Why would Italy ever want to mess with Germany, though? That just unnecessarily empowers France, which is the last thing Italy needs. And if you're moving against France, that's going to be arranged usually, hence the "carefully arranged bilaterally" aspect... It can work as a setup to an anti-French opening, I acknowledge that, but you generally need Germany on board for an anti-French opening to work, and this will either ensure Germany isn't on board or will require him to agree to it anyway.

This is mostly from a gunboat perspective I like it. I think if Italy is committed to working with Austria, that Venice army is basically a free agent and can do some interesting things. I've seen players go to Bohemia or Munich in and I think both are neat options. Being in Munich in 1901 can allow you to build two fleets and then you can disband the army if Germany succeeds in dislodging you. Sometimes disrupting fast growing powers (like Germany often is) is a good strategy in of itself.

On a similar note, what do you think if Germany opening Mun - Tyr in Spring 1901? This is Lando's favorite opening. It helps safeguard Austria against Italy's northern opening and its not like that Munich army ever does useful stuff in 1901 anyway.

I can see this working if Germany is facing an obvious lack of builds in F1901, say, getting bounced in Holland and Belgium.

You should always consider the consequences of such a move. I think this is one of the dumbest things you can do, gunboat or otherwise. You gain nothing because Germany will take it back. In the meantime, Germany has been handicapped and the 2 powers that benefit are england and france. Why speed up the demise of germany when you would possibly be a target sooner. Be smart, let the england, germany and france pot stew.

why is empowering france such a problem? as both italy and france i have had great alliances with the other??

Often, Italy and France agree to DMZ Pie between them or bounce there, maybe this is a way for France and Italy putting their units to better use together.

In a perfect Italian world, E,G anf F would fight indeffinetly while you benefit. This move mkaes even less sense in a gunboat in my opinion. In a GB, france and england usually gang up on germany to begin with. Italy taking or even merely threatening Munich does nothing but help 2 powers not including yourself.

Even if I am italy and allied with france, I do not desire a speedy french victory. Italy is not in position to gain more than one center. France has more to gain. As Italy, a french alliance is fine. Just dont do anything to rush it.

It gives italy options, the chance to retreat to silesia means you can mess with russia and help austria out against a juggernaut.

Alternatively you can use the retreat to head to bohemia and hassle austria. With a french alliance you can make a real invasion of Germany...

Lastly, taking Munich in 1901, means you can build two fleets, disbanding the army when mun falls leaves you with one army and three fleets - which is a very different starting position for italy. Again, options!

Weak. You do these moves because you think they are neat and make you look clever. Options yes, terribly effective, no.

In a gunboat, I agree that this is terribly stupid. But if you help France taking out Germany, he probably isn´t forced to ally up with England, which means that you get the western powers to fight each other even more. Additionally, the lack of fleets Italy is having at the beginning is a big problem. Two new fleets in 1902 are a great thing.

Germany being a fast growing power is great for Italy, though. That's one of the best ways to ensure France stays distracted in the north, and that Russia doesn't run away with the game if you work with him as Italy. Disrupting a fast-growing Germany like the move to Munich does often just makes him bait for E-F-R, which usually (though not always) ends with France steamrolling into the Mediterranean.

And because E-F(-R) v G often ends with F going to the Med, there's really no reason for Italy to help France take out Germany, or at least not so early. I could see the move in 1904-05, after it's obvious an E-G has formed and doing so would save France and keep the West a mess for another few years, but not in 1901. In 1901 it's going to encourage an E-F.

The two fleets thing... again, I get that you can do it and that it can work, but where are the fleets going? If it's against France, it seems like this should be arranged with Germany...

Anything involving the Juggernaut counter should automatically not include a move to Munich. Destabilizing Germany while fighting a Juggernaut is an awful idea. Move it to Bohemia then Silesia, that does make sense.

Similarly I'm not sure I get why attacking Austria after taking Munich is wise. Just run the Crusher, you'll get in position a turn faster without pissing off Austria's natural ally.

