Manufacturing Italy: A PoN GC (... sort of)

[loki100]

The attached may answer this, I think it was just 136 (I can't go back as PoN only saves 3 turns of backups and I delete all my unused/raw screenshots once I have completed an unpdate). What is below is from the end of 1873 and compares that corps to a fresh one. I'm pretty sure at the end of 1872 his main corps was at 50% or less strength but has sat in passive mode on a depot for a year and seems to have recovered:

 

[Director]

I am fairly confident you would be able (if you want to) build a navy to compete with the other world powers. Bearing in mind that most of the ships of the worlds navies which are currently in service are soon to become obscelete and the fact that naval units do not seem particularly expensive when compared to income (in PON at least) you could easilly be on level terms with the other powers whilst still being able to compete on land. Could be wrong about ship costs though as I have yet to see how expensive the later ship models are.

Powloon, I'm not as familiar with the game mechanics as you are so I assume you are right. I do know Vic and Vic2 moderately well and the habit there of spawning enough ships to plate the ocean in metal is both annoying and deeply ahistorical. In 'real life' the construction of even a couple of first-class warships was a matter for serious budgetary debate.

Italy historically proceeded under the assumption you give, with mixed results. Her naval theorists (and designers) believed they could exploit new technologies to build bigger, faster, more powerful ships to out-class their opponents. And through purchase and construction, and great financial strain, they did create a powerful ironclad fleet. Unfortunately the fleet was applied to bad strategy and 'led' to sad defeat by an inferior force at Lissa. This defeat was followed by decades of expensive rebuilding with the Navy having to fight for every cent. In that instance Italy gained nothing and lost much from what was on paper one of the best fleets of technologically superior ironclads anywhere. Bad leadership in this case more than offset superior hardware.

The 'second navy' (I'm lumping in everything from Benedetto Brin's Duilio and Dandolo to Cuniberti's Regina Elena) produced some sophisticated and amazing ships, though several of them exploited technical factors that soon changed (the cellular system used in Duilio and Dandolo in place of armor was rendered obsolete by the rapid introduction of quick-firing guns), leaving the older ships quite vulnerable. So even if Italy had been able to build a dozen Duilios - they could barely afford two more - they would within a decade have been saddled with an obsolete fleet that could not be risked in battle and so have to spend the money all over again.

So Italy needed a larger number of warships than she could afford to build and keep. She needed a coherent squadron of ships with similar handling characteristics and not a series of 'one-off' experimentals (this was however true of every navy of the day). And she needed an expert and professional officer corps backed by well-trained seamen, and she wasn't able to produce that either. Italy wound up with an expensive fleet comprised of a small number of fast but brittle warships capable of containing Austria in the Adriatic but unable to match Britain or France. (The lack of coal, the same as the lack of oil in WWII, would have kept the Italian Navy in port had either France or Britain been an enemy). The real measure of Brin and Cuniberti's contributions is that their ideas were widely admired but not directly adopted elsewhere. Even Cuniberti's all-big-gun ship would have been a disaster if built to his original design. And as for the Italian insistence on speed at the expense of guns and armor, well... that didn't work out in practice.

I understand that, in-game, a ship is a ship and the navies fight as skillfully and hard as the controlling player tells them to, without regard for the practicalities of fuel, ammunition, repair yards, politics and crew quality. I'm just pointing out that this does not correspond to real life. I do regret that game designers in general seem to have such trouble recreating the command and training problems posed by fast-moving steam-powered fleets, but that's another issue.

Thank you for helping me to see how the game works - I appreciate it and hope you will continue. I like quite a lot of what I see about PoN but I admit to being a little daunted by the learning curve.

 

[Sir Garnet]

I understand that, in-game, a ship is a ship and the navies fight as skillfully and hard as the controlling player tells them to, without regard for the practicalities of fuel, ammunition, repair yards, politics and crew quality.

Crew quality differences matter a lot, but accumulated crew quality applies only to the current ship. Training has a cost and reduces experience, and replacement means an effectively fresh crew. Having bases to allow repairs is key in any long campaign, and for upgrades foreign bases won't do.

Ammunition is quite important, and disastrous to run short in face of the enemy. Fuel is unimportant so long as there is enough. There are good reasons to stockpile fuel.

 

[Director]

Crew quality differences matter a lot, but accumulated crew quality applies only to the current ship. Training has a cost and reduces experience, and replacement means an effectively fresh crew. Having bases to allow repairs is key in any long campaign, and for upgrades foreign bases won't do.

Ammunition is quite important, and disastrous to run short in face of the enemy. Fuel is unimportant so long as there is enough. There are good reasons to stockpile fuel.

That's good to know, and it shows more insight than the usual 'invest x items, build it and forget it' system that some games use. But crew and officer quality really should be developed strategically (via institutes) rather than tactically (ship-by-ship), I think. Officers and captains trained 'in common' deliver similar, reproduceable results when moved from ship to ship, no matter that there will be some variations in quality across the fleet. Of course military institutions can calcify (see British Naval rigidity 1860-1890) but they still tend to produce a certain baseline of quality. In the early ironclad era one sees warships taken into battle with almost-entirely green crews and still used to some effect. Training becomes more important as ships get more complex, but even in the dreadnought-era a few months working-up was considered sufficient to get the crew up to minimum standards.

