France has a lot more to worry about; Austria and Turkey have another potential competitor for the Balkans.

Italy can have units in Piedmont, Western med and Lyons at the end of the year if they want.

This sucks for Italy, France and Turkey because it railroads Italy into attacking one of those two. It's great for Austria, but I think it's worse for the game because reduces Italy's strategic options and thus the number of viable developments for the game.

How does it prevent Italy from attacking Austria? I mean, hypothetically, F Rome could go to take Tunis while F Nap heads to Adriatic. I would think it forces Austria to move a fleet into the Adriatic more often than the 1% of the time it currently does

I guess "prevents from attacking" is a little strong, but it definitely nerfs Italy's ability to attack Austria pretty significantly by only giving it one army in 1901.

It's also relative -- making Turkey and France much more viable targets also makes Austria a significantly less viable target in relative terms. The opportunity cost of attacking Austria goes up because the reward for attacking Turkey and France goes up due to a higher probability of success in doing so.

Between the higher explicit cost (it's harder to attack Austria with one 1901 army, so the expected reward decreases due to lower prospects of success) and higher implicit cost (it's easier to attack France and Turkey with two 1901 fleets, so the expected reward increases due to higher prospects of success), again, "railroads" is strong, but the sentiment isn't far off -- it makes attacking Austria significantly less viable, which limits Italy's strategic options and thus viable game developments.

Rome can't support venice to hold, if it's a fleet, so austria has a huge advantage attacking, and the fleet can only threaten trieste, so italy's ability to strike austria is nerfed (plus that fleet has to go around the boot instead of walking to venice)

I think it guarentees Austria a build in venice if he tries - ok naples HAS to open to apulia to hold venice. That definitely hurts italy's options.

it does, but you have to show me an austrian player who attacks italy in '01 at the expense of greece and unsecured balkans, even with f rome.

Can i not just show you an austria who attack italy in '01 even without fleet rome? They're much easier to find.

It may open up a danger to Austria, but it also gives Italy a legitimate shot for two builds in 1901. Do you think it changes the dynamic in the West, though? I would think that it forces France to be a much more passive power in the early years

i guess you're right, yet i don't think it should be done. kind of forces a juggernaut the same way a lepanto does, or am i wrong here?

this was meant for ora, obviously.

Italy already has a legitimate shot for two builds in 1901. This actually makes it a lot LESS likely in my view -- although you reduce the opportunity cost of trying for Greece substantially with the second fleet (since you're not passing up Tunisia now), you eliminate the chance to support an attack into Trieste.

All it does is change where the 2nd build comes from. With an army it's more likely to come from Trieste, maybe Munich or Vienna; with the fleet it HAS to come from Greece.

And as orathaic pointed out (and I totally missed), it makes an early Austrian attack on Italy significantly easier. I'd missed it originally because it still seems like an unlikely prospect, all told -- sure you can reliably force Venice, but at what cost? Covering Galicia? Securing Serbia? It still seems like a bad play, but it's more realistic now.

If austria is taking advantage of italy it gives russia three options, juggernaut, RA and peppermint... so, no i don't think it forces a juggernaut.

As for the dynamic in the West, I think it definitely strengthens England, who will have a much easier time dealing with France if France has legitimate cause to throw its fleets south as a defensive gesture instead of as part of an alliance.

This also substantially weakens Russia by proxy, since Austria and England both become significantly stronger. That on its own probably strengthens Germany, since its early/mid game natural ally is strengthened and two of its three immediate threats are weakened.

Country-by-country:
England -- Strengthened; its greatest long-term threat (France) is considerably weakened, particularly by sea
France -- Weakened; it now has a second legitimate threat by sea
Germany -- Strengthened; two of its big three threats are considerably weakened, and its counterweight in the East is strengthened
Italy -- Weakened; less strategic flexibility -- better at attacking France/Turkey, much worse at attacking Austria
Austria -- Strengthened; Italy can't attack it and is more likely to attack Turkey
Turkey -- Weakened; Italy is a much bigger threat and Austria is stronger
Russia -- Weakened; two of its dangerous neighbors are significantly improved and its best ally is hampered significantly in providing help against Austria

it makes a war between italy and france way more possible. in the normal game, assuming italy takes tunis, it is not possible for italy to take a smart french's territory until autummn 1902 at the earliest assuming they did not build thhere, which a fleet in tyr would italy's intentions obvious, so they probably would. a fleet in rome would allow them to get there at least one turn faster, and would also allow them more flexibility in their war with austria.it would allow them to not ahve to convoy a unit to tun, and to also be able to have another turn in which they can use the fleet in ionian for whatever they want.

it would also allow them to go into a war with turkey earlier if they desired.