I agree with P.E. This is my pet peeve move. I generally look at center acquisition in the context of how much power it will enable me to project towards future centers. Itay will pick up Munich, but will then usually have to use another amry to defend it with a very limited chance of picking up future centers. So in reality I feel it is a crippling move to Germany and Italy both. If Italy does take it, then make sure something useful is done with it (i.e- moving it to Bur or Boh against France or Austria respectively) or to build a necessary fleet build. Sending up another army up to defend it is like having your hand stuck up a vending machine because you refuse to let go of the can of pop (Homer Simpsonesque). The only time I really think this move makes sense is if Germany is growing very quickly. The above comments are generally from my gunboating experience. Though I have had it done to me in a higher level full press (and it didn't help Italy then either!)

In chess, players sometimes play openings that are a little different than what is considered "best", just to try out different stuff. Always making the best decisions sometimes means always making the same decisions, which could be boring.

There is an article about this in the Diplomatic Pouch. If German and Italy trust each other, this can be very favorable. The idea is that Italy borrows a supply center from Germany, to get 3 fleets after the first build. The three fleets are terrible for France. The supply center is given back to Germany (these intentions can be hidden, by letting German to give some fight for it).

A very good opening, especially because it is the only serious opening without name. So, people can not refer to it.

Lucas

Redhouse. are you suggesting making a bad move out of boredom? :)

Well perhaps it could be a good move because nobody expects it and hence doesn't take the trouble of defending it.

Germany's side of the equation is that he doesn't want to pick up three centers in 1901 and risk having R-E-F gang up on him, the only few tumes i've G jump to six in 1901 he has been dead by 1903/4 but equally he doesn't really want F or E taking bel.

With this opening G can make special pleading after hol S A ruhr - bel (in fall 1901) and thus gain his three centers without jumping to six.

(as for germany and austria being 'natural' allies, they are more naturally friends, better of if the other isn't destroyed but unable to do much to help each other)

Also, as an opening rocky lepanto does have a name.

Right, Ikruijsw read the same article I did - the author sold it as a pro german anti-french opening even though Germany didn't know about it and would hate it.

And it does allow you to swing either way after Munich is taken.

I don't really like it so much, I think that if you're going to Tyrolia as Italy, you're automatically aggravating Austria, why add Germany or France to the equation?

In chess sometimes players will learn how to deal with specific openings, and thus the unusual opening will catch then off guard having to come up with a plan on the spot, thus unlikely but sub-optimal moves may gain a greater advantage.

As here. This of course assumes your opponent is well versed in opening strategy.

Anyone here not schooled in opening strategy?

+1 SD

I think the A Tyr-Mun is a ridiculous move. Here's a ton of reasons why it's ludacrous
1) Knowing that Austria and Germany are relatively tied together in 1901, you're ticking off one of them right away and wrecking his game, and making the other nervous. This causes France to tend to fight Germany and collapses the western front very quickly. This allows a large France to either work with Austria (who is already nervous at you anyhow) to fight against you, cross the stalemate line early, and maintain a E/F alliance, or to fight England and *then* swing south across the line.

2) The unit has precious little to do there. So you've managed to take Munich and...what? You can't hold it, and you're simply going to be forced out next year by an angry German. As Germany, I'd never be happy with losing a home center to any country. I'd rather have a standoff in Belgium than an Italian army in Munich--after all, Munich is a key point along the French-German stalemate line, and if you're not controlling the units there, then you have no say over whether or not you get invaded by France. Now, when you're forced out, you get bumped into one of several locations:
i) Tyrolia - now you're back where you started from for no real gain
ii) Bohemia - granted, you threaten 2 Austrian centers, but you could have done that last year, and you're simply behind by a full season of where you could be
iii) Silesia - this is the only location that actually gains you progress, but it's against Germany. Now you've dedicated yourself to a German fight but don't have the free range to continue to pump units into the north. The fleets you've been building are useless, and armies take a while to get into the action and can get bottle-necked while you try to fight a war that you have no real business being in in the first place.

The ONLY way that I see that this can work out is if you have France and England making progress against German, but then you'd have to have several key guarantees
i) after Germany is gone, you will be picking a fight with France and have English help and Austrian neutrality (if it's still an option and you don't have to worry about Turkey moving in from the south) or
ii) You're picking a fight with Austria, which means that you need French neutrality so that he will be fighting England.

If one of these has to be in place. If not, then you're probably headed to some rough years.


On a side note, I do agree that Austria and Germany aren't really "allies" in the beginning. More just helpful/neutral at best in most cases.

TN, cant agree with you more.

Redhouse, one of my favorite Dip philosophies: Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should.