Good and realistic training pays off in equipment that works, engines that run and weapons that not only fire but that hit their targets. One has only to look at Lissa, Manila Bay, Tsushima and the numerous European and Japanese naval battles with China to see the powerful force-mulitplier of a well-trained crew. But one must also have officers willing to lead in battle and able to inspire their men. All of those battles could have been very different if the personalities of the commanding officers were switched, I think.

Training reduces experience? That seems counter-intuitive since the game time-frame predates modern management methods.

Use of foreign bases is tricky to model but absolutely necessary for some of the campaigns of the era. The US made (quiet) use of British facilities before striking at Manila Bay in the Spanish-American War, and the Russian fleet was able to coal and make modest repairs at a number of ports on the way to Tsushima. The broad range of advantages the British accrued from their numerous and well-sited naval and refueling bases permitted the Royal Navy to be the world's only service with real global reach.

The importance of munitions and fuel (coal) stockpiles are easily understandable.

Sounds like PoN takes a good stab at the 'intangible' issues of crew quality, repairs and logistical support without going too deep into minutae. That's kudos to the AGEOD team then.

 

[loki100]

more detailed feedback, esp re the fascinating discussion on the naval model soon (ish), along with the next update. In the meantime since you are in search of reading material try this:

​

btw, if anyone else wants to chip in from a vaguely AGEOD AAR perspective please feel free to do so.

 

[Powloon]

In case you are going down the peaceful colonisation route with Abyssinia I have just noticed that the game treats Eritrea as part of Abyssinia when it comes to playing the protectorate and colony cards even though they are seperate colonial areas. That is to say if you are going to declare a protectorate on Abyssinia along with the other requirements (40 CP in capital etc) you will need an average CP of 30 in Abyssinia and in Eritrea. You can see the thread I opened on the AGEOD forum if you are interested.

Fascinating posts Director! Just goes to show I have some real gaps in my historical understanding of this period. After I finish reading the autobiography of Garibaldi I am currently reading (which was inspired by playing the game) I guess I will need to head over to Amazon to locate a decent tome on late 19th Centuary naval history.

 

[loki100]

That is logical. The inferior naval power may rely on keeping a strike force in being as a threat and reaiding forces for commerce raiding and fast, hazardous transits. Should check out torpedo boats when they come up.

Not having control of the seas also raises the question of where to put colonial forts, depots and military railways - run them inland, not on the coast except for important cities/ports? Definitely worth prior planning.

I believe that was the rail design the Ottomans used in real life, so their domestic system was laid out to avoid the easy to traverse coastal plains and wanders all around the foothills, notionally out of range of ship borne artillery.

One of the fascinating strategic puzzles is the balance of power between naval and land forces. France, Spain, Sweden and - to a lesser degree - Italy all came to grief on that rock. Germany was able to support both arms by dint of prodigious financial power but proved unable to use her naval strength in really effective ways. The old saying that, 'There is nothing more expensive than a second-best army,' applies also to navies, with the added point that it is generally faster to rebuild regiments than warships.

If Italy has a navy adequate to contain the Ottomans and Austrians, and has good relations with France (and hopefully Britain) then she may consider herself very well-served. It is not conceivable that she could build a navy capable of overthrowing that of France without stripping her land defenses (possibly not even if she did so). Far better to fortify a few points and depend on army corps to answer a potential invasion on Sicily or the 'boot'.

Moe than one country wound up with a 'vanity navy' that was expensive, poorly suited for the kind of warfare it needed to fight, and insufficient to counter a real challenge. I congratulate you on avoiding this strategic sinkhole, the more so since most European and South American statesmen of the era were unable to do so.

Of course you do have the advantage of not having to contend with public enthusiasms promoted by steel, armaments and shipbuilding interests.

Wow Victor E sure does love his artillery. I notice del Rocca's 12th Brigata has what suspicously looks like a breech loading icon. Did you get this piece off the turks or are you currently in the process of upgrading your artillery?

I am fairly confident you would be able (if you want to) build a navy to compete with the other world powers. Bearing in mind that most of the ships of the worlds navies which are currently in service are soon to become obscelete and the fact that naval units do not seem particularly expensive when compared to income (in PON at least) you could easilly be on level terms with the other powers whilst still being able to compete on land. Could be wrong about ship costs though as I have yet to see how expensive the later ship models are.

Very intriguing titbits from the end of the post particularly regarding the Austrians!

The artillery has two odd units. I have 2 guns that were captured when I destroyed all the combat elements in Ottoman corps (the guns then seem to appear as unique units) and 1 is the remnant of one of my formations that were destroyed. I'm up to iron breech loaders now, but I think those screen shots were all taken while I was shifting models.

Powloon, I'm not as familiar with the game mechanics as you are so I assume you are right. I do know Vic and Vic2 moderately well and the habit there of spawning enough ships to plate the ocean in metal is both annoying and deeply ahistorical. In 'real life' the construction of even a couple of first-class warships was a matter for serious budgetary debate.

Italy historically proceeded under the assumption you give, with mixed results. Her naval theorists (and designers) believed they could exploit new technologies to build bigger, faster, more powerful ships to out-class their opponents. And through purchase and construction, and great financial strain, they did create a powerful ironclad fleet. Unfortunately the fleet was applied to bad strategy and 'led' to sad defeat by an inferior force at Lissa. This defeat was followed by decades of expensive rebuilding with the Navy having to fight for every cent. In that instance Italy gained nothing and lost much from what was on paper one of the best fleets of technologically superior ironclads anywhere. Bad leadership in this case more than offset superior hardware.

