Italy has to be f-l-e-x-i-b-l-e, not a leader usually. There are so many factors that determine how Italy has to move--like if Russia and Turkey are not locked in an all-out struggle, then Turkey is coming after you, and that is probably the first threat. Of course once in a while France is a threat right off the bat, but he usually has his hands full either fighting England and/or Germany OR grabbing up dots as fast as he can. Austria is your shield from Russia and Turkey, because if the two of them take out Austria and don't start fighting immediately, then you're Turkey bait. Maybe one in twenty times, you can sneak up into Tyrolia and points north and grab a German center, if that doesn't destabilize Austria. And of course there's always the rare case where an attack on Austria gets you in top dog position, but that's rare in my own experience. In fact I'd rather be with Austria than against him, as Italy, as long as he doesn't start pumping out fleets.

It all depends on your interactions with the other players in each particular game. There is no one best strategy, or everyone would do it and the game would be boring.

Italy's an interesting one because he can basically choose to flow with the wind at the beginning of the game and just add weight on whichever war he see's best to profit from. It's a balancing act though since later on you risk being third wheel in some other power alliance so it really really helps to be likeable as Italy.

It really really helps to be likeable as any power.

bo_sox, why do you say not to attack Austria? I've usually had success going for Austria as Italy.

Step 1) Set up a juggernaut, but don't attack Austria
Step 2) Invade France with Germany and England
Step 3) Scream blue murder about a juggernaut
Step 4) Watch Germany and England take Russia apart, form an alliance with Turkey against Austria
Step 5) Stab Germany with England while Turkey is finishing off Austria
Step 6) Stab Turkey and solo

Absolutely nothing can go wrong with this plan!

I think squaring things up with Austria is helpful. It keeps a friendly power on the border, and they can carry a lot of the water against Russia/Turkey. Working to push France against England or Germany can also take a lot of the heat off of Italy...subtle, diplomatic overtures, explaining that a strong Italy helps keep Turkish fleets at bay. That being said, if there is a way to create distress immediately between Austria and Russia, then a Turkey Italy combo can make some early gains. As Mujus said above, "flexibility" has to be the key, along with patience. It might take a while to get that 5th centre. Back to the Austria theme, oftentimes Austria NEEDS a friend.

There are plenty of situations where stabbing Austria is warranted, Tin_Can, but only if necessary for your survival. Sometimes France attacks and the only way to keep the east from bearing down on you is to get extra territory, or other times Turkey breaks into the Ionian and you're essentially at his mercy, so you join him in attacking Austria. I don't have time to respond fully right now but I will in the morning.

End of the day there's a tonne of ways to do well as Italy, just usually not with a traditional two person alliance. While most countries can team up with one of the traditional duo alliances, italy generally needs to start off with either a three person alliance or a bunch of side alliances. Eventually you'll need to dig yourself into a corner, usually via Turkey or France, but once you manage that your chances are just as good as anybody else in the game.

I don't agree with the general consensus on webdip about Italy being a follower. You have the most easily defended combined diplomatic + tactical starting position in the game and your primary cause of death is not getting enough centers to survive the middle game. That to me screams "Get aggressive!" It doesn't matter how bad you piss someone off on the board, it is hella hard to get knocked out right away as Italy unless your neighbors just outright aren't playing to win. Take advantage of your position, get out there and lead. What people are looking for in 1901 isn't another vulture waiting to swoop in on whatever conflict arises; that's what everyone does and it's sooooo lame. It does nothing to distinguish you as a useful ally, which is terrible for Italy, because you need an ally to get past your 4th center and to survive the middle game. No, what people want in 1901 is somebody unafraid to put their cards down and say "I'm doing this, here are the concrete steps I'm taking to accomplish this, get on board with me and let's go places." That's how you get things done in real life and that's how you get things done in Diplomacy.

