Post by The High Commissioner on Jan 4, 2020 12:56:05 GMT
Jamie Dreier wrote an article titled "The Lack of Diplomacy Opening Theory". It is an interesting read, if a little off the mark (in my opinion) at times.
I feel that the article is often misinterpreted, which is why I am using it here to introduce my own on opening strategies: Dreier is writing about opening theory, not strategy. He is saying that there is a lack of anything that could be seen as completely useful to all players as far as moves go. This he compares with chess and backgammon.
He also says that luck plays a big part in Diplomacy, and he's right, although his examples are poor. He gives an example where Italy and Turkey are in a position where the two players seem to be 'guessing' what the other will order. Stephen Agar, in comments added at the end of the article, points out that this isn't all about luck; I'm not going to quote it because it links to the example Dreier provides and that would just make the quotes lengthy. Go and read it yourself!
What Agar is saying is that, in this situation, a player should make a choice based on what is best for her. Agar says you shouldn't get involved in trying to second-guess your opponent, and to some extent, he's right. However, I do believe you should be analysing the board, and the information you have (or think you have) to inform your decision. The thrust of Agar's comments are that one choice will be better for you than the other and you should make that choice. My comment would be that one choice will be better for you as long as you aren't persuaded the other option would work. Agar's right, though, in that if you are just guessing what your opponent will do, then you're playing lazily.
So Dreier's article needs thinking about critically. However, there is no doubt that there is really no opening theory in Dip because opening theory is about moves. Some moves are distinctly ridiculous, and some are patently less useful from a flexibility point of view, but any moves a player makes in 1901(1) should be made with an acknowledgement of the information to hand.
Strategy, not theory
Now strategy is different. When we talk about strategy (or, at least, when I do - you may not) we're talking about everything: information from and about other players; which power you're playing and where it is on the board; how you are trying to play this game - these are just a few.
I'm going to look at some aspects of this but not everything. There are some aspects that are, I believe, fundamental to the game and how you play it. I don't often use the grammatically correct term 'one' for the general person, but on this occasion I'm using 'you' directly: How do you play the game?
And I'm not going to dig too deeply into each aspect below. Again, I'm being as basic as I can be in this article, simply because what works as an opening strategy can depend a lot on circumstances. These, then, are considerations rather than hard and fast rules.
However, there is one thing that should be in every player's game: You must have an opening strategy. Entering a game of Dip without some idea about what you're trying to achieve in 1901 is stupid. I'd go so far as to say that you should have an idea about how you're going to win the game... but that's beyond the scope of my objectives here. And I waffle enough without going on about thoughts outside of my scope.
So let's look at what you need to consider.
Approach to the Early Game(2)
Being very simplistic, there are three basic ways to approach the start of a Dip game. Some players will go into the game with an idea about what the best actions to take will be for the power they've drawn; some will be more open to flexibility based on who they are playing in the game. I'm going to call these approaches the 'Stone' approach and the 'Rubber' approach; I'm sure you can work out which is which.
The Stone approach is based on one of two ideas:
Some people have the idea that when playing Power A, you should always attack Power B first. For instance, there are some who believe that, when you're playing England, you should always target France first. There are a number of reasons for this, none of them terrible, but the main thrust behind this idea is that England will have to deal with France if she is to win the game, so why not do it before France becomes - potentially - invulnerable?
Others will go into the game with a set idea of how they are going to approach this game. This is more along the lines of: Right; I'm going to take these SCs and work with that power. This idea may be based on what has worked before, or on wanting to try something different (for whatever reason).
The good part (pro) to the Stone approach is that it means you're going into the game with a plan. You know what you want to achieve and that means your strategy is going to be all about achieving that/those goal/goals.
The bad part (con) is that it takes no notice of anything that happens in the game. A Stone approach is, in it's simplest form, inflexible in the extreme.
The Rubber approach is based on the idea that a player is going to wait and see what happens. It means going into the game with a completely open mind about what you're going to do and who you're going to do it with. If you like, it's a swinger's party opening strategy; as long as you come out with something, you're good.