The 'second navy' (I'm lumping in everything from Benedetto Brin's Duilio and Dandolo to Cuniberti's Regina Elena) produced some sophisticated and amazing ships, though several of them exploited technical factors that soon changed (the cellular system used in Duilio and Dandolo in place of armor was rendered obsolete by the rapid introduction of quick-firing guns), leaving the older ships quite vulnerable. So even if Italy had been able to build a dozen Duilios - they could barely afford two more - they would within a decade have been saddled with an obsolete fleet that could not be risked in battle and so have to spend the money all over again.

So Italy needed a larger number of warships than she could afford to build and keep. She needed a coherent squadron of ships with similar handling characteristics and not a series of 'one-off' experimentals (this was however true of every navy of the day). And she needed an expert and professional officer corps backed by well-trained seamen, and she wasn't able to produce that either. Italy wound up with an expensive fleet comprised of a small number of fast but brittle warships capable of containing Austria in the Adriatic but unable to match Britain or France. (The lack of coal, the same as the lack of oil in WWII, would have kept the Italian Navy in port had either France or Britain been an enemy). The real measure of Brin and Cuniberti's contributions is that their ideas were widely admired but not directly adopted elsewhere. Even Cuniberti's all-big-gun ship would have been a disaster if built to his original design. And as for the Italian insistence on speed at the expense of guns and armor, well... that didn't work out in practice.

I understand that, in-game, a ship is a ship and the navies fight as skillfully and hard as the controlling player tells them to, without regard for the practicalities of fuel, ammunition, repair yards, politics and crew quality. I'm just pointing out that this does not correspond to real life. I do regret that game designers in general seem to have such trouble recreating the command and training problems posed by fast-moving steam-powered fleets, but that's another issue.

Thank you for helping me to see how the game works - I appreciate it and hope you will continue. I like quite a lot of what I see about PoN but I admit to being a little daunted by the learning curve.

Crew quality differences matter a lot, but accumulated crew quality applies only to the current ship. Training has a cost and reduces experience, and replacement means an effectively fresh crew. Having bases to allow repairs is key in any long campaign, and for upgrades foreign bases won't do.

Ammunition is quite important, and disastrous to run short in face of the enemy. Fuel is unimportant so long as there is enough. There are good reasons to stockpile fuel.

That's good to know, and it shows more insight than the usual 'invest x items, build it and forget it' system that some games use. But crew and officer quality really should be developed strategically (via institutes) rather than tactically (ship-by-ship), I think. Officers and captains trained 'in common' deliver similar, reproduceable results when moved from ship to ship, no matter that there will be some variations in quality across the fleet. Of course military institutions can calcify (see British Naval rigidity 1860-1890) but they still tend to produce a certain baseline of quality. In the early ironclad era one sees warships taken into battle with almost-entirely green crews and still used to some effect. Training becomes more important as ships get more complex, but even in the dreadnought-era a few months working-up was considered sufficient to get the crew up to minimum standards.

Good and realistic training pays off in equipment that works, engines that run and weapons that not only fire but that hit their targets. One has only to look at Lissa, Manila Bay, Tsushima and the numerous European and Japanese naval battles with China to see the powerful force-mulitplier of a well-trained crew. But one must also have officers willing to lead in battle and able to inspire their men. All of those battles could have been very different if the personalities of the commanding officers were switched, I think.

Training reduces experience? That seems counter-intuitive since the game time-frame predates modern management methods.

Use of foreign bases is tricky to model but absolutely necessary for some of the campaigns of the era. The US made (quiet) use of British facilities before striking at Manila Bay in the Spanish-American War, and the Russian fleet was able to coal and make modest repairs at a number of ports on the way to Tsushima. The broad range of advantages the British accrued from their numerous and well-sited naval and refueling bases permitted the Royal Navy to be the world's only service with real global reach.

The importance of munitions and fuel (coal) stockpiles are easily understandable.

Sounds like PoN takes a good stab at the 'intangible' issues of crew quality, repairs and logistical support without going too deep into minutae. That's kudos to the AGEOD team then.

Well that is one erudite discussion. My grasp of naval strategy is appalling (one of the many reasons I liked Myth's superb HOI3 AAR - 'Explorations in Strategy' - was his obvious grasp of how to apply seapower). To add a little, both conceptual and my own plans.

I think no game captures the importance of having ships of quite similar capabilities as long as naval battles were essentially line of sight and reliant on formation. I read somewhere that one reason the RN was so dominant in the age of sail wasn't particulary crew or ship quality but that uniquely they could scrap ships every 15 years. Whereas other powers kept slightly older ships in service. In a battle line, that meant the RN's ships of the lines operated on very similar principles. Its like the failure to model that the British Army in the Napoleonic wars had an advantage in cavarly - the British uniquely had enough stallions that they could use them to mount the combat cavalry - everyone else used mares and geldings.

If I understand the evolution in naval design from the start of coal through oil is it was one of constant experimentation. So not only were ships more expensive but had a shorter life and battle squadrons started to become more diverse. Less important in that there was no real naval clashes up to WW1 but potentially quite important.

