@ orathaic: For Russia to bounce Norway in Fall 01 is a more risky move than for Germany to bounce Sweden in Fall 01, because in the case of Germany's move, it can be a surprise, whereas Russia has to signal his intentions by moving Mos-St.P in Spring 01.

(Obvious point is obvious, sorry, I know. My main point was that the two scenarios are not the same)

I avoid this in every scenario except when I'm not getting on with Russia at all.

Even when allied with England; I'd rather give him Belgium than bounce Sweden. Bouncing Sweden strengthen England whilst weakening myself; and means that should England turn on me, Russia is unlikely to come to my aid.

FWIW, top MA player's advice was to me consists of "never do this"

I can see it being tempting to non-Sea Lion / aggressive Germanys who see an easy build in W01 Build F BER/KIE; S02 BER/KIE-BAL, DEN s BER/KIE-BAL; A02 BAL-SWE, DEN s BAL-SWE, which should almost always work unless Russia is heavily North and/or you've pissed off England, and the latter unlikely if you've bounced Russia in Sweden and the former not the most common opening.

VI did this to me and was very mean about it =( What a terrible player...

Taking Bulgaria. Turkish players do this. Why?

@2WL I think its ratial!

*c

@NME - that wins a +1

If Russia and Turkey look to have allied (signpost of F(Ank)-Con) and the naughty Jugger is rolling OR if I feel I have a solid agreement with England (G to build only As, E to build only Fs) and together can exploit the the stand-off. Germany cannot afford a strong early-game Russia; that always ends in tears!

Maybe my approach should be more nuanced, but I do it if a lot of players ask me to. Like if Italy, France, England, Austria, and Turkey, all ask for me to keep russia out of Sweden, I probably will. In my last couple games as Germany, it's been pretty common for 3-4 players at least to request the move, and offer something in return.

This question came up before a while ago and the conversation led to a lot of people agreeing that it SHOULD be the default move of Germany. I try to approach it like that in my negotiations. There are very few times in the game where you just gift a centre without having a strong idea of what you're getting back in return. Why should 1901 be any different?

It's not Russia's to have. It's Germany's to give.

Counter-argument to "It's Germany's to give", it's also Germany's to just take in 1902. (Unless Russia is massively over invested in the North, in which case she'll be in big trouble in the south most likely.)

I think we're saying the same thing there. It's good to establish (if you're Germany) that it isn't Russian by rite. It's a generous move to let Russia take it and keep it.

Counter-counter-point: I think it's worth thinking about in every game. But *no* move should be a "default" thing to do. Even the "guaranteed" 1901 SCs for most countries have a variety of different ways to take them.

I will do the Sweden bounce if I think the Russian player is very likely to come West. As in, I think it's so likely that it's worth making pretty much certain that they will come west, if not immediately, then as soon as they think they're able to.

I'm not convinced that arguing with Russia about it in 1901 is a good idea always. If you want it, you can just take it in 1902 (most of the time). With an almost guaranteed two builds and sometimes a chance of three, arguing with Russia in 1901 over a single SC that they think they deserve is... Well, if you want to encourage them to think hard about coming west, I think it's a great plan.

Allowing Russia to have Swe uncontested is effectively anti-Austrian.

^ TL:DR; Why are you poking the bear for no actual gains (in 1901)?

Or anti-Turkish. Or anti-English. But *not* anti-German.

Hmm.. I try not to be too doctrinaire about it; you can get too hung up on tactics, received wisdom, odds and stats. There's something v similar between Dip and Poker - sure, all that odds, stats and theory stuff is important, but when it comes down to it, you play the player, not the country! In addition, you get too hooked on a particular move sequence, you will get some horrible surprises from time to time. In one recent game, as Germany, I was keener on getting rid of a certifiable England than holding Russia out of Sweden! And yes, once England's bits were back in the box, it took a hell of a lot of effort to keep playing off Russia and France against each other and from becoming the two halves of a very nasty Iron Maiden!

Don't you want Russia to fight someone else? (Usually. There are definitely games where you might not. I'm not gonna say never. This is Dip, there are exceptions to everything.)

Indeed. Russia usually has other priorities than war with Germany. A decent German diplomat should be able to get away with bouncing Russia out of Sweden; you could always blame Turkey, or England, or anybody else.

Allowing Russia to have Sweden by deault might explain why Russia's significantly more solo-victories here on webdiplomacy.net than any other great power. I think it could be statistically proven a first year bounce in Sweden improves Germany's chances in the long run.

It's always dependent, for me, on how other players open up.

If Turkey goes anti-Russia, I'm much more inclined to let Russia take Sweden.

But then again, how England and France must also be taken into account.

If France goes full attack on England, you don't want Russia piling in too because you'll just be caught between a France-Russia alliance and that's never good for Germany. Then again, if England goes directly for Russia and France looks elsewhere, bouncing Russia could see bezerker Russian armies come in to Silesia and/or Prussia but not bouncing Russia in Sweden could just as easily turn England against you for the rest of the game.

@A_TIN_CAN

You're actually a really strong player, so you should be able to puzzle this one out on your own.

As a German you never really *want* to bounce Russia in Sweden, however in some cases it suits your business purposes. More typically it's the threat of bouncing Sweden that you're pushing for mileage.. Probably the most common reason why you'd need to do it, would be if Russia refused to open how you told to open. Germany should, for the most part, dictate Russia's opening. There isn't much the Russian can do about this, other than insist that the German be reasonable.

The other two cases that could interest you in bouncing Russia, stem from the possibility of (either of) England, Turkey or Austria sending you some kind of signal that they're incompetent. Remember, that in Diplomacy you're never really wanting any of your neighbors to do that poorly. You want them to do well, but not too well.

The last case is where Russia tries to deny that you can bounce him, deny that you should bounce him or otherwise gets too mouthy with you at the start. It's important for any opponent in a social-strategic contest to understand that you have a reasonable ability to back up threats and enforce policies. This last one is perhaps the most unfortunate motive for something like this, but when you need to do this, it becomes the most useful of any motive.

Hope this helps! Thanks for asking!

Don't forget the Jutland Gambit.

(for those unaware of the Jutland Gambit and are too lazy to Google it - the usual Danish opening in S01, followed by KIE - DEN, DEN - SKA)

People discussing diplomacy strategy in the forums? Well I never!

The Jutland is good because you can get through the first year and builds without giving away what you plan to do in year 2. From there, it's just as easy to take Sweden if you want, or you can make a play for NTS if you decide to move against England.