The pro is that it means you're taking everything into account. Rather than targeting a power, you're going to act based on what you learn in the game: what you learn about your opponents, about their intentions, about who would make a good ally, etc. This is a sensible approach to take because you're not limiting your options.
The con is that you may actually encourage your neighbours to ally against you because you won't commit to allying with them, or because you seem to be too secretive to be an ally. It can seem that you don't know what you want, too, and therefore another con is that you may end up playing safe and predictably.
Some players go in with what I'm going to call the 'Plastic' approach to the game: they have an idea about what they're going to do but are also prepared to be flexible in how they achieve it. Plastic can, after all, be rigid or rubbery, dependent on how it's made.
In general, I usually prefer flexibility to rigidity. I think there's something stupid about going into a game with a preconceived idea about how powers should be played, or about what orders a power should be given. However, it is also stupid to go into a game with no idea about what you're going to do. Which brings us to the next section...
Have a plan
Which power you're playing, the geography of the board, the units you have - all play a part in how you should be looking to play the game. And these need to be combined with similar considerations about your opponents, as well as finding out who your opponents are and how they approach the game.
You and yours
I'm not going to be ridiculous here... oh, OK, I will - it's an example. Let's say you're Russia: you aren't going to try to nab Paris in 1901 because you simply can't get there. There are a high number of SCs(3) Russia can reach in 1901 but Paris isn't one of them.
But also you need to consider which SCs are likely given the moves other powers are likely to make. For instance, Russia can reach Norway in 1901, ordering A(Mos)-StP in S01, and then A(StP)-Nwy in F01(4). It's possible... but it's unlikely. This is because England is probably going for Norway in 1901: it's often considered a 'natural', an SC that is English in all but name. In fact, England can guarantee Norway becomes English if she chooses (I'm not going to go through the orders here because you're either experienced enough about Dip to know what those orders are or, if you're not, it is good to work it out for yourself; I'll go over this in an article on England's opening another time).
As Russia, then, you need to be aware of which SCs you want to be Russian at the end of 1901 and which you want to target. These may be Rumania and Sweden (often), Berlin, Vienna, Budapest or Ankara (occasionally).
You also need to be aware of the crisis points around your power. Taking Russia again, these may be Norway or the Barents Sea (if England attacks), Prussia or Silesia (if Germany attacks), Galicia (Austria), and Armenia or the Black Sea (Turkey). How are you going to secure these spaces, which are non-SCs?
Them and theirs
It also helps to have an understanding of the same thing relating to other powers and especially so about your neighbours.
The more you play the game, the more you'll see that some opening moves are more often played than others. This may be because they are generally better options for the powers or because they are just used a lot. For instance, England is more likely to use one of her northern opening options(5) than others because Norway, as I've said above, is a 'natural' SC for England to take and the only SC she can be sure of taking. For Russia, it's important to realise this because England opening with F(Edi)-NWG and F(Lon)-NTH(6) can be uncomfortable but should be expected. The more worrying order might be A(Lpl)-Edi rather than Lpl-Yor (although it probably shouldn't be(7)).
If you're Russia, arguably the only power that isn't a 'neighbour' is France. In his article, Dreier has a much narrower idea about neighbours than me, as can be seen when he's talking about Turkey making peace with her neighbours and attacking Italy. For me, Italy is a neighbour of Turkey; she may not be right next door but Italy has as much of an impact in what Turkey should be looking to do in the Early Game as Austria and Russia. For Russia, her immediate neighbours are Austria, Turkey and Germany but she is also neighbours with England (she can be bordering English territory in Fall 1901) and Italy (because Italy impacts on Austria and the Balkans, both Russian neighbouring zones).
Does Russia therefore need to understand what France is likely to do in 1901? Oh, yes. You see, the moves France makes may well be informative to Russia. Does she seem to be defending against, or even attacking, Italy, England or Germany? Is she playing it safe and heading for Iberia? Is she doing something that is going to make things easier for you, by distracting a neighbour... and, if so, is this something that gives Russia an advantage?
