Isn't that's why the game is called diplomacy?

Why would you want a neutral opening?

"Why would you want a neutral opening?"

To see who walks their pre-game talk. At least, that is how I think.

NWG, NTH, Yor is pretty neutral for England.

"Why would you want a neutral opening?"

diplomat61 has it right. A neutral opening allows you to evaluate the things said to you by the various powers, in light of how their actual opening moves compared to their initial press.

NWG, NTH, Wal is neutral. Sure, two northern fleets are a bit anti-Russian, but the army in Wales assures Russia you are not planning to convoy. You still cover your ass if France stabs by moving in ENG - You can always bounce NTH and Wales in London.

The most neutral move I can think of, which I have never seen used is Edi- Nwg (or Nth), London hold, Lvp to Yor. Not the smartest move mind you, but it gives you flexibility, especially with a Edi-Nth move.

Or you could just order all of your units to Yorkshire- that shouldn't rile anyone.

+1 ssorenn.

I mean, there are countries with marginally more "neutral" openings than others, but even in those cases, you're mostly going to have to make some sort of clear decision with your 1901 builds.

And a neutral opening isn't necessarily better long term, either. I play a lot of gunboat - and even there whilst you *can* open neutrally with a lot of countries, England included, really (Sherincall's in particular is quite neutral), but it isn't necessarily better in the long run to do so.

In any case, England's strength isn't neutrality, England's strength is that it's rather difficult to take SCs off England for quite a few years usually (which is why the Sea Lion is popular if people really want to kill England, it's about the fastest England kill, and even then it's not that fast). England has safety time at the start that other countries don't. Do something with it, before you don't have time.

(Other countries with the notable exception of Turkey, of course.)

@MarquisMark Army York, Fleet North Sea, Fleet Norwegian Sea. What's Army York going to do? Convoy to Norway, no? Belgium seems unlikely, unless you've been doing some heavy diploming and either Germany or France have agreed to let you in. Defend London? Not necessary unless France is in the Channel, which is not that likely. That's not a neutral opening, as far as Russia is concerned.

@Espi Yeah, that seems like a great way to end up with zero builds, if Russia opens northerly. It's also *not* pressuring Russia in any way, which is hardly "neutral" diplomatically. A strong Russia isn't good for Germany, nor is it good for Turkey and Austria.

I'm with Bas here - I think England (and Italy) both benefit from *not* keeping your options open, and from committing hard somewhere with a solid ally.

In either country, you're only really ensured one neutral, so you're going to have to take your 5th centre from someone else. It doesn't even have to be hostile - it can be a gift from another player as part of an alliance.

Incidentally, I think this is why we see a lot of poor italian play - because your 5th centre typically comes from another player, I firmly disagree with the "wait and see" meta. I think that's a good way to stay on four centres until someone attacks you in 03/04. For some reason, this isn't as much of a problem for England.

Secondly, I think that a lot of players tell everyone "hey, I'm your ally, let's work together against <neighbour>", and then pick who they actually want to work with in 1902. I personally think that's a horrible way to play England or Italy (and probably the rest of the countries too, although I don't think you'd get punished for it as much).

I think the noncommittal style of press throws away any advantage that England has in 01, for no real benefit. You get immediate control of the North Sea - a super important space for the north. You don't want Germany/Russia/France to be guessing about what you're planning with the North Sea. You want them to KNOW.

I think being noncommittal will only breed distrust with your neighbours - and if there's one thing that your neighbours can agree on, it's that their game would be easier without having to watch their back for an untrustworthy England.

It's often said that England and Italy are about patience - I agree with that, but I think it's more "don't rush in blindly" than it is "wait and see what happens".

---
As Russia, I'm only upset by a northern opening if it's the army that ends up in Norway. And, I'm not even convinced that I *want* two 1901 builds as England.

@thorfi: Yor/Nwg/Nth is the only English opening that 100% ensures a build (although it's still an unpleasant position if everyone has opened against you).

"Why would you want a neutral opening?"
"To see who walks their pre-game talk."

Sure, but there's no reason you can't have a committal opening AND still see who walks their pre-game talk.

Remember: if you wait until 1902 to find an ally, you are already a year behind.

+1 "Sure, but there's no reason you can't have a committal opening AND still see who walks their pre-game talk."

If they don't follow through, you are the one with the diplomatic high ground with the player you two were supposedly attacking. You were the one that was a good ally, and it's the person who was your supposed ally who is the liar and the poor ally.