I'd really like to give this variant a try.

I don't necessarily agree with the assessment that this would lead to Italy fighting less with Austria. Venice will only end up with support if Italy moves Venice-Apulia which is a pretty unappealing move. I think this could lead to many Austrias moving on Italy right off the bat.

VDiplimacy doesn't have much of a history with it but Italy has done really well in the few games they've played:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/stats.php?variantID=3

I think 1902 would, very often, end up with Italy in the same position as it normally is. 2 fleets, 2 armies, and Tunis.

they would be more strategically placed though...

If this game were realistic, Italy would start off with no units because Italy's record in major post-Roman wars isn't exactly what I'd call "strong" or "having a realistic chance of doing anything but dying". Or, better yet, Italy starts off with thirty armies but can only attack itself.

I agree with Eden's analyses for all other countries, except Italy itself, that I believe will benefit from this second fleet in the following way:
The most obvious Spring moves are to move the Roman fleet into the Tyrrhenian and the Naples fleet into the Ionian. An insecure Italy can request a bounce in Venice with Austria.
If France decides to attack Italy right off the bat, it can hardly do so without Austria and the same goes for Germany. This means that any early attack on Italy will involve Austria; however, with Tunis assured by F TyS, F Ion can exert immense pressure on Austria through its stake in Greece and possible penetration into the Adriatic or Albania with either move possibly followed by assistance from F Tun in 1902.
In this scenario, France will no longer consider Italy a threat; however, if France were to attack Italy to steal its centers, Italy would probably much rather see a French fleet in Tunis than an Austrian army in Venice.
A succesful early attack on Italy would require an Austria that is determined enough to concentrate on an invasion into Italy, secure enough not to be frightened by Russia and smart enough to avoid T/I consolidation.

OK, if I can slightly change the question: If the variant was build at start (which has an official name that I can't remember), would you as Italy build two fleets or two armies? Depending on press (of course) I'd probably still build two armies.

In Winter 1899 - everyone chooses their first thre builds.

or there is a variant, 1897, where you only with 1 unit.

Odd, vdip only has 1897... Winter 1899 is not available.

Where is that twathead King of vDip who came over here and chucked a game ..... he is a dick !!

I stand corrected: http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=4

It's called custom start, though i think Winter 1899 is a better name :p

There is one thing not mentioned until now. If Italy starts with two fleets France and Austria have the options to attack triest with 2 units savely. I almost never see France opening into Piedmont. With two armies there is not a real Chance to gain anything, but with one army only ... that could develop an option.

I agree with most of what has been said about how Fleet Rome is "bad for Italy" and "good for Austria". I don't have anything to add to the specific strategic discussion, but I just wanted to point out some historical context.

The invention of this variant, despite its (almost trivial) simplicity, is credited to Richard Sharp whose suggestion was influential enough in the early Dip circles to cause it to be widely experimented with. Sharp was the author of "The Game of Diplomacy", which seems to be the first and only published book on the tactics and strategy of this game.

Based on much older articles and discussion on the subject, it seems that Fleet Rome has been experimented with and dismissed as flawed by several much earlier generations of players that battled over snail mail and the first generations of "electronic judges". The variant certainly shifts the balance and dynamics of the game, but not in a way that seems to have positive effects toward improving balance or increasing strategic options.

It was well-known that Austria and Germany were Sharp's favorite powers to play. The flaws of his book painfully reflects this bias. While the chapters on A and G are quite good, those focusing on other powers really lack the same depth and quality. In fact, the chapters on Turkey and Italy are rather infuriatingly poor. With Turkey, he suggests that the power has no natural early ally and not much hope to make one. For Italy, he goes so far to suggest that Italy should accept playing for a strong second. It's almost as if the lack of quality in these chapters is a some extreme form of meta to discourage strong play by these powers, so that others (including Sharp) could have a better time playing his favorites Austria and Germany. It's not surprising that he invented Fleet Rome, as yet another "contribution" to the Diplomacy community to strengthen Austria (and indirectly others) at the detriment of Italy.

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S2003M/Burgess/Rome.html
http://www.variantbank.org/articles/weak_sisters.htm
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=17003

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/god/book_review.htm
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/unbalanced.htm