Now my (fantasy) grand strategy is based on the following views. I can pass France in prestige (it will be no secret after the comments in the next post but I do so by mid-1874). Ditto Russia is now in my sights (my modern industry will allow me to catch up with them). Less sure about the USA, as they are gaining prestige from their own colonial expansion as they push west. So Britain is the real foe. I need double their prestige to win. So I need to do two things, at the least hold them back and more importantly get past them. Somehow, somewhere that has to mean a war, and one on my terms. I haven't got a clue how to engineer this, how it will work with alliances (I need at least to have the French on my side) but one thing I am sure is I can't meet the RN at sea. So there is no point building a grand navy, I need a bigger one than I have but that can wait. I do need a navy that can play cat and mouse.

*edit - actually thinking more about this (which is what this damn game does to you), I need a Russian alliance as much as, if not more than, a French one. My logic is that Russia can really threaten the UK in places I can't really reach (India). Now at the moment they are engaged in eating the Central Asian Khanates, but then this is a long term war, not one for the next 10 years *

Director - more generally I think you'd like PoN and I'm very tempted to a US game at some stage (more than playing the US in Victoria). I think the feeling of being constrained in PoN makes for richer narrative drivers (says he, writing the most basic of game play AARs). Oddly when I play V2 I wish it was more constrained, when I play PoN I wish it was a bit more dynamic.

In case you are going down the peaceful colonisation route with Abyssinia I have just noticed that the game treats Eritrea as part of Abyssinia when it comes to playing the protectorate and colony cards even though they are seperate colonial areas. That is to say if you are going to declare a protectorate on Abyssinia along with the other requirements (40 CP in capital etc) you will need an average CP of 30 in Abyssinia and in Eritrea. You can see the thread I opened on the AGEOD forum if you are interested.

Fascinating posts Director! Just goes to show I have some real gaps in my historical understanding of this period. After I finish reading the autobiography of Garibaldi I am currently reading (which was inspired by playing the game) I guess I will need to head over to Amazon to locate a decent tome on late 19th Centuary naval history.

thanks for the advice. At the moment I have no province > 35 CP, have spotted a few western provinces under this (so filling that in) and have explorers on the way to discover the Highlands. The lure of not fighting, and gaining that irregular army for my own purposes is really attractive. I think that would make any later war with Egypt/Sudan so much easier to wage.

oh, and:

​

 

[loki100]

January-June 1873, uppity Austrians and colonial revolts

So lets return to the normal update process as Italy seeks a period of peace and calm in which to digest its recent gains … of course it seeks peace and calm by sending Garibaldi off to visit Libya (home of very irate camels fed up by being shelled by the Italian navy).

As you will see, the search for ‘peace and calm’ ™ is not an easy process.

Anyway:

Industrial Reports​

(I was a bit scatty with screenshots in this period so I’ll revert to the normal bi-monthly indicators with the next update, those two show the end of June 1873).

Population​

More people abandon their rural lives and move to the cities. Other than that, militancy is at near zero, satisfaction is increasing at about 0.4% per turn (and then drops back every time they have to pay their taxes).

Events​

So the first breach of peace and calm is the damned Austrians. Still whinging about my trading practices, anyone would think Austria was run by UKIP. We’re in Europe so of course my merchants are selling stuff in N Italy



Obviously this time they were utterly bemused by my reasonable response. More prestige in my goal to overtake France (its not clear in screen but I picked up another 1100 there).

Colonies​

Dubai is declared an Italian colony.



And I encourage Italians to visit, and create 2 new Gems Pits.

As we will see, this is actually a mistake (or probably more true to say, a wee bit premature)

This means I have another colony in late May. As you can see, rather unplanned, I have also absorbed that area the British were involved with. I am now hoping this does not upset them in any way



Anyway I add my third gems pit. I am going to be awash in gems by 1874 [1]

In early January, Gari, in search of winter sun, arrives for his Libyan holiday



My strategy here is slowly take control of the Western provinces, build colonial structures, forts and depots and then start the process of hunting the rebels down in the eastern provinces.

The first battle is in Sirt where my advance guard (a colonial division) wins an easy victory



To celebrate Dubai becoming Italian, Aden erupts into a massive revolt. Good thing I have a large force already in the region.



Of course the war in Aden also starts with easy victories



Ah, right, I think I need more men, so I send most of the extra units in Djibuti over



That should sort it all out



Right, this is serious (they also now have artillery as a result of that defeat)

Umberto is off to the region. I can spare a corps (hopefully) and he’ll be there by June 1873. Thinking ahead of this war, have a regular corps in the region is no bad idea. If I go to war (when I go …) with the Ottomans again I can repeat the stunt of seizing Jerusalem from the Red Sea.



I also send a small garrison to Zanzibar to secure my control there.

Inventions​

More useful inventions fire.



This creates the means to upgrade a lot of my factories to what I am calling second generation structures. These are mostly quite good, they don’t need that much more Private Capital (PC), do use more of other inputs (good as it stimulates industry and trade) and all seem to generate a unit of prestige per turn. As we’ll see the latter starts to add up to around 30 per turn fairly soon (mid 1874) and in turn that is over 700 prestige per year.

Some useful military ones too

Other people’s problems​

Well it seems as if war has caught on. The Dutch are doing something in Aceh (wherever that is), the Spanish are having a domestic and the British are mobilising for some war they are having in Southern Africa



Diplomatically I want to make Greece like me, so I deliberately set out to buy stuff from them

Prestige at the end​

So my attempt at spreading peace and light has become a bit mired in two colonial wars (ok one was planned) and the Austrians getting upset on a regular basis. This is going to be a theme often repeated in 1873-4.