Them
What can you learn about the players?
To some extent, this depends on how you're playing the game. In the FTF formats (face-to-face) you know who is playing which power but you may not know much about the players themselves; usually there is an absence of data to look at. In the online format, you may know who is playing but you may not... or you may not know who is playing which power.
The online format, especially when played through a website(8), can be anonymous. It may be that you know who is playing in the game, but you may not know which power they control. You may not even know who you're playing against! This is less so in the PBEM or PBF formats(9), but there may not be much data to use in these.
However, it makes sense to use what you can find about your opponents. As I'm mainly concentrating on the online format, it's possible that you can find records of previous games your opponents have played, how they played each power, what type of player they are, etc. This is useful because there may be something that helps you approach playing against a player. For instance, is she likely to honour alliances, or break them? Is she opportunistic? Does she communicate a lot or a little? If she's under pressure, will she tough it out, capitulate or even surrender?
Knowing about your situation, being aware of other powers' situations and knowing the other players are all things that can help you to put some kind of plan together. But this is all about making predictions and you ideally want to have something more substantial to make help with your plans, which brings us to the final aspect of your opening strategy...
Communication
Diplomacy is often seen as being a military game and I can see why. It involves armies and fleets, and it's about invading countries and provinces. But this is too narrow an understanding. The game is about communicating with your opponents.
If there is one thing everyone should remember about Dip, it's that communication is the key to success. Well, OK, not so much in the Gunboat variant(10) but let's ignore that one. (There're a number of reasons I'm ignoring Gunboat but the most useful one is that I tend not to write about this variant and I'm talking about any variant of Dip that involves communication because those are the interesting ones .)
At the start of the game you should be communicating with every player in the game. I'm not talking about full-on negotiating but about simply talking to them. If this communication turns into a negotiation, or a strategy discussion, great, but that isn't what it's about.
Now, there are certainly priorities when it comes to this. Each player needs to prioritise communicating with her neighbouring powers. England, for example, would prioritise opening communications with France and Germany, and these discussions should be moving pretty quickly onto potential opening alliances and moves. She must also communicate a lot with Russia, simply because England's priority SC is, more often than not, Norway, and Russia is the only power that could prevent England gaining that SC. Italy is also a power England should be communicating with as much as possible. While Italy isn't going to impact on English targets early in the game she is potentially an ally against France, if not immediately.
What about Austria and Turkey? Why bother communicating with them? Because while you don't bother, others will do. If you're not establishing communications with them from the start, when you do actually need an alliance with these powers then you could well find that you're starting too late.
The point is that the foundations you put down in the early game are what you're going to be building on in the later stages. There's no short cut to this: it needs doing. You may not have very much to say, but you need to say something.
There is another aspect to this, however, and I've alluded to this above. This communication is about learning about your opponents. It's how you get a feel for what they're like and what they're going to be doing throughout the game. This is especially important if you don't know anything, or don't know much, about the players you're up against.
You may have entered the game with an idea about what you want to do early, which power you want to move against and which power(s) with which you want to ally. You need to find out if you're going to be able to do what you want.
I'm going to stick with the example of England, because I used her above and because she probably has the fewest options of any other power on the board. To do well she needs to attack France or Germany early on, or else she needs to build a Western Triple alliance with the two(11). Now, let's say she follows the guidance that many players put out there: attack France first. She's therefore going to need to ally with Germany and, potentially, Italy, and to get on friendly terms with Russia to allow her to focus across the Channel.
England communicates with everyone. She finds that Russia is OK with a fleet occupying Norway and agrees not to block this, as long as England doesn't send two fleets north. Great. Italy isn't very helpful because she has more interest in grabbing Tunis and is giving off some anti-Turkish vibes. Well, OK, if Germany will pressure France hard, then Italy isn't absolutely necessary at this point.
France is hopeful of an English alliance, which isn't a problem. It actually provides England with the chance to play along with her; they arrange for England to occupy the Channel as part of an allied attack on Belgium. England doesn't really intend to do this, because she wants to get Brest instead, and she believes she'll be able to achieve this and - more importantly - hold it.