Unsurprisingly, I tend to prefer getting after Austria early. I'm perpetually surprised at how easy it is to negotiate an open Trieste in S01; take it and you're guaranteed to get to 5 centers in 1901. Get Russia on board with bringing down Austria and you're mostly there, then it's just a matter of staying in contact with Russia and winning him over as your primary ally. Pummel Turkey next, then go west for Marseilles and Iberia, then stab Russia for 18, maybe with a diversionary swipe at Munich to get over the hump. Fairly straightforward, not easy but as far as solos go, it's a pretty good path to one.

If Russia's a pansy and won't play ball, then Turkey is an incredibly underrated partner - sure, conflict is inevitable, but conflict is inevitable with Russia too, or Austria. The Italy/Turkey hype is just because most people flame out as Italy and never get past their 4th center, typically because they failed a Lepanto, while Turkey grabbed Trieste, Serbia and Greece to get to seven and then knocked Italy out to get to 11. But whose fault is that? Italy, for not playing well in the first place and making himself the more tempting target. You get Italy to 6 or even 7 centers by fighting Austria, and I guarantee you Turkey will be open to putting off attacking you until he gets a shot at Warsaw and Moscow.

Western moves can work too, but I find they take too long and that you either have to leave a 2-unit garrison over there to keep the centers (in which case, what have you gained? you're at seven centers, but only have five to use in the Mediterranean theater) or you promptly lose them to England (less often Germany). If Germany told me he had negotiated a DMZ in Burgundy, that he planned to break it and that he would support me to Marseilles in A01, I'd go west for sure. Short of that really generous package, I'm not sure it's worth the time. France takes forever to crack from the south with four units.

So the keys here are to be specific, aggressive and open in your early negotiations, and to pick a target quickly and get moving on them. Italy does not benefit from a wait-and-see game. It's built to be used aggressively and becomes wildly successful when used aggressively and competently.

The reason Turkey makes for a tough partner is because typically by the time you're ready to pitch an alliance with him he's already invested half his builds in fleets. Once that happens, you need to really sell hard to get him to park those and focus 100% north into Russia.

Russia and Italy on the other hand make for a terrific alliance, but you need to keep tabs on the rest of the board the entire time. If the power in the west includes France then chances are you're going to get hit from that side by the time you've finish Austria and are ready to start advancing on Turkey. Undivided attention from France is nothing to underestimate while you're preparing to go to war elsewhere. It's critical you keep your finger on the pulse of what's going on everywhere and adapt to it. An aggressive Italy certainly can do well, but you're rolling the dice more then most counties because you have to hope that you're highly vulnerable and have to hope your ambitious behaviour doesn't invoke a reaction that leads to a multiple front war. In this case it helps to be insulated with a lot of friends making the task of creating those bonds a huge priority.

When do you pitch an alliance to Turkey, Village? If I'm going for an alliance with Turkey, I tend to pitch to him at the start of 1901, while his only fleet is still bordering the Black Sea.

As Italy you kinda pitch in every direction right away and for sure turkey. Gives you the help should you decide to tag team Austria bit more importantly you want to drive that wedge between him and Russia. A well bonded juggernaut is terrible for you and if that happens last thing you want is Austria to fall quickly regardless of whether you get a chunk of it or not.

Yeah if you waited until Turkey build Mediterranean fleets to start talking to him about an alliance, you've already lost him. One fleet in Smyrna in W01 to facilitate him getting out of Bulgaria is okay (just make sure you know it's coming in advance...), anything else and you've fucked up. You have to talk to him from 1901 to sell it right.

As far as "rolling the dice more than most" I disagree. What's rolling the dice about it? If you're going east at all, you're banking on not getting dunked by France early. Doesn't matter if you wait-and-see or not. If you go for Turkey with a Lepanto, you're banking on not getting pummeled by Austria in 1904 or so, before you've got yours from Turkey and after Austria's got his from the Balkans. Every strategy innately has some risk. I don't see what's more risky about this one compared to the others.

