Should you ever *not* take Galicia in 1901S?

[Restitution]

As both Austria and Russia, I always attempt to convince the other guy to not go to Galicia using any means possible, and I always, always take it. The way I see it, there are two options for either of them:

Bounce, in which case you've saved yourself from devastation (especially if you are Austria)

Take it, in which case you've effectively destroyed a natural enemy in the first turn.

Is my analysis wrong here?

[Claesar]

As both Austria and Russia, I always attempt to convince the other guy to not go to Galicia using any means possible, and I always, always take it. The way I see it, there are two options for either of them:

Bounce, in which case you've saved yourself from devastation (especially if you are Austria)

Take it, in which case you've effectively destroyed a natural enemy in the first turn.

Is my analysis wrong here?

I would (almost) never break a DMZ in 1901. That shows everyone you're unreliable, without having had the chance to find an ally.

Imagine you break the DMZ as Russia but Turkey opens to Armenia. You haven't destroyed a natural enemy, you've destroyed yourself.
Same story as Austria but Italy opens to Trieste. Or even Tyrolia.

If you want to bounce, just agree to do so. If you want a DMZ, convince the other not to open there. I don't think I've ever been DMZ stabbed.

[Restitution]

I would (almost) never break a DMZ in 1901. That shows everyone you're unreliable, without having had the chance to find an ally.

Imagine you break the DMZ as Russia but Turkey opens to Armenia. You haven't destroyed a natural enemy, you've destroyed yourself.
Same story as Austria but Italy opens to Trieste. Or even Tyrolia.

If you want to bounce, just agree to do so. If you want a DMZ, convince the other not to open there. I don't think I've ever been DMZ stabbed.

Does Turkey or Italy ever actually *do* this in higher-level games?

[Carl Tuckerson]

for gunboat: probably not. Call me unimaginative (you wouldn't be wrong), but all the ways that things can go wrong for Russia due to Austria, or for Austria due to Russia, start with a capture of Galicia.

for press: anything is possible

[Puscherbilbo]

If Italy opens to Tyr and especially more often to Triest a Russian initiative could be viable in GB. Seems like a fairly reasonable spot where trust can be rewarding. At least some variation might serve both players to be less predictable. Generally speaking for A and R that spot seems like a zero sum game. but since it binds 2 units every other player profits just because units are tied down. So anything else should have a higher upside for both players.

[Restitution]

If Italy opens to Tyr and especially more often to Triest a Russian initiative could be viable in GB. Seems like a fairly reasonable spot where trust can be rewarding. At least some variation might serve both players to be less predictable. Generally speaking for A and R that spot seems like a zero sum game. but since it binds 2 units every other player profits just because units are tied down. So anything else should have a higher upside for both players.

Sure, but it's kind of a prisoner's dilemma kinda thing, right? It seems to me that you are logically forced to defect. At least in GB.

[Puscherbilbo]

Since there are other players involved that is not true.

There are 34 centers. If we assign each center a pointvalue (1 for simplicity sake) then your current position equals a certain %% between 1 and 17. Imagine further that the numberamount of your centers does not necessarily equal your true share.
E.g.: Some Russian or Turkish center loose in value if the other power has a Fleet in Bla. So while Russia owns Sevas currently the superior unitplacement gives Turkey a %% of that center. maybe 25%.

You could also use a different evaluatingsystem by considering the combined buyin as the total value of a pot and your current position equates to your likelyhood to reach parts or all of the pot.

In any case i would argue that bouncing in Gal devalues both of Austrias and Russias position (slightly). Since this value cannot disappear it gets distributed among the remaining players.
Italy profits due to a potential free stab on Triest.
Turkey profits from either better grip on Greece or entering BLA.
England/Germany profit in Scandinavia. (no/fewer northern openings).

The communal loss of value has to be weighed against the valueloss from occasionally letting the other into Gal.

Also it has to be considered how useful the alternatives truly are. Personally i would argue that Russia has a few more useful ideas than Austria does. But surely moving to Triest at least occasionally should keep italy a bit more honest.

A secondary point i would like to add is that a prisoners dilemma only knows 1 round. In this nice game however there is room for retaliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

confer section about endless and multiple iterations.

[Restitution]

The amount of retaliation that Austria can do to you after you've gotten into Galicia in 1901S is pretty small.

[Puscherbilbo]

you get a 50% shot at a center. which is tough to defend w/o I or T. Turkey gets into Bla or you dont get Rum. You are certainly not dead.
Although i suspect russia to have a little more incentive to leave Gal open.

But my more general point stands. An attack on Austria or vice versa only is useful if you have a high probability that you are the prime beneficiary.
And the multiplayer aspect and the continuation of the game just make the analogy to a prisoners dilemma inapt.

[Restitution]

The multiplayer aspect is precisely what makes it non-zero-sum, and therefore a prisoner's dilemma.

[Puscherbilbo]

I believe that sentence to be utterly nonsensical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

The limited amount of centers make it a zero-sum-game. There is no way to increase the amount of centers available to all players.
If you loose valueshare it gets distributed amongst remaining players.

Prisoner dilemma is to my knowledge 1v1 explicitly.

[Restitution]

The fact that the game is multiplayer makes the interaction between Russia and Austria non-zero-sum between the two of them.

Zero-sum games with multiple players have non-zero-sum interactions between those players.