I also did some modding in the coming period. This gave me the card to play to build the Suez Canal (no other part of the French chain), the ability to build explorers and ended the Russo-Turkish war (I gave the Russians the fort of Kars).


[1] Not true as we will see

 

[Stuyvesant]

Are the English coming to claim your gem mines as compensation for Qatar? Or does the global gem market collapse with the discovery of the diamond fields in Kimberley? Probably both way off the mark.

I see that the Italian track record in colonial warfare remains spotty at best, regardless of whether Gari gets involved personally. I'm sure you'll win in Aden eventually, but it is a bit embarrassing that the natives keep beating up on you when they feel like it.

With all the modernizing and prestige-gaining, and your talk of having France and Russia in your sights (in prestige terms), it sounds like Italy is really coming into its own as a Great Power. Color me impressed.

 

[Powloon]

As I have no doubt mentioned before it is very interesting to see the differences between the games one of which is the number of times you have been involved in a crises. So far I have had the grand total of none. I'm not sure if this is down to play style luck etc although it is probably a good thing as I would not know what to do with one if one stepped up and slapped me in the face! Still very nice prestige gain there well played.

Regarding Qatar and the British presence this also happened to me from what I have read and seen so far it should be possible to reduce their CP by playing various colonial actions although from what I remember at least in my game the British have Qatar as a protectorate so I am not sure if it is possible to remove that by peaceful means. I guess there is a small chance that this could lead to a crises (would just be my luck if that is the first one I get:happy

 

[Director]

From Sir Garnet:

That is logical. The inferior naval power may rely on keeping a strike force in being as a threat and reaiding forces for commerce raiding and fast, hazardous transits. Should check out torpedo boats when they come up.

The classic naval theory of commerce raiding, later re-stated by the jeune ecole and splendidly encapsulated by you in one sentence. If vigorously prosecuted it can give an enemy a lot of grief but not disrupt his control of the seas. The trick is in knowing when control of the seas is vital to your war aims and when it is not. After all the Austrians won the naval battle of Lissa without gaining anything strategically from it.

For a good general purpose book on ships and naval war of the period I recommend Ironclads at War: The Origin and Development of the Armored Warship 1854-1891 by Jack Greene and Alessandro Massignani. A decent, readable overview with some interesting chapters on doings in South America, Japan and China.


So the Arabians are giving you serious trouble... not unusual for the period. Just think of Gordon at Khartoum. Here's hoping your prompt response prevents a like outcome.

The Austrians will indeed be 'foxed' by your change in attitude. One can foresee a split in their Foreign Ministry with one third believing the Italians are bumbling amateurs another seeing you as hotheaded, unpredictable fanatics and the last convinced you are machiavellian masterminds playing some fantastically deep game of diplomatic chess. Keep 'em guessing, I say - but if they are willing to give an inch, push them hard. Austria is the only great power from whom I see that you can extort usable concessions. If only they would get into a nice desperate war with Russia. Or the Turks. Or Germany... Ah well, a man can dream.

As for the Russian alliance - very wise, and for solid historical reasons. I am reminded of my last Vic2 game where Germany bullied France and won Alsace-Lorraine, bullied them again and won Franche-Comte (despite France having a Russian alliance the second time. The aftermath of that plunged Russia into a civil war and brought forth the Soviet Union in 1900). I was thinking to myself that what France really needed was to add Austria to her alliance structure and go for revenge... and son-of-a-biscuit-eater, the AI did just that. The combined power of France, the Soviet Union and Austria was stalemated for about 18 months, but when the walls gave in they went all the way down. The North German Federation was completely occupied, and since the AI wouldn't give in to all the peace demands the war stalled for about 5 years. When peace finally happened, France got Franche-Comte and Alsace-Lorraine and Pomerania too, the Soviets got Poland back, Austria got a huge chunk in the south and the NGF never recovered great power status. As of 1920 they are a minor sphereling of Austria... Electrical power is currently being produced by hitching Bismarck's spinning body to a generator.

Which is a long way of saying that Russia makes a minor check on Britain I think but a dandy check on Germany... just what you need if you have to take on a German-Austrian alliance. If you have to fight Britain then France may be a stronger ally. But if you can get a Russian alliance, I say go for it.

 

[Joecon]

I suggest if you wish to target GB then possibly the following steps need to be prepared for:

Surprise invasion of the British Isles, troops hiding in merchant ships and invading everywhere on the turn you declare war. Seem to remember reading something similar in a book.

Denial of the Mediterranean, invade Gibraltar at the start and land coastal guns next turn. Thereafter any enemy ship passing gets bombarded and probably sunk.

The Indian adventure, ship an army to Aden to deal with rebels then use this to launch the invasion of India. Secure the jewel in the crown, perhaps also South Africa and a counter invasion would be very difficult. It appears most of the value of British colonial possessions is in India, Canada and Australia. The latter two often seem to have few defenders and generally with the cost of the navy GB may not have a very big army.

Mod the game to give yourself some of the disruption decisions to help cause revolts or just send your warships bombarding as you did in Libya? Not sure you can bombard anothers colony?

Alliance with Persia, Afghanistan, Siam, Tibet and China for an attack on GB.

 

[Arilou]

I believe that was the rail design the Ottomans used in real life, so their domestic system was laid out to avoid the easy to traverse coastal plains and wanders all around the foothills, notionally out of range of ship borne artillery.