England has dropped hints to Austria and Turkey, separately, that the other is cautiously interested in attacking Russia. She only needs one of them to apply pressure to distract Russia enough to ensure that she doesn't challenge England in the north. If nothing doesn't come from this, fine; England's happy with the agreement she has with Russia anyway.
Then there's Germany. Germany is quite an aggressive player and has a fixed idea that she wants to move against Russia and is pushing England to get her army into Norway. She actually hints that if England isn't going to do that, then she's not interested in working with England at all. She threatens England with a French alliance against her. And, on top of all this, Germany comes over as someone England is going to find it difficult to work with.
With all this information, what does England do? She has, perhaps, three choices:
What should she do? Well, yes, it matters of course but more importantly she has gathered information that will help her work out what to do. And it gives her something to work on in the future, if needed, to deal with Germany.
Notes
I feel that the article is often misinterpreted, which is why I am using it here to introduce my own on opening strategies: Dreier is writing about opening theory, not strategy. He is saying that there is a lack of anything that could be seen as completely useful to all players as far as moves go. This he compares with chess and backgammon.
He also says that luck plays a big part in Diplomacy, and he's right, although his examples are poor. He gives an example where Italy and Turkey are in a position where the two players seem to be 'guessing' what the other will order. Stephen Agar, in comments added at the end of the article, points out that this isn't all about luck; I'm not going to quote it because it links to the example Dreier provides and that would just make the quotes lengthy. Go and read it yourself!
What Agar is saying is that, in this situation, a player should make a choice based on what is best for her. Agar says you shouldn't get involved in trying to second-guess your opponent, and to some extent, he's right. However, I do believe you should be analysing the board, and the information you have (or think you have) to inform your decision. The thrust of Agar's comments are that one choice will be better for you than the other and you should make that choice. My comment would be that one choice will be better for you as long as you aren't persuaded the other option would work. Agar's right, though, in that if you are just guessing what your opponent will do, then you're playing lazily.
So Dreier's article needs thinking about critically. However, there is no doubt that there is really no opening theory in Dip because opening theory is about moves. Some moves are distinctly ridiculous, and some are patently less useful from a flexibility point of view, but any moves a player makes in 1901(1) should be made with an acknowledgement of the information to hand.
Strategy, not theory
Now strategy is different. When we talk about strategy (or, at least, when I do - you may not) we're talking about everything: information from and about other players; which power you're playing and where it is on the board; how you are trying to play this game - these are just a few.
I'm going to look at some aspects of this but not everything. There are some aspects that are, I believe, fundamental to the game and how you play it. I don't often use the grammatically correct term 'one' for the general person, but on this occasion I'm using 'you' directly: How do you play the game?
And I'm not going to dig too deeply into each aspect below. Again, I'm being as basic as I can be in this article, simply because what works as an opening strategy can depend a lot on circumstances. These, then, are considerations rather than hard and fast rules.
However, there is one thing that should be in every player's game: You must have an opening strategy. Entering a game of Dip without some idea about what you're trying to achieve in 1901 is stupid. I'd go so far as to say that you should have an idea about how you're going to win the game... but that's beyond the scope of my objectives here. And I waffle enough without going on about thoughts outside of my scope.
So let's look at what you need to consider.
Approach to the Early Game(2)
Being very simplistic, there are three basic ways to approach the start of a Dip game. Some players will go into the game with an idea about what the best actions to take will be for the power they've drawn; some will be more open to flexibility based on who they are playing in the game. I'm going to call these approaches the 'Stone' approach and the 'Rubber' approach; I'm sure you can work out which is which.
The Stone approach is based on one of two ideas:
- Which power should my power always attack first? or
- How am I going to play this game?
Some people have the idea that when playing Power A, you should always attack Power B first. For instance, there are some who believe that, when you're playing England, you should always target France first. There are a number of reasons for this, none of them terrible, but the main thrust behind this idea is that England will have to deal with France if she is to win the game, so why not do it before France becomes - potentially - invulnerable?