@ATC Edi/Nwg/Nth does the same, no? Or indeed, any opening with F Nwg and F Nth (although if you don't have an army to convoy via North Sea to Norway, then you may have to send F Nth to Norway to actually *guarantee* the build, which is seriously sub-par for obvious reasons).

No. You can lose London if you're ensuring Norway and the army is in Edi.

@ATC Also, the reason you see more non-commital Italians than English is that Italy is set up with a more difficult choice. French SCs are a whole year and a half away. So are Turkish. Balkans not so much. Austria obviously in reach immediately, but people who are looking to be non-committal don't like jumping to the attack in 1901...

England, on the other hand, can theoretically be in position to attack at least one of every neighbouring power's *home SCs* by Spring 1902, if they really go for it. (Fleet Heligoland?!) There are more immediate and ready options to hand. They're not all *good* options, but they're right there within one year's tempo.

@ATC Ah yes, you're right. Guarantee of Norway *without* the possibility of losing London, even if Russia opens Mos-StP and France opens Bre-EngC, you do need Army York instead of Army Edi. And then you'd have to order F Nth-Nwy supported by F Nwg, leaving you with A Yor (or A Lon), F Nwy, F Nwg, a build, and probably a french army in Wales, and Russian Sweden and StP. And that's if Germany isn't in on the pile on. Oh dear.

^ ( I should say "effectively attack", A Pie isn't an effective attack, it's a potentially useful annoyance, until Italy can get fleets into GoL and/or WMed. )

^ I should also say, just because Italy's committal choices are more distant, doesn't mean they *should* just vacillate and sit on their units. I thoroughly agree - *do something* with your units, or someone will just come along and take them off you, eventually.

Greece (for an attack on Turkey) is within reach of Naples in 01.

Marseilles (for an attack on France) is within reach of Venice in 01.

Yeah. :-) Italy *can* attack. I'm not saying they can't (and definitely not saying they shouldn't). But England has a *lot* more options in immediate reach. Which to me is the likely explanation as to why fewer Englands get stuck in indecision than Italys.

On a side note: you can often predict what each country is moving with about 90% accuracy just based on spring 1901 press. It's pretty extraordinary how much people are willing to reveal about their plans. So if you know Italy will go West, you open to the channel. If you know Russia goes North, you open to Nwg and Nth. If you know that everybody will open neutral, you go to the channel. If you know France will open to the channel, you go to the channel. I'm spotting a trend here....

If you know England is bas, he's going to the channel :)

I have never opened to Nwg in a full press WTA, so yeah. Expect me in the channel. Or bounce me.

Whoah whoah there everyone, why are you all against committed openings? I almost never choose an ally until 1902, and it usually works out fine for me. The trick is getting everyone to ask you to do the same moves, and that can usually be done on a pretty regular basis. I will *never* make an alliance committing move before my partner does.

For example, if Germany is asking me, as England, to open to the channel - I will not do it unless he promises to open to Burgundy as well. If he's going to ask me to commit in the spring, I'm going to demand the same of him. And for safety's measure, I'm going to arrange with France a bounce in the channel. France may be mad, but has advance notice. France see's me move as promised, but see's an unexpected move to Burgundy by Germany. He is more mad at Germany than me, and I have my pick of the two as allies.

So I suppose my "neutral" opening isn't necessarily based upon territories, but on other player's perceptions of my moves. I always strive for a neutral 1901.

Oh, and back to Yor/Nth/Nwy, if Germany *is* in on the pile on, which they are if you're talking needing to assume F Nth is going to get cut by F Den, then we're talking 1901 builds with English: A Yor/Lon, F Nwy, F Nwg, 1 build; Germany: F Nth, and at least one or two builds; France: F EngC, maybe army Wales, and a build or two, almost certainly an F Bre; Russia: A StP (or maybe even A Fin), F Swe, and at least 1 build.

Yeah. That opening perfectly defends against an "all three neighbours attack" situation in which England is going to be utterly toast regardless of what they build or do next.

@goldfinger I think that's the TL;DR: version of @ssorenn's comment. :-) It's called Diplomacy for a reason. Neutrality isn't just to do with what your orders are. It's to do with how those orders are perceived.

"If they don't follow through, you are the one with the diplomatic high ground with the player you two were supposedly attacking. You were the one that was a good ally, and it's the person who was your supposed ally who is the liar and the poor ally."