This is also the reason why the main swedish north/south railway goes straight through the middle of nowhere, rather than along the coasts where people actually live. (no, I am not bitter, not at all, despite the bloody conservatives seemingly wanting to sabotage any real attempts at getting a decent railroad up north)

 

[Sir Garnet]

"As pointless as the Austrian Navy" applied even when Austria had a seacoast. Italy, however, needs one for Empire. Britain, France, Russia . . . all need multiple navies in separate seas. With passage through Suez, Italy needs just one which may remain concentrated and dominate other Mediterranean and Indian Ocean navies.

In my 1880 GC the natives in Tunisia and Libya are proving doughty foes, assisted indirectly by the haughty and competitively jealous attitudes of the Italian commanders, most of whom want a command and reputation crushing natives (Roleplaying alert). I like lots of artillery (including naval bombardment) to soften them up at the onset, and separate mounted to send in pursuit or to block their retreat.

 

[loki100]

Are the English coming to claim your gem mines as compensation for Qatar? Or does the global gem market collapse with the discovery of the diamond fields in Kimberley? Probably both way off the mark.

I see that the Italian track record in colonial warfare remains spotty at best, regardless of whether Gari gets involved personally. I'm sure you'll win in Aden eventually, but it is a bit embarrassing that the natives keep beating up on you when they feel like it.

With all the modernizing and prestige-gaining, and your talk of having France and Russia in your sights (in prestige terms), it sounds like Italy is really coming into its own as a Great Power. Color me impressed.

Gem problem is a total lack of labour force to work the mines. Given all those posts above on the intersection of population and productivity, I really should have checked.

colonial war is rightly rather random. As in the next post, you usually expect to win, but every now and then a battle will go badly against you. I'd have to dig deeper into the game engine than I have any ability to do so to understand just why, but I like that if you are careless with cohesion/stance etc you can stumble into quite a little disaster.

Italy will overtake France in 1874 ... I can guarentee it

As I have no doubt mentioned before it is very interesting to see the differences between the games one of which is the number of times you have been involved in a crises. So far I have had the grand total of none. I'm not sure if this is down to play style luck etc although it is probably a good thing as I would not know what to do with one if one stepped up and slapped me in the face! Still very nice prestige gain there well played.

Regarding Qatar and the British presence this also happened to me from what I have read and seen so far it should be possible to reduce their CP by playing various colonial actions although from what I remember at least in my game the British have Qatar as a protectorate so I am not sure if it is possible to remove that by peaceful means. I guess there is a small chance that this could lead to a crises (would just be my luck if that is the first one I get:happy

I am keeping two of my main armies on the border with them and relations are around -37, but, including the next post, that makes 3 such crises in about 15 months, so I have yet some hope of luring them into attacking me.

Again as in the next post, I slowly start gaining legitimacy (my SOI goes from -10 to -9) so that may also degrade the British interests - so far they have ignored that region so I am starting to move into Kuwait too so as to hopefully lock it down as another part of the new Roman Empire.

From Sir Garnet:

The classic naval theory of commerce raiding, later re-stated by the jeune ecole and splendidly encapsulated by you in one sentence. If vigorously prosecuted it can give an enemy a lot of grief but not disrupt his control of the seas. The trick is in knowing when control of the seas is vital to your war aims and when it is not. After all the Austrians won the naval battle of Lissa without gaining anything strategically from it.

For a good general purpose book on ships and naval war of the period I recommend Ironclads at War: The Origin and Development of the Armored Warship 1854-1891 by Jack Greene and Alessandro Massignani. A decent, readable overview with some interesting chapters on doings in South America, Japan and China.


So the Arabians are giving you serious trouble... not unusual for the period. Just think of Gordon at Khartoum. Here's hoping your prompt response prevents a like outcome.

The Austrians will indeed be 'foxed' by your change in attitude. One can foresee a split in their Foreign Ministry with one third believing the Italians are bumbling amateurs another seeing you as hotheaded, unpredictable fanatics and the last convinced you are machiavellian masterminds playing some fantastically deep game of diplomatic chess. Keep 'em guessing, I say - but if they are willing to give an inch, push them hard. Austria is the only great power from whom I see that you can extort usable concessions. If only they would get into a nice desperate war with Russia. Or the Turks. Or Germany... Ah well, a man can dream.

As for the Russian alliance - very wise, and for solid historical reasons. I am reminded of my last Vic2 game where Germany bullied France and won Alsace-Lorraine, bullied them again and won Franche-Comte (despite France having a Russian alliance the second time. The aftermath of that plunged Russia into a civil war and brought forth the Soviet Union in 1900). I was thinking to myself that what France really needed was to add Austria to her alliance structure and go for revenge... and son-of-a-biscuit-eater, the AI did just that. The combined power of France, the Soviet Union and Austria was stalemated for about 18 months, but when the walls gave in they went all the way down. The North German Federation was completely occupied, and since the AI wouldn't give in to all the peace demands the war stalled for about 5 years. When peace finally happened, France got Franche-Comte and Alsace-Lorraine and Pomerania too, the Soviets got Poland back, Austria got a huge chunk in the south and the NGF never recovered great power status. As of 1920 they are a minor sphereling of Austria... Electrical power is currently being produced by hitching Bismarck's spinning body to a generator.

