
I don’t see how you consider the Trieste-Venice border substantively different from other contested borders like Black Sea, Burgundy, and English Channel. Garrisons are not exclusive to Austria and Italy. In addition, the fact that these centers border each other presents the opportunity for Italy to capture Trieste in 1901, which can provide Italy with a second build (sometimes even without angering Austria).

Also, you ignore the obvious fact that any neighbors eventually must come into conflict if they are both trying to win, or otherwise trying to survive to a draw. The potential for Austrian-Italian conflict is not special.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
It is one of four countries on the board that cannot be assured of a build irrespectively of what others powers do (only France, England and Turkey share such an advantage).
First of all, this is an extremely pedantic point, since the situations you must come up with in some of these cases are truly unlikely. And even if you get a build when attacked by 3 enemies, you are still unlikely to survive.

And anyways, both France and England can be prevented from getting any builds in 1901 relatively easily depending on the exact moves.
Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
For Italy has many strengths of its own and it is always worth it to further study what Italian tactics and strategies are there.
Well I do agree with you on this point!

Edit: I didn't realize how long this post was. Apologies for that! Got a bit bothered by some of the arguments here.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by leon1122 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:53 pm

There are precisely 3 games* played with the given moveset. I found them using the gunboat opening database.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=76066
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=132634
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=184467

Shockingly, Italy survived to the end in all 3 games, though the last one is full of banned players, so I don't know how legitimate that was.

*3 gunboat games; I imagine it's more common in press, where Austria and France can coordinate.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Claesar » Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:37 pm

Enriador wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm
...
* It is one of four countries on the board that cannot be assured of a build irrespectively of what others powers do (only France, England and Turkey share such an advantage).
...
Can you link a game in which France and Austria conspired to deny Italy this assured build? Because outside of the exact orders Mar-Pie, Vie-Tyr, Bud-Tri, Tri-Adr, Italy cannot be stopped (provided they open to Trieste, or Tyr and Ven). While everything will eventually happen if you set enough random monkeys to the task, I'm not sure thát one has ever happened yet.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by Enriador » Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm

A Con-Bul is not an automatic move without alternative. In a world where people play the Key Lepanto and the Northern Dash without batting an eye, the Russian Floric ought to be considered by those with the guts to think outside the box.

The Russian Floric is a highly contextual, super-offensive Austro-Turkish opening against Russia:

* A Con H
* F Ank-BLA
* A Smy-Arm

* A Vie-Gal
* A Bud-Rum
* F Tri-Ven/H

By holding in Constantinople, any threats to nominally Austrian Serbia in Fall 1901 are denied. It allows the Archduke to send its two armies right away at the Tsar, with the fleet covering its rear in case Italy plays dirty. The Pope, by the way, should be steered westwards or else Greece will become green (not that Italy can hold Greece against A/T for long anyway).

Clearly not a run-of-the-mill opening but at least one better than most when A/T wanna try something new to bring down a skilled Russian player. By the way, A Smyrna H is indeed the best Turkish opening ever. http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/W2013A/Koch/smyh.htm

Back to the opening post: I really love Italy, by far my favorite country to play. But it would amount to denialist revisionism to affirm anything other than that: Italy is the weakest country in the game by quite some margin. That fact is measured up not just by over a hundred thousand games across decades and dozens of platforms (where Italy is almost invariably last in victories, from internet solos to FtF tournament top-boards), but by simple geography:

* It is the only country on the board whose "safe neutral" (Tunis) does not border any other SCs, severely harming its ability to negotiate short-term actions with other powers.
* It is the only country on the board that cannot responsibly (i.e. by not risking a buildless first year) engage in the battle for the centrally-located neutrals (Belgium, Greece, Rumania) that direct the major diplomatic triangles.
* It is the only country on the board to both be a "central power" (alongside Germany and Austria) and have only one "safe neutral" to lay claim on (Tunis). Alternatively, it is the only country on the board with just a single "safe neutral" (alongside England and Turkey) but without a nice corner to rest its back upon.
* It is one of two countries on the board with a home supply center (Venice) sharing a border with another power's home supply center (Trieste), subtly guiding them into either short- or long-term conflict or, most often in competent play, the unoptimal placement of an unit for semi-permanent garrison duty.
* It is one of four countries on the board that cannot be assured of a build irrespectively of what others powers do (only France, England and Turkey share such an advantage).

Yet it is precisely that status as the board's chief underdog whom most underestimate that makes Italy such an alluring - and rewarding - country to play with. For Italy has many strengths of its own (most already quoted here) and it is always worth it to further study what Italian tactics and strategies are there.

Re: Soloing as Italy

by jay65536 » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:27 pm

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resour ... _lurch.htm

Other than the last sentence, this sums up my views. GoB is correct the vast majority of the time but there exist circumstances where Fin is valid. Still an extreme fringe case.

(Note: I don’t play gunboat so can’t speak to how it works there.)

Re: Soloing as Italy

by teccles » Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:30 am

jay65536 wrote:
Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:52 pm
No. Those are not on the same level. Your belief that Kie-Den is automatic is a belief; that belief is not shared by many Diplomacy players, including but not limited to me.

Con-Bul is the most automatic move in the game. In my opinion, it goes:

1. Con-Bul. There is no valid alternative.
2. StP-GoB. The only valid alternative (Fin) is an extreme fringe case.
3. A distant third, Bud-Ser. The only valid alternatives are fringe cases.

Beyond that, I can think of a valid alternative to every S01 move you can come up with. Although just to play devil’s advocate, Kie-Den isn’t even Germany’s most automatic move. That’s Ber-Kie.
To pick up on a side point - StP-Fin actually produces slightly better results than StP-GoB, according to RJ's database of gunboat. I'm not sure, but I suspect this is because is practice, if you get bounced from SWE then in 1902 what you're going to be doing is defending StP, and Finland is the better place to do that from (or possibly because it makes Germany like you and not bounce SWE, though this seems somewhat irrational).

Whatever the reason, I think that for gunboat StP-GoB should definitely not be considered automatic, and may not even be the best option.

(I think KIE-DEN is always the best move for gunboat games, and for press I haven't thought about it)

Top