Because if you go Lepanto you're pretty much over-extending yourself into the east and waiting until almost 1903 before you start paying dividends leaving yourself wide open from the west. If you go to France it's an even slower burn before you start getting much out of it. You're just extremely vulnerable and need to call your shots a bit more. Not saying you don't make bold moves where they present themselves, just that it's important you really cement alliances to help uphold those risks.

So for some specific example, last you you played in a press game as Italy ("double or nothing blitz") you risked going aggressive against France and of course Austria capitalized off the bat and could have screwed you if he was skilled enough to press it better. Prior to that it ended early but you had the advantage of a very successful France taking on and beating most of the west so that would have been a good gamble and probably paid off, but quite unusual. Your last solo as Italy ("Dubstep Kicks Your Ass") back in Sept 2011 also your aggressiveness also worked to your benefit but mostly because there didn't seem to be a single alliance anywhere on the board, which is also extremely unusual. I think the one before that ("killer-53") is probably a more practical approach where you took it methodically and didn't open yourself up to that Austria first round stab and worked your way into the French corner and build up from there. Had Russia not succeeded so quickly you would have had an awesome base to work off of.

How'd i do?

I agree fully with PE here. In fact, I think Italy is the one player on the board that has big choices that each have strong suits and drawbacks. And the unique thing is that you can singlehandedly have a huge impact on either front depending on what you do, upsetting other people's alliances while you're doing your own thing.

Hahahah, first of all god bless you for going back and digging through 400 games to find examples. I hadn't thought about citing any of my own games because I haven't played Italy in... shit, I gotta check how long. Two years? Fuck it I'm not looking. Lol

My games aren't going to reflect my advice/viewpoint here, because my viewpoint here is something I developed in the past couple of months, whereas I haven't played Italy in full press in years. I'm not saying the other openings can't be successful, or that they're doomed to failure, not by any means - just that I would expect, over the long run, that going for Austria is going to work out better more often than going for France or for Turkey. I think none of those strategies in the early game is especially more risky than the other, the question is more about being able to convert the opening into a power base sufficient to survive the middle game. Austria in my experience tends to be the best target for ensuring that.

When you're playing aggressively you definitely are relying on your diplomacy and on having a keen sense of how the board is developing in order to make it work. No doubt about it. I just think you're doing that regardless of what you do; the objectives are simply different. The tradeoff between aggressive play and conservative play, roughly speaking, is that more aggressive play leaves you more vulnerable in the early game and less vulnerable (assuming you succeed) in the middle game, where conservative play leaves you less vulnerable in the early game and more vulnerable in the middle game. This is the case because if you don't play wait-and-see, you run the risk of getting surprised and attacked by your neighbor (hence the higher early-game vulnerability); but if you do play wait-and-see, you're going to be a later arrival to whatever war you jump in on, which reduces your earnings from that war and leaves you weaker relative to the surviving powers (hence the higher middle-game vulnerability).

This leads to different press objectives. With wait-and-see, you're slowing down your game, which eventually leads to you being relatively weak. The way to overcome this weakness is diplomacy, specifically spreading doubt/misinformation/etc. to slow down the other side of the board. With an aggressive stance, you're trying to shore up your weak front(s) while you blitz your target, so your press is more centered on trying to provide a plausible alternative target for any neighbors that might pounce on you. I find the latter press a lot easier to do, so I prefer opening aggressively. I haven't a clue how others feel on this particular subject, so I guess if you find it easier to slow down the other side of the board in press than you do to present a realistic alternate target, being more conservative might be for you.

I'm not implying wait and see for long, just for the first round at least. Start with an opening with options but don't necessarily go straight for Tyr or Trieste. Italy works well with winning favours, influencing the direction of the board heavily, and making some well timed power moves. Either bouncing around between alliances, keeping multiple side alliances, or best yet keeping a low key really strong alliance that you bring to light when the time is right. A really successful strategy is if Italy can be part of a low key CPA with deals with England and Russia to take out Turkey and France. By the time the CPA surfaces England/Russia are separated enough to not be overly effective as a team. A player with strong "puppet master" skills can do quite well as Italy and not really be seen as a threat until very late in the game.

