webdiplomacy.net

So I was just thinking about the Juggernaut and how infuriating it is to be Austria. Very frequently Italy and/or Germany fail to fight Turkey and Russia respectively until it's too late. I started thinking about previous games in which Juggernauts were effective and one thing comes to mind: a strong France.

Logically, this makes a lot of sense. France is a strong distractor to Italy; Fighting France may seem like a better idea than going after a strong Turkey. Similarly, France, England, and Germany quite frequently get into complex conflicts involving stabs. However, France and the Juggernaut Russia frequently have a common enemy of Germany, and this can convince Britain to tag along. Without either Germany or Italy fighting the Jug, AH can fall incredibly fast.

I think that France's high win rate and the Juggernaut's effectiveness are linked both ways: If a Jug stab occurs after Austria and Germany have been defeated, France is in a good position. Conversely, a strong France's tendency to distract Italy and Germany, the two countries immediately capable of fighting the Juggernaut, therefore helping the Juggernaut, comes from France's superior tactical position.

Thoughts? Comments?

I agree. If I’m France I usually want to downplay the strength of the Juggernaut and try and go for a 3 way draw when they reach the West.

I heard a really good argument from tat one diplomacy guy who has a website I think brotherboard? that Italy has the ability to send a unit out to basically go campaigning solo, as long as you get past year1 and year2 with austria you have become a very formidable person on the board
with that unit juggernaught can fail to form
IMO if juggernaught cant succeed early then it fails early

OP your observation is a good one. Data from the 2000s-era diplomacy-by-email "judge" games supports your hypothesis for France doing well when Turkey and/or Russia do well. This 2007 article collected and analyzed results from over 10,000 completed games. The analysis is focused on solo victories, but the Table 4 conclusions have to apply to some degree in a more general way.