Good observation and summary.

I feel a lot evolves around Rumania and Scandinavia too though.

Diplomacy is more of a strategic game than a tactical one, with the level of interaction on theatres rather than fronts.

There are four theatres, the Northern, Western, Southern, and Eastern - and they are overlapping.

The Western theatre involves France-Germany-England, it includes MAO-EC-Bel-Hol-Ruhr, and all the territories connected to those.

The Northern theatre involves England-Germany-Russia, it includes Nwg Sea-Norway-Sweden-Baltic sea-Prussia, and all the territories connected to those.

The Southern theatre involves Italy-Austrai-Turkey, it includes Eas-Ion-Adr, and all territories connected, aswell as the ven-tri border and Tyrolia.

The Eastern theatre involves Austria-Turkey-Russia, and includes Arm-Bla-Rum-Gal, and all territories connected to them.

There South east 'african front' is of no interest because France automatically takes Spain/Portugal while Tunis is taken by Italy (while being part a vital part of the Southern Theatre).

Once the first one or two players have been eliminated the game moves past this phase and which theatres are most important to consider depend on who has been eliminated and how big the player who has takenn their territory is. (Doesn't matter if italy was eliminated first if austria occupies all of the italian penninsula but nothing else... That effectively means austria was eliminated and itsly lost the ability to build in their home SC)

@Claesar
Thank you for the feedback. I plan on writing more threads regarding similar topics soon.

@orathaic
I agree with your analysis regarding the compass directions and groupings of the board, but I think the Southern Theatre should also include France, since he is able to quickly build fleets in the Mediterranean.

The theatres of war I mentioned are based on the actual theatres of war during the Great War. Some of them are a bit unusual because they are not fully encompassed by the game itself. For example, the Middle Eastern Front involved England, Turkey, Italy, and France. But in the game, the naval power of England does not extend that far.

Yep, the board is an abstraction.

@orathaic
That's one way to put it.

I see the game dictated by balance between individual GPs.

E v T
F v R
G v A v I

Alliances also create balance or imbalance:

EF v GR
RT v AI

etc.

@eturnage
You're comment about balance brings up a very interesting point: How should alliances form?

According to Machiavelli, alliances should always form in such a way so as to preserve balance at all times. For example, if Russia and Turkey ally, then Austria-Hungary and Italy should ally. Since every Great Power will form alliances in such a manner, how do alliances form at all? That is to say, no alliances can be formed until the need to form them arises.

I will see if I can craft another thread, which will answer this question and others like it--a more philosophical piece.

Machiavelli was a crank.

@SuperMario,

I disagree a bit about France being a part of the Southern Theatre in the beginning. Even though it is close to Italy, and Italy can feasibly launch an early attack on Marseilles + Iberia, one seldom sees France getting deeply involved in the Mediterranean until the Western triangle is somehow solved. If it does move there too early, catastrophe awaits. Been there, done that and suffered that.

As for alliances, I'm under the impression there are impossible alliances. For instance, Germany and Russia might cooperate for some time. But whatever represents their success in this endeavour will actually be harmful to one of the parts in the long run. Personally, I think this article from Stephen Agar is a very rational perspective on relations between Russia and Germany: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/silesia.htm, and only in exceptional circumstances cooperation between both can actually be profitable in the long run.

While the board is, as orathaic says, an abstraction, several pragmatical choices historically taken by Great Powers make sense. Cooperation between France and Russia, for instance, which happened in spite of great differences between both peoples and governments, also benefits both in Diplomacy. While it isn't, from the beginning, an alliance in the strict sense of it, alliances will initially form based on each power's understanding of their goals and with whom they might share common goals.

Though that can naturally trigger opposing alliances to even things out, these are born out of need. Balance, however a valid concern, comes second.

@stefanodangello
If we are to ignore all political, historical, and economic reasons that led to the various alliances of the Great War, then there are no inherent alliances on the game-board.

Even the proximaties and positions of each Great Power are not enough to trigger any particular alliances. Assuming each player is cooperative, then there is no reason to disbelieve in even the strangest alliances.

However, if we consider all political and historical factors that fuelled certain alliances, then there are inherent alliances on the game-board. For example, France's fear of Germany led to the formation of the Triple Entente, which was created to overwhelm Germany's borders. And the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary was formed to keep Germany from being isolated and without an ally.

One question supermario. Under the ME front you suggest that this partly involves England. Why? Is this because of Russia having a more southerly focus if they get involved in that theatre?

@Deeply_Dippy
You are absolutely correct. I included England in the Middle Eastern Front for two reasons: 1) England was historically part of that front, having battled the Ottoman Empire in Gallipoli (the province of Constantinople on the game-board); and 2) England and Russia are neighbours, so whatever happens to one indirectly affects the other. If Russia is bogged down in the Middle Eastern Front along Armenia, that affects England positively.

Well, not exactly. There are certain alliances that make logical sense, in the map as we have it, and could not have been conceived if history is considered. Russia and Turkey, for example. They fought each other for centuries and never joined forces, and yet the Russo-Turkish alliance is rightly feared.

Also, it must be considered that the game is an abstraction. While one Turkish army is equal in strength to one German army, we know very well two Russian armies were easily beaten by a single German army in 1914. The board is not designed to reflect that, thus allowing for a balanced game, or else Turkey, Italy or Austria would never, ever have a chance of achieving anything here.

If I may, I advise anyone to look at the board objectively. History might teach useful things, but one loses a lot if history is allowed to dictate courses of action based on what was done. The things we often reproduce (Anschluss, for instance, or Germany hardly ever moving East first) are often reproduced because they make logical sense, just as they made logical sense to the ones who actually made those calls (though they were also fuelled by other reasons.)

You're right, though, in pointing that England has interests in what happens with Turkey. But so does France. Good players should always mind whatever is happening in each and every corner of the board, as it will affect them sooner or later, if not at that very moment. Yet, it might be misleading to those unfamiliar with the game to, say, list England as a part of the Eastern Theatre, as this is unrepresented in the game.

@stefanodangello
I could not have summarized it better myself. I agree with you spot on.

There definitely certain alliances that make more sense than others, but I would argue that these alliances only make sense because of certain contexts and understandings. If every player is optimistic, open-minded, and opportunistic, then any alliance is possible. An alliance depends more upon those forming it, rather than the situation at hand.

The game is certainly an abstraction. (I will not argue otherwise.) And you are right about the strength of individual armies from various Great Powers. The Germans definitely had the best army, which is not represented in the game. The balance of the game arises from various positional advantages. For example, England has a strong corner position, but few armies; while Russia has a large force, but many fronts to worry about.

The board should only be analyzed objectively when considering tactics. I do think that certain Great Powers have more advantages than others. For example, Germany might be a central power, but it has quick access to three supply centres, and expansion is very fast. On the other hand, Italy has fewer threats, but also has fewer opportunities at the start. And since alliances can only be inferred from historical, strategic, and personal contexts, I do think that history can be a good context with which to analyze various possibilities and openings. (There are no objective openings, unless a particular goal or interest is at hand.)

And you were right to point out that everyone should have interests in everyone else's affairs. A good player will analyze everyone's situation before making any decisions. The problem is, no decisions can be made until an issue has occurred. And issues only occur when interests conflict. (So, unless each Great Power has an objective interest besides winning, it will be difficult to generally place interests for each.) This is mainly why I analyzed the historical interests of each Great Power, to have a context with which to plot various ideas for each Great Power.

I love the feedback, though. Feel free to post more comments and responses. I make threads like these to engage in such discussions.