Others will go into the game with a set idea of how they are going to approach this game. This is more along the lines of: Right; I'm going to take these SCs and work with that power. This idea may be based on what has worked before, or on wanting to try something different (for whatever reason).
The good part (pro) to the Stone approach is that it means you're going into the game with a plan. You know what you want to achieve and that means your strategy is going to be all about achieving that/those goal/goals.
The bad part (con) is that it takes no notice of anything that happens in the game. A Stone approach is, in it's simplest form, inflexible in the extreme.
The Rubber approach is based on the idea that a player is going to wait and see what happens. It means going into the game with a completely open mind about what you're going to do and who you're going to do it with. If you like, it's a swinger's party opening strategy; as long as you come out with something, you're good.
The pro is that it means you're taking everything into account. Rather than targeting a power, you're going to act based on what you learn in the game: what you learn about your opponents, about their intentions, about who would make a good ally, etc. This is a sensible approach to take because you're not limiting your options.
The con is that you may actually encourage your neighbours to ally against you because you won't commit to allying with them, or because you seem to be too secretive to be an ally. It can seem that you don't know what you want, too, and therefore another con is that you may end up playing safe and predictably.
Some players go in with what I'm going to call the 'Plastic' approach to the game: they have an idea about what they're going to do but are also prepared to be flexible in how they achieve it. Plastic can, after all, be rigid or rubbery, dependent on how it's made.
In general, I usually prefer flexibility to rigidity. I think there's something stupid about going into a game with a preconceived idea about how powers should be played, or about what orders a power should be given. However, it is also stupid to go into a game with no idea about what you're going to do. Which brings us to the next section...
Have a plan
Which power you're playing, the geography of the board, the units you have - all play a part in how you should be looking to play the game. And these need to be combined with similar considerations about your opponents, as well as finding out who your opponents are and how they approach the game.
You and yours
I'm not going to be ridiculous here... oh, OK, I will - it's an example. Let's say you're Russia: you aren't going to try to nab Paris in 1901 because you simply can't get there. There are a high number of SCs(3) Russia can reach in 1901 but Paris isn't one of them.
But also you need to consider which SCs are likely given the moves other powers are likely to make. For instance, Russia can reach Norway in 1901, ordering A(Mos)-StP in S01, and then A(StP)-Nwy in F01(4). It's possible... but it's unlikely. This is because England is probably going for Norway in 1901: it's often considered a 'natural', an SC that is English in all but name. In fact, England can guarantee Norway becomes English if she chooses (I'm not going to go through the orders here because you're either experienced enough about Dip to know what those orders are or, if you're not, it is good to work it out for yourself; I'll go over this in an article on England's opening another time).
As Russia, then, you need to be aware of which SCs you want to be Russian at the end of 1901 and which you want to target. These may be Rumania and Sweden (often), Berlin, Vienna, Budapest or Ankara (occasionally).
You also need to be aware of the crisis points around your power. Taking Russia again, these may be Norway or the Barents Sea (if England attacks), Prussia or Silesia (if Germany attacks), Galicia (Austria), and Armenia or the Black Sea (Turkey). How are you going to secure these spaces, which are non-SCs?
Them and theirs
It also helps to have an understanding of the same thing relating to other powers and especially so about your neighbours.
The more you play the game, the more you'll see that some opening moves are more often played than others. This may be because they are generally better options for the powers or because they are just used a lot. For instance, England is more likely to use one of her northern opening options(5) than others because Norway, as I've said above, is a 'natural' SC for England to take and the only SC she can be sure of taking. For Russia, it's important to realise this because England opening with F(Edi)-NWG and F(Lon)-NTH(6) can be uncomfortable but should be expected. The more worrying order might be A(Lpl)-Edi rather than Lpl-Yor (although it probably shouldn't be(7)).