Which is a long way of saying that Russia makes a minor check on Britain I think but a dandy check on Germany... just what you need if you have to take on a German-Austrian alliance. If you have to fight Britain then France may be a stronger ally. But if you can get a Russian alliance, I say go for it.

well I give the Austrians another lesson in the art of diplomacy in the next update - I revert to my more aggressive negotiating techniques and clean up big time.

My diplomatic dream would be a Franco-Russian-Italian alliance, the British I am keeping happy as I am scared of them and that gold mine in Scotland is too valuable to lose. But that alliance would keep the (somewhat divided) Germanic core of Europe firmly in its place. I also think although it won't challenge Britain at sea, it could easily fight them to a stalemate and do some damage to their colonies on the way.

I suggest if you wish to target GB then possibly the following steps need to be prepared for:

Surprise invasion of the British Isles, troops hiding in merchant ships and invading everywhere on the turn you declare war. Seem to remember reading something similar in a book.

Denial of the Mediterranean, invade Gibraltar at the start and land coastal guns next turn. Thereafter any enemy ship passing gets bombarded and probably sunk.

The Indian adventure, ship an army to Aden to deal with rebels then use this to launch the invasion of India. Secure the jewel in the crown, perhaps also South Africa and a counter invasion would be very difficult. It appears most of the value of British colonial possessions is in India, Canada and Australia. The latter two often seem to have few defenders and generally with the cost of the navy GB may not have a very big army.

Mod the game to give yourself some of the disruption decisions to help cause revolts or just send your warships bombarding as you did in Libya? Not sure you can bombard anothers colony?

Alliance with Persia, Afghanistan, Siam, Tibet and China for an attack on GB.

I think the book you mean was the 'riddle of the sands'. If a novel can be said to have caused WW1 it was that. Like the non-existent missile gap in the early 1960s, that provoked a major panic in Britain and led to even more ships beng built to which Germany responded. The novel, if I recall, used as its premise just that sort of sneak attack on Britain at a time when the existing fleet was meant to be deployed somewhere else.

The idea of using Aden as a base to raid into India is very attractive as is grabbing Gibralter coup de main, that would protect Italy from any realistic threat and if I wait (which I will have to) till I have Suez and Egypt under control, it means the war can be fought to some extent on my own terms. Great ideas thank you

This is also the reason why the main swedish north/south railway goes straight through the middle of nowhere, rather than along the coasts where people actually live. (no, I am not bitter, not at all, despite the bloody conservatives seemingly wanting to sabotage any real attempts at getting a decent railroad up north)

I always wondered why it went that way - handy if you have just skied out the middle section of the Kungsleden though. I don't think Conservatives like trains to be honest ....

"As pointless as the Austrian Navy" applied even when Austria had a seacoast. Italy, however, needs one for Empire. Britain, France, Russia . . . all need multiple navies in separate seas. With passage through Suez, Italy needs just one which may remain concentrated and dominate other Mediterranean and Indian Ocean navies.

In my 1880 GC the natives in Tunisia and Libya are proving doughty foes, assisted indirectly by the haughty and competitively jealous attitudes of the Italian commanders, most of whom want a command and reputation crushing natives (Roleplaying alert). I like lots of artillery (including naval bombardment) to soften them up at the onset, and separate mounted to send in pursuit or to block their retreat.

the idea of linking up my naval zones that way is attractive. It gives me the ability to annoy the British but hopefully dodge their main battle fleet. In the next post, the big-G shows how to prosecute a colonial war ... (& 1874 will feature his post-war Mediterranean cruise around the rebel held islands)

 

[loki100]

July-December 1874, humiliating Austria yet again

Routine Reports​

Industry

At this stage, there are few problems here. In particular, I am using up a lot of manufactured goods (factory upgrading is going on, colonial actions and building up the army) and at the moment all I need is available on the international market. As we’ll see, in 1874, this is a bit of a false optimism on my part and I will need to pay a lot more attention to both the structure of my industry and my trading patterns than I have done at any stage since the 1850s.

One thing I think is a problem here is that slowly as the relevant techs unlock, demand is growing in all the main economies. As far as I can see (and I’ve only looked at France) the AI is not making the move to second generation factories. If so, at some stage I’ll need to spend a bit of time forcing the main players to do so or such global shortages will become first more common and then, potentially, more crippling over the coming years.

Manufactured



The main things in that list is the steady decline in coal, at this stage I wasn’t too worried but that is another good moving into a global shortage. Manufactured goods are leaping around as I consume a lot, build up the stock and then use up those new stocks.

Non-Manufactured



That list is much more stable and much easier to control. Where I letting my stocks run down that is deliberate to save Private Capital for new investment, I am also selling a lot of my opium as exports as again that generates Private Capital for new investments. The few things I have low stocks of (rice, tropical fruits, sugar, tea, tobacco, rum and silks – from left to right) I would like more of but they are not widely available. I think I am supplying enough variation in food types to my domestic market to satisfy demand and slowly raise contentment.

Replacements



I also start filling out my 3 main field armies. I have already ensured they each have balloons, signals and hospitals (as well as engineers). I know want each to be built around 2 combat corps and to have heavy as well as regular artillery regiments. A recent tech I gained seems to have made these more useful on the battlefield.

I’m also adding to my transport fleet as I want the ability to move that large formation in the Red Sea area, Garibaldi’s army and one of the three conventional armies in any one turn. Given how spread out my holdings are, this level of flexibility is fairly essential.