[Matticus13]

A/R can be an extremely effective alliance for both Austria and Russia. Why would you *always* want to throw that away?

[Restitution]

A/R can be an extremely effective alliance for both Austria and Russia. Why would you *always* want to throw that away?

Under what conditions would I in 1901S, value an alliance with Austria over one with Turkey?

[Puscherbilbo]

I am not sure you can isolate a singular interaction here in the way you are trying to.

Basically my point is that bouncing costs both parties a little. while trusting each other should benefit both.

There will be an equlibrium entailing bounces. maybe even as highfreq strat.
But there also will be other strategies. But since there is no system to evaluate and the equilibrium is unknown i can only say that not bouncing is a non-zero strategy.

That being said GB and Press have probably the same Equilibrium. But since nobody knows it the gametypes differ. If we assume an equilibrium and common kowledge no press should be able to influence it. But that is another topic...

[Matticus13]

A/R can be an extremely effective alliance for both Austria and Russia. Why would you *always* want to throw that away?

Under what conditions would I in 1901S, value an alliance with Austria over one with Turkey?

What makes you think arranging a DMZ in Galicia is committing to an alliance with Austria? There are many reasons.

What if you, as Russia, are concerned Turkey moves to Armenia? What if keeping the DMZ gets you Sweden in A01 (a somewhat common agreement with Germany)? What if you wish to open north with Moscow? What if you want to violate a DMZ in BLA and crush Turkey? To convince Austria to open towards Italy? The list goes on...

[A_Tin_Can]

There’s a cost associated with a DMZ, too. Let’s say for some reason that you 100% trusted each other.

There’s a case to be made for moves like Vie-Tyl and War-Gal, as a less alarming version of an opening like Vie-Tyl and War-Sil (which should ally the board against A/R).

Similarly, War-Ukr and Vie-Gal could be a strong opening for an A/R.

“But why would you do something so crazy? They’re clearly going to take advantage of you once you’ve let them in”.

Diplomacy is about trust construction, not hoodwinking your opponent. Betraying an ally with a good long term plan in 1901 is not going to get you a good long term result, nor is it going to get either of you over the stalemate line.

[mhsmith0]

A/R can be an extremely effective alliance for both Austria and Russia. Why would you *always* want to throw that away?

Under what conditions would I in 1901S, value an alliance with Austria over one with Turkey?

As Russia? Probably a few things could be relevant off the cuff...

1) You pick up that E/F are allies; Turkey is the biggest natural beneficiary, and you want to organize an AIR assault on him before the E/F grows strong enough to really gain momentum (Austria *CAN* be a natural beneficiary as well, but a solid I/R alliance can put Austria to bed after Turkey dies a lot of the time if it's needed)

2) You'd rather work with Austria than Turkey due to personalities / communications. Russia can productively ally with essentially anyone, so there's plenty of room to tweak things there even if Turkey might be slightly more natural than Austria

3) Germany is very pro-Austria and is promising Sweden in exchange for you siding with Austria (this may or may not relate to point #1)

etc

[pyxxy]

for gunboat: probably not. Call me unimaginative (you wouldn't be wrong), but all the ways that things can go wrong for Russia due to Austria, or for Austria due to Russia, start with a capture of Galicia.

As a newer gunboat player I've definitely suffered from not taking GAL a few times. But I think taking GAL in S01 can lead to an over-investment in attacking whomever left it open, especially Russia who can then get run over from the north.

Example (not high level GB): https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=245814

I think it's what Puscherbilbo talked about...

But my more general point stands. An attack on Austria or vice versa only is useful if you have a high probability that you are the prime beneficiary.

...that taking GAL doesn't mean that you'll be the prime beneficiary of continuing an attack against whomever left it open. So someone could start justifying not opening to GAL if they believe that the other player with either leave it open or, having taken it, will not view themselves as likely to gain enough from continuing an attack.

So I feel like the followup question is, if someone leaves GAL open and you take it, what should you do? I'm inclined to say...go kill Turkey together.

This of course ignores Italy's and Turkey's openings. If you're Russia and after S01 you're in GAL and Italy's in TRI...jump on the pile.

Also I may be biased to try non-optimal things after reading that "Russia's Gunboat Woes" thread from a while back...https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3 ... lit=russia

[VillageIdiot]

I've not bounced Gal a few times playing as Russia if I have good relationships with both Italy and Turkey.

By agreeing to a Gal bounce you can be relatively confident in Austria's moves being to Gal, Serbia, and Albania which when tipped off to Italy allows him to walk right into Trieste with Rome to Venice. Since Vienna is now in Gal it's impossible for him to push Italy out of Trieste. You'll need a good alibi as to why you "missed" the bounce so he doesn't hold you accountable for his misfortune and suicide himself into you, but if you can deflect well enough then likely Gal and Serbia will be focussed on covering his exposed Vienna and Budapest so you should be ok and Austria is on his way to an expedited elimination. Turkey will almost certainly try for Greece instead of Rum since Austria has a good chance to ignore it and since Austria no longer looks appealing for an alliance increasing your value considerably which means you likely will get that build.

You gamble strong early Turkey and Italy, which could potentially be used against you, but that's such an awkward alliance that odds are you'll have your choice of which one of them you prefer to work with while the odd person out doesn't really have many options for friends in light of Austria's early elimination.

This play does have some risk to it but if you feel good about your diplomatic relationships with those all around it's worth the consideration.