If you're Russia, arguably the only power that isn't a 'neighbour' is France. In his article, Dreier has a much narrower idea about neighbours than me, as can be seen when he's talking about Turkey making peace with her neighbours and attacking Italy. For me, Italy is a neighbour of Turkey; she may not be right next door but Italy has as much of an impact in what Turkey should be looking to do in the Early Game as Austria and Russia. For Russia, her immediate neighbours are Austria, Turkey and Germany but she is also neighbours with England (she can be bordering English territory in Fall 1901) and Italy (because Italy impacts on Austria and the Balkans, both Russian neighbouring zones).
Does Russia therefore need to understand what France is likely to do in 1901? Oh, yes. You see, the moves France makes may well be informative to Russia. Does she seem to be defending against, or even attacking, Italy, England or Germany? Is she playing it safe and heading for Iberia? Is she doing something that is going to make things easier for you, by distracting a neighbour... and, if so, is this something that gives Russia an advantage?
Them
What can you learn about the players?
To some extent, this depends on how you're playing the game. In the FTF formats (face-to-face) you know who is playing which power but you may not know much about the players themselves; usually there is an absence of data to look at. In the online format, you may know who is playing but you may not... or you may not know who is playing which power.
The online format, especially when played through a website(8), can be anonymous. It may be that you know who is playing in the game, but you may not know which power they control. You may not even know who you're playing against! This is less so in the PBEM or PBF formats(9), but there may not be much data to use in these.
However, it makes sense to use what you can find about your opponents. As I'm mainly concentrating on the online format, it's possible that you can find records of previous games your opponents have played, how they played each power, what type of player they are, etc. This is useful because there may be something that helps you approach playing against a player. For instance, is she likely to honour alliances, or break them? Is she opportunistic? Does she communicate a lot or a little? If she's under pressure, will she tough it out, capitulate or even surrender?
Knowing about your situation, being aware of other powers' situations and knowing the other players are all things that can help you to put some kind of plan together. But this is all about making predictions and you ideally want to have something more substantial to make help with your plans, which brings us to the final aspect of your opening strategy...
Communication
Diplomacy is often seen as being a military game and I can see why. It involves armies and fleets, and it's about invading countries and provinces. But this is too narrow an understanding. The game is about communicating with your opponents.
If there is one thing everyone should remember about Dip, it's that communication is the key to success. Well, OK, not so much in the Gunboat variant(10) but let's ignore that one. (There're a number of reasons I'm ignoring Gunboat but the most useful one is that I tend not to write about this variant and I'm talking about any variant of Dip that involves communication because those are the interesting ones .)
At the start of the game you should be communicating with every player in the game. I'm not talking about full-on negotiating but about simply talking to them. If this communication turns into a negotiation, or a strategy discussion, great, but that isn't what it's about.
Now, there are certainly priorities when it comes to this. Each player needs to prioritise communicating with her neighbouring powers. England, for example, would prioritise opening communications with France and Germany, and these discussions should be moving pretty quickly onto potential opening alliances and moves. She must also communicate a lot with Russia, simply because England's priority SC is, more often than not, Norway, and Russia is the only power that could prevent England gaining that SC. Italy is also a power England should be communicating with as much as possible. While Italy isn't going to impact on English targets early in the game she is potentially an ally against France, if not immediately.
What about Austria and Turkey? Why bother communicating with them? Because while you don't bother, others will do. If you're not establishing communications with them from the start, when you do actually need an alliance with these powers then you could well find that you're starting too late.
The point is that the foundations you put down in the early game are what you're going to be building on in the later stages. There's no short cut to this: it needs doing. You may not have very much to say, but you need to say something.
There is another aspect to this, however, and I've alluded to this above. This communication is about learning about your opponents. It's how you get a feel for what they're like and what they're going to be doing throughout the game. This is especially important if you don't know anything, or don't know much, about the players you're up against.
You may have entered the game with an idea about what you want to do early, which power you want to move against and which power(s) with which you want to ally. You need to find out if you're going to be able to do what you want.
I'm going to stick with the example of England, because I used her above and because she probably has the fewest options of any other power on the board. To do well she needs to attack France or Germany early on, or else she needs to build a Western Triple alliance with the two(11). Now, let's say she follows the guidance that many players put out there: attack France first. She's therefore going to need to ally with Germany and, potentially, Italy, and to get on friendly terms with Russia to allow her to focus across the Channel.
