I'm trying to work out if the OP (which was a long time ago) was about the Austro-Italian alliance or the
Lepanto opening. I
think it was the alliance... This is why I don't like alliances named after openings
As with everything else in Dip, the Austro-Italian alliance comes and goes. If Italy
doesn't attack Austria, where are the next SCs after Tunis coming from?
Attacking France is pointless unless it's part of a larger A/G/I alliance. Attacking through Piedmont is such a long time in being successful, and the alternative is to throw fleets west. Which opens the back door for an Austria who has been given free reign to work with Russia or Turkey; or for Turkey to send fleets through the Med; or for the Juggernaut to roll through Austria and the Balkans.
Working with Austria is potentially useful. When it was invented (I think it was Edi Birsan? I should probably go and look but I'm not going to) the
Lepanto opening was all the rage. Perhaps because Italy and Austria were overcoming the pressure of the Venice/Trieste border. Perhaps because Turkey never opened with A Smy-Syr to block it ("
Goffy's Opening" - yes it's traditionally called the
Desert Rat opening but as Andrew Goff is the only person I know who actually uses it...). Hopefully because people actually thought it was a good idea - which it was. Today, though, I think most people would say it's a slow burner. Given that a
lot can happen before an army lands in Syria, just keeping the alliance going for that time can be tough.
Jeff Key's version (the
Key Lepanto, who'd'a thought it?) is quicker and potentially much more effective. As someone said, though, it means that Italy and Austria are lying to potential allies. And it's risky. The
Key can become the
Stab Lepanto pretty easily. Austria should see it coming, in fairness, as to make it work, Italy should probably order A Ven-Tri, A Rom-Ven... but it can work even without the latter order - Italy just needs to build an army in Venice. It takes a brave Austria to go with this. And it becomes a little messy in 1902: Italy's in Serbia and isolated. Austria's in Greece. To keep the tempo flowing, Italy really ought to have foregone Tunis, and yet Italy will often convoy A Nap/Apu-Tun in Fall 1901, and this means that she doesn't get her fleet into the Aegean early enough. When Turkey could be facing three units surrounding Bulgaria, she's facing two.
Add to this that Austria should really be in Serbia, simply because that SC affects so much that goes on in the Balkans, and it's not hard to see why the
Key Lepanto can break down.
Austria/Italy is a good alliance, but it takes a lot of trust, no matter what the opening. Austria needs to establish herself early on, and that means taking Serbia and Greece. Anything less, while not fatal on its own, is a sign that she's not quite sure of Italy. That can be the opening that Turkey and/or Russia need. So the 'safe' Austrian opening that has a bounce on the Venice/Trieste border is a waste of time. Ideally, Austria should be ordering F Tri-Alb, A Bud-Ser so that she can order A Ser S Alb-Gre in F01.
That opens up Trieste in S01... so Austria can fall into the trap of ordering A Vie-Tri. This is usually a mistake against a moderately decent Italy. Italy's better off with the
Obriani Opening: A Ven-Tyl, A Rom-Ven - if she's going to attack Austria. If Austria recognises this she may well use A Vie-Tyl; fine - but what about Galicia? A War-Gal is so useful for Russia, whether it's part of an attack on Austria or not, that Russia should be looking to do it, especially if she's ordering F Sev-BLA. Does Austria
really want a Russian army in Galicia?
This, of course, is the Austrian dilemma: Does she defend Trieste/Tyrolia or Galicia? Does she defend either? There's no right answer, so Austria has to trust that either Italy or Russia will be allied with her, as they probably both promised. Of the two, though, Russia is more likely to be scrabbling for an SC in 1901 - Italy has Tunis, after all, whereas Russia may not get either Rumania or Sweden. Russia can guarantee Rumania if she succeeds in ordering F Sev-Rum, A Mos-Sev and A War-Ukr in S01, but that's possibly letting Turkey take the Black Sea and isn't as flexible as A War-Gal. And, if Austria has the gall to open with A Bud-Rum, Russia runs the risk of getting nothing if she doesn't use A Mos-Ukr, A War-Gal.
If Austria wants to prevent a Russian unit in Rumania, then, she needs to open with A Vie-Gal. That is a potential bounce that is more useful to Austria than Russia.
Both Austria and Italy need allies in 1901. There's no reason, therefore, that they can't ally together. One way of achieving this, without the
Key Lepanto and it's threat of the
Stab Lepanto, is for Austria to consider the
Modern Borders opening. This is a true Andrew Goff innovation: in it, Austria cedes Trieste to Italy. There's no Austrian nailbiting over whether that Italian army that moved to Trieste in S01 will follow through with the promise of A Tri-Ser in F01; here, Austria has said: "Look, we need allies, We can ally together. If you agree, I'm prepared to let A Ven-Tri happen. Take Trieste, just work with me."
For Austria, there's no worrying about whether Italy will move to, or out of' Trieste: she'll take Trieste and sit there. Austria can then cover Galicia, and take Serbia and Greece. Just one build but she has an ally in Italy. With a guaranteed build in 1901, Italy can then forego taking Tunis and push east. Tunis can be her 1902 build.
The only downside for Austria is that she can't build an army in Trieste in 1901 and move it to Albania in S02. This means she is less secure than otherwise. But, on the other hand, Italy is onside. Down the line, Italy can move out of Trieste and let Austria have it back. By then the alliance should have established itself. Sure, somewhere along the way it will break (assuming that both players aren't looking for a 2-way draw and are genuine Dip players), but, if it establishes the alliance, then this is as good an idea for Austria as it is for Italy.
Posted: 08 Nov 2016, 02:19