And yes, it was two years. ;)

Don't listen to Eden. When he plays a good Austria he retreats and tries to make amends. The best way to get Austrian centres is being sort of patient and getting them from the south or very patient and doing it post Lepanto

Lol now y'all gonna make me go look up my old games, huh. That comment is so specific there's no way it's not referring to a particular game, but I don't remember it at all. :(

No worries. I just remember a gunboat you took Trieste from me. I was set to make you pay, you retreated and we dummies Turkey.

My other points stand alone.

But Lando, you're talking about gunboat not diplomacy. Never open on Austria may be a steadfast rule in your checkers matches but, in the grown up version, it's definitely a viable option.

shots fired!

this is where i parked my car

I like going after France early on as Italy, but I like concealing it as an attack on Austria until Spring 1902. My rationale is that Austria and Turkey are both relatively tough defensively relatively early in the game. You can let them stalemate each other and be moderately confident that even with Russian help, it's going to take a while for one of them to start making serious gains against the other. Meanwhile, by Spring 1902, the west is a bit clearer picture, and it's usually drawing French forces northward away from you. Also, if you intervene against the French, you are making the British and/or the Germans stronger relative to the rest of the board. This will tend to pull Russia northward instead of southward, meaning that the Austria/Turkey fight will tend even more towards stalemate. And that's what I'm hoping for as Italy, a nice stalemate between Austria and Turkey that lasts until
I've taken at least 3 SCs from France and had an opportunity to set up a gate at Mid-Atlantic to at least slow down the possibility of England turning towards the Mediterranean. Then, I can intervene in Austria/Turkey, and claim the primary rewards for being the critical tip of the balance. Then, if England is not trying to force the Mediterranean, stab the heck out of the other one as soon as I'm confident that we've mortally wounded whoever I joined the battle against. If England is trying to force the Mediterranean, then I've got an obvious partner for a three way draw.

Bob Genghiskhan has spoken, I'll go ahead and lock this thread.

The fuck does that mean? I'm not Zardoz.

Strategy is strategy gunboat or otherwise. I mean in press trying to make the attack work could lead to being alright, regardless you put yourself at a disadvantage.

I would argue ftf is the grown up version. Not this text message no emotion press garbage everyone seems to like.

Touché, Lando.

In all cerealneas though, I think my point is more that you can't be as prescriptive in press games. If you have a potentially friendly Russia, you can certainly open on Austria and avoid the jugg. In GB - not that I've been able to demonstrate a lick of competency in it - moving on Austria is very, very likely a poor choice for Italy, right?

"I would argue ftf is the grown up version."

Hey that reminds me abge is having a face to face in October.

How about F2F gunboat? You could all sit around and not talk to each other.

Sounds like an average night out with my friends

Gunboat strategy and press strategy are nowhere near interchangeable, diplomacy tactics are a tremendously different dimension to strategy and changes everything. There's a reason some people excel at gunboat and suck at press and vice-verse since it also takes a certain skill to read the board without the help of reading the person or coordinating efficiently with other players.

PE is close to right, but doesn't quite hit the nail on the head (imo). The key thing in what he is saying is that when you are Italy, it's not just that no one wants to attack you early on- no one even can attack you early on. So you have to push your advantage and mold the game the way you like. Eden said that the goal of Italy is "being able to convert the opening into a power base sufficient to survive the middle game." I think this is reasonable- Italy becomes much less safe in the middle game. The important point, though, is that as Italy you have an incredible amount of control of how long it takes to get to the middle game. I think the reason why people aren't successful as Italy is that they don't realize how much power they have. Take control of the game. That does not necessarily mean attacking Austria though (in fact, I agree with Lando that a spring 1901 attack on Austria should never work on a competent Austria). It just means getting into the game. For example, why choose between going east or west? Why not both? That's what A_Tin_Can and I did in the team game (gameID=143236) and we were going to solo pretty much for sure had the game not been drawn due to people feeling overwhelmed by the format.