I'm happy to try and explain what I was thinking, but I should admit from the outset that I played a poor game. I think it's very easy to be schizophrenic as Italy, and I certainly managed! I suppose it's probably instructive to write an EoG when you played poorly, so...
In the opening, I have been having little success recently with Lepantos, mainly because there's a point at which, if it works well, Austria is on around 6, Italy still 4, and with an army in Syria, is wide open to even a one-center, completely telegraphed Austrian stab. Something that you can finesse in a press game perhaps, but seems tougher in gunboat.
So I figured I'd try something more neutral at the outset, and when I saw Turkey move north, I assumed it would be a pretty even R/T war, and just one competent unit in Galicia, combined with a fight over Rumania, is enough for me to play IR vs. AT profitably. Austria being in Galicia was clearly going to help here, as I'd almost certainly get Trieste, and depending upon how it played out, either build F Ven/A Rom or not. Unfortunately, Russia collapsed, and quickly. To the point that it was either going to be working with Turkey to crash through Austria or handing Trieste back. I chose the former, thinking that there's no reason for Turkey not to pick off Greece, and discovered that Turkey wasn't even interested in Bulgaria in 02. Which meant that I was stuck with a drawn, expensive war with Austria that both of us inevitably lose.
The next few turns, swapping Greece/Trieste, were essentially forced; the alternative was taking a disband and hoping Austria would settle the war at that stage. Again, something that could have been done with press; instead, I kept trying to use Trieste to explain to Austria that I wasn't a threat, while at the same time feeling unable to trade an impregnable four-unit position for a three-unit position I couldn't necessarily hold, trusting that Austria would settle for Trieste and turn around. Ultimately, it seemed I couldn't turn Austria, and Turkey, when faced with all but one Austrian unit tied up and all but 1.5 Italian, given his pick of enemies to swallow, was going to pick me. So, when Austria took Bulgaria and started thinking about fighting the Turk, I changed it to a holdable 3-unit position in Austria, At one point I was in a strong position to take apart Turkey with Austria, and *that* was the point at which Austria decided he'd rather use four units to retake Trieste.
Which basically meant I was going to be swallowed slowly by the A/T, whenever it got around to forming, and that the only thing my fleets were doing was ensuring it was Austria who got all of the gains. I was bailed out by the German NMR, which gave me something both plausible and useful to do apart from being swallowed, and fortunately that ended up getting me a draw (or, if I really were shameless, probably an even less deserved win).
I don't think my problem was failing to stick to a plan. Each plan I abandoned would have been the wrong one, and would have led to a worse game. Rather, I think my problem was a failure to read the board and find a good plan, which meant that I turned an indifferent Turkey and an Austria looking for someplace other than Italy to stick a bunch of armies into a two powers I couldn't work effectively with and a lousy, frustrating game. But the lesson isn't to pick one plan and stick to it, come what may; in fact, I think if I stuck with any of those plans I'd have stood a good chance of not keeping the tactical space needed to stab France when I did. Rather, the lesson is that five bad plans aren't any sort of substitute for one good one. :)
)
Why would you...
)
)
)
)