Population



Not too much to say there. Satisfaction is slowly creeping up, militantism is under control and the population is steadily expanding (3rd column from the right on each side of the screen). The only ‘problem’ is that education levels seem sort of stuck (but I haven’t had the card to play for a while) and shifting about quite a lot (big gains in Campania and Lazio, pretty static or even down a little elsewhere).

Colonial Actions​

Libya

I start to push into the western provinces. My goal is to herd the rebels into one province and ideally hit them with Garibaldi’s relatively powerful army. That way I may do enough damage to cost them elements. This is the key as they can absorb other losses due to the game mechanics but lost elements are permanent damage to their strength.

The opening battle, using a colonial division works out a bit better than I expected.



With that victory, Garibaldi moves onto Benghazi. And then commences building a depot, fort and harbour. This will be my main base if I have to invade Egypt from this direction.

Following this, by the end of August, I’ve all but surrounded the rebels



What follows is a sequence of ping-pong as I attack them and cut off their retreat lines. It takes about 3 months and a long sequence of battles. No point in showing these but by the end of November I’ve destroyed 9 elements of their stack.

At which point, Garibaldi moves in for the kill



They may escape westwards but I now have some forts and can bring them to battle fairly easily.

Aden

Here I rather struggled to bring enough force on the rebels to really harm them. But slowly they are contained. I do destroy some elements, but my goal is to remove them from Italian territory.

This is achieved by early October they have retreated outside Italian territory. I’ll leave one colonial division in the border province and ignore them. No real gain to hunting them down as I can repel any incursion back into my colony.



Dubai

If you recall this is out of my designated SOI. However, events fire (slowly) that improve your entitlement to such regions if you do actually take one.



A little bit later a new garrison force arrives, the Naval Guns will give me a degree of control over the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Now the attentive reader will remember that first I thought my gem pits in this region were going to solve my relative problem with supplying luxuries and then that I found a problem.

Well, the new gem pits in Dubai produce 0. I was actually gaining more gems from the trading posts. With a lot of fussing around, I work out the problem is they lack manpower to operate with any efficiency.



I adopt two solutions. One is to encourage my emigrants to go to Dubai (so hopefully create manpower) and decide to build a railway in the hope the efficiency gain will at least net me some output. That may boost the overall productivity (from a dire 4%) to the level where at least some gems are produced.

In the meantime, the lure to stick my nose into Kuwait becomes rather overwhelming

Austria​

And, as if to show they haven’t learned anything so far, Austria pops up again. And get well and truly slapped down again.



Note the British and the Prussians had a dispute too, which the British seemed to lose. They really need to take lessons from Italy’s elite diplomatic corps.

Discoveries​

Three useful technologies fire.



The first is another that reduces cohesion losses on the move, the second is one of the number that boost population demand. The final one is something I’ve not seen so far, but will increase my population growth.

At the moment, as I am slowing down my colonial expansion, I am allocating a lot of state cash to speeding up research.

Prestige due to my modern industry, colonial gains, domestic cards (sewers and universities) and the idiot Austrians continues to improve. At this rate I should pass France in 1874.



I am now gaining 16 per turn from my new factories (an upgraded shipyard – which I haven’t done yet – is worth 4 PP per turn). ‘Regional decisions’ are things like the expansion of Universities (so basically swapping state cash for prestige).

 

[Powloon]

Wow those Austrians really don't know when enough is enough. Another nice prestige gain which looks like it should guarentee you entry into the 2nd tier of major powers! Quite a turn around if you think how far you have come.

I wish i'd waited to read your post before upgrading my gem mine in Dubai. Very annoying for gem production to actually drop with a 2nd generation structure. Mine is the same issue a lack of middle class and worker population to run the mines. From what i've seen in Italy before every 6 months or so I think an event fires which pushes the peasants from the countryside to the city to fill up the skilled labour. So hopefully your mine production will pick up even without the extra messures you've taken. (I have no evidence to back that up other than observation by the way)

 

[Director]

Good steady progress!

With the AI in charge I would think you could treat each crisis as a separate issue while a human player would begin to build up a grievance. Here's hoping that, if Austria decides that she has had enough, you have friends enough to back up your diplomacy.

You mentioned that industrial goods production isn't keeping pace with demand and that one solution is to improve factories to a better level. You also mention that some raw materials like coal are becoming scarcer. Will improving factories to a better model cause them to consume more resources and thus bring on a crisis of scarcity?

 

[calestos]

Good steady progress!

With the AI in charge I would think you could treat each crisis as a separate issue while a human player would begin to build up a grievance. Here's hoping that, if Austria decides that she has had enough, you have friends enough to back up your diplomacy.

You mentioned that industrial goods production isn't keeping pace with demand and that one solution is to improve factories to a better level. You also mention that some raw materials like coal are becoming scarcer. Will improving factories to a better model cause them to consume more resources and thus bring on a crisis of scarcity?

Solution of scarcity: war -new territories- + colonialism + building in foreign countries

 

[Stuyvesant]

Okay, Austria has steadfastly refused to be lured into a trap which would allow you to regain northern Italy, but otherwise they have been very good to you. That's a couple of thousand prestige points over the course of three crises, right?

I'm really impressed with your colonial empire. True, not all of it is functional (who knew you needed people to mine those gems?), but to be fair, what is ever fully functional in Italy? So, you're getting the urge to carouse with the Turks some more. Remind me: do you have a certain period of truce, or can you hack away at them as (and when) you please?