England communicates with everyone. She finds that Russia is OK with a fleet occupying Norway and agrees not to block this, as long as England doesn't send two fleets north. Great. Italy isn't very helpful because she has more interest in grabbing Tunis and is giving off some anti-Turkish vibes. Well, OK, if Germany will pressure France hard, then Italy isn't absolutely necessary at this point.
France is hopeful of an English alliance, which isn't a problem. It actually provides England with the chance to play along with her; they arrange for England to occupy the Channel as part of an allied attack on Belgium. England doesn't really intend to do this, because she wants to get Brest instead, and she believes she'll be able to achieve this and - more importantly - hold it.
England has dropped hints to Austria and Turkey, separately, that the other is cautiously interested in attacking Russia. She only needs one of them to apply pressure to distract Russia enough to ensure that she doesn't challenge England in the north. If nothing doesn't come from this, fine; England's happy with the agreement she has with Russia anyway.
Then there's Germany. Germany is quite an aggressive player and has a fixed idea that she wants to move against Russia and is pushing England to get her army into Norway. She actually hints that if England isn't going to do that, then she's not interested in working with England at all. She threatens England with a French alliance against her. And, on top of all this, Germany comes over as someone England is going to find it difficult to work with.
With all this information, what does England do? She has, perhaps, three choices:
- She can continue with her plans to attack France, make the most of what she can grab - Norway and, possibly, Brest - and hope that Italy or Germany will jump on board opportunistically.
- She can change her plans and work with what she has agreed with France. This would throw her into a war with Germany, maintain the agreement with Russia, and deal with the German ass.
- She can decide to work with Germany and break the agreement with Russia, and try to find a way to explain to France why she didn't follow through with her plans, hoping that Germany and France don't fall into an alliance against her.
What should she do? Well, yes, it matters of course but more importantly she has gathered information that will help her work out what to do. And it gives her something to work on in the future, if needed, to deal with Germany.
Notes
- Diplomacy games begin in 1901. There are two turns in a game year - Spring and Fall (or Autumn, if you prefer) - and there are two or three phases in each turn: a Negotiation/Movement/Orders phase, a Retreats phase if needed and, in a Fall turn, an Adjustments phase, which is also known as the Winter turn.
- A game is often described as having a number of stages. I tend to use three stages: the Early Game, the Mid-game and the End Game. No matter what you use to define these stages, 1901 is very definitely in the Early Game stage!
- SC = Supply Centre.
- Written orders are often abbreviated. S01 is the Spring 1901 turn, F01 is the Fall 1901 turn; A = Army, F = Fleet; abbreviations for various spaces on the board may vary but are usually the first three letters of the space name, except where multiple spaces feature the same letters. I use all upper case letters for sea spaces.
- England's opening moves are categorised principally by the orders issued to her fleets, then by what her army does. They are split into northern openings (with her fleets being ordered to the Norwegian and North Seas), southern openings (fleets to the North Sea and the English Channel), the Splits (fleets to the Norwegian Sea and the English Channel) and others.
- NWG = Norwegian Sea; NTH = North Sea. I will try to use these abbreviations consistently, but I sometimes use NWS for the former, and NTS for the latter.
- England has two usable northern openings: the army either moves to Edinburgh (Edi) or Yorkshire (Yor). The former is the Churchill Opening, the latter what I call the Tyne Opening (better known as the Yorkshire Opening). I compare these two openings in this post, and explain my names for English openings in this post.
- I usually categorise ways to play by differentiating between FTF play and Remote play (where the players aren't in the same room). The Online format involves playing on a dedicated website with automated adjudication.
- PBEM = Play-by-Email; PBF = Play-by=Forum. Both are Remote play variations.
- Gunboat Dip is a variant which does not allow any formal communications, being a pure strategy-only game.
- The Western Triple alliance is a 3-way alliance between England, France and Germany. Alliances are usually categorised as being 2-way alliances or 3-way alliances.