I don't think that's right at all, uclabb. There's no high ground to speak of in a good game. Let's go with my E/G attack on France again. Germany says he'll move to Burgundy, I say I'll move to Channel (and don't tell France). I move to channel and Germany doesn't follow through and A Par moves successfully to wherever it was going.

After those moves, France doesn't care that Germany is a liar and a cheat or whatever. At the end of the day, you're in the channel threatening his centers, and Germany has kept his word with France as an ally. There is going to be a Sealion against you now, and there's not much to do about it.

I agree with Goldie - it's more about what happens than what people say. Of course France doesn't give a damn about what England says about Germany's intentions; a) where are all the units; b) why should France believe anything England says with an English fleet chugging up and down the Channel?!

At the start of a game I am sceptical about what any player says about his own intentions, let alone hearsay about a third party.

@Goldie/Chumbles: there are some moves that are less forgivable than others, Lon to EC is one. What if England had said I will move A Lpl to Yor but sent it to Clyde instead? Neither is particularly threatening however a rational France should be less happy than if the army had gone to York as stated.

@ goldfinger: "There is going to be a Sealion against you now, and there's not much to do about it."

How could you (as England) have prevented this?

@diplomat61 The problem for France is that moving the F to ENC forces France to cover or take a big risk by not doing so. Say France has at end S'01 F MAO, A Gas, A Mar. Ostensibly France gets both Por, Spa with MAO/Mar and covers Bre with Gas. England doesn't move to Brest and so France cannot build a second fleet in Brest. In a lot of cases this is the real point of England's ENC move. This creates resentment at the least. I detest being played like that!

@Chumbles: I agree that having an English in La Manche is awful, just had someone do it to me. What I was trying to say is that even if the move is even less threatening than what he said (say Lpl-Cly rather than Lpl-Yor) the mere fact that England did not do what he said he would is a mark against him.

In other words, what the player says and does both matter.

- passive words & moves match = good
- passive words & different but still passive moves = cause for concern
- passive words & aggressive moves = problem
- aggressive words & moves match = at least you know where you stand

"At the start of a game I am sceptical about what any player says about his own intentions, let alone hearsay about a third party."

I rely extensively on hearsay. That's why I only do well in talkative games. If I'm hearing the same thing about someone from five other players, that's a good sign. If I hear something different, I have a reason to be suspicious about either the player in question, or the third party. Repeat enough times, and you get a *very* good picture of who is reliable and who is not in 1901. To answer your question though, diplomat, it is cause for concern if there is *any* deviation from what I am told, no matter how minor. If you're upfront that you are unsure whether you'll move to A or B, that's fine. But if you say you're moving to A and then move to B, there's a problem.

@Jamiet - don't move to channel. Don't promise you'll move to channel. Just don't do it. I'm the anti-bas. I think I've only ever opened to channel once? Maybe twice? To me, its as silly as Germany opening Ber-Pru, Mun-Sil

The biggest reason for taking an early initiative is diplomatic. Say England opens to the channel in 1901. Let's say Germany knows about it, and Germany knows that France isn't going to the channel. What does Germany do? He could side with France, and tell France to go to the channel, and they might bounce, which is awesome. But Germany doesn't gain much from this. It's not like he's getting into the North Sea anytime soon.

On the other hand, given that England's move to the channel will succeed, he could decided to open to Burgundy, and he could decided to convince Italy to come along for the ride, and suddenly France is in big trouble, and Germany can start negotiating about which of France's home centers he'll get.

"At the start of a game I am sceptical about what any player says about his own intentions, let alone hearsay about a third party."

"I rely extensively on hearsay."

We are in violent agreement. Being sceptical is not disbelieving or ignoring what they say.

"He could side with France, and tell France to go to the channel, and they might bounce, which is awesome."

Why would Germany tell France? My play would be to allow England into the channel, weaken my ally and play dumb.

Right, so if you play Germany and me England, I'll open to the channel. You can then choose to ally with me or France.

I just demonstrated trust by sharing sensitive information and following through on my promise. I also have a bargaining position: I can offer you Belgium and in the long term, Paris. France just demonstrated a lack of confidence by opening cautiously, maybe demanding a bounce in Bur, and he has nothing to offer except vague promises of support once he gets into the channel. Who would you choose?

Of course, if you're a good player, you'd leak to Russia, and that might be bad for me. So I will only open to the channel if I'm confident Russia is on my side.