Got a note from a friend of mine tonight. The last time I'd played him at Diplomacy, I'd made a bluff promising a link to an article I'd written about German opening strategies. I tend to do this a lot at work. Technically, I am published in my field, so when I'm trying to convince people that I know more than I actually do, I'll usually reference an article I've written for some trade journal or other.
Nobody actually reads my articles, so people are usually fooled by this. After all, if someone has written an article on something they *must* know what they're talking about, right?
Nonetheless, the lie was not so much a lie as a half-truth. I had, after all intended to write an article about German opening strategy. The reason for this is that I've long wanted to challenge the assumption that if Germany gets three new build by the end of 1901, that they're rapidly going to balloon out of everyone ele's control. I've seen Turkey accomplish the same thing (a far greater threat) and no one worries. Why then all of the panic when Germany moves in position (in Spring 1901) to capture three neutral centers?
My problem comes when I'm trying to negotiate with my neighbors. I'm trying to convince Germany's neighbors to do something in our mutual interest, and in the mean time they don't want to cooperate because they're freaking out over the whole Germany thing.
If I could do something to circulate the idea that it's not really such a big deal for Germany to get three builds in 1901, then people will be easier to deal with. I think that the Germanophobia stems from several factors. One is certainly negative past experience. Everyone who has played more than a dozen games will certainly be able to recall a time when Germany grew like a cancer, sweeping through the center of the board to gobble eighteen centers in a rampage that could not be stopped, even by a five nation coalition. Statisticians will point out a correlation between Germany getting three builds in 1901 and an early German victory. But isn't this irrational? While Germany may grow more quickly than some countries (like Italy) at the beginning, they are the more easily contained than other countries. With so many neighbors, practically anyone in the game (save Turkey) can move to contain Germany if he begins to get out of line. England will be in a good organic position to strike in the North Sea, and Russia will enjoy a similar benefit of it's position in Sweden.
The next point that surprises me, is that so many of the established masters of the game fear to get three builds in 1901. They feel that if they gain three centers, this will stir up jealousy amongst the other players (see above) and practically invite a multi-party attack. To this, I counter that you are better off with this happening, if it is going to happen. You find out who your friends are. Your friends will be glad that you are strong enough to help them, and I believe (but can't prove) that anyone who attacks you for gaining three centers, would probably have attacked you soon anyway. What better way to answer them than with a six-unit defensive force in 1902? And this needn't cause conflict. Germany can well capture three centers that the remaining powers don't necessarily want anyways.
Really, I could go further. I would say not only is a six-unit Germany not a serious threat to it's neighbors (except Russia), but that Germany's natural rate of expansion is to get three builds at the end of 1901. Germany has a problem at the end of 1901 bigger than any other country, except perhaps for Italy. After the Lowlands have been divied up, Germany has no easy route for expansion. The most ideal target will be to capture Sweden and then make peace with Russia. It is not in Russia's best interest to retaliate. Mother Russia lost a center that she didn't really want, while Germany neatly neutralized a threat.
It is here that I will contradict conventional German opening strategy: Try to avoid letting France capture Belgium, but absolutely do not under any circumstances allow England to convoy an army into either of Belgium or Holland. If it becomes necessary to allow England to capture one of the Lowlands in 1901, allow him to capture Denmark. By giving Denmark to England, you allow England to make what I'll call an "effective capture" rather than an "ineffective capture" (see appendix).
If all goes as planned in 1901, you gain three centers. The consequence of that is that even if everything goes as planned in 1902, you only gain one additional center. And that conquest itself comes with a high price - you will have gained an enemy in the taking of your seventh center (with whomever is your victim), while others (Russia, for example) can gain a seventh center potentially without raising anyone's ire. As you can see, Germany builds easily in the first year, but then will almost certainly build slowly in the following two years. People needn't worry if Germany starts the game with a hat trick (three builds). For poor Germany, everything is uphill from there.
My final point along those lines - it can be in almost everyone's interest for Germany to get three builds. Turkey, most of all, would rather a strong Germany than a strong England (for example). England, whose principle target is Russia, would rather appease Germany than provoke him. France, whose principle target is England, must feel the same. Italy would rather Germany grab any spare centers than France. Austria is praying for Germany to have a good opening, and Russia probably stands to gain the least from a strong German opening, but can spin this to her advantage provided that she can at least gain something in return, for example an open German declaration of war against England.
So if you accept those tenets, that Germany must protect it's coast, that Germany should remain neutral as long as possible, and that Germany's ideal first conquest is Sweden, then Spring 1901 sees German moves to Holland, Ruhr and Kiel. A navy should be built in Kiel for the conquest of Sweden, however you can manage it.
****************************************************
APPENDIX: EFFECTIVE CAPTURES
Few players seem to pay much attention to the concept of "effective captures," which I bring up to contrast with ineffective captures. For our purposes, we'll define an effective capture as a city which is captured such that the conqueror is then free to immediately (after the Fall season) deploy the conquering unit in another front. This happens if the conquered city has no foreign units within striking range.
An ineffective capture is a city conquered that has one or more foreign units within striking range. This sort of capture is termed ineffective for the reason that the conquering power is then forced to leave the unit to occupy the freshly gained city. In some cases, for example when a city is bordered by multiple foreign units, one might feel compelled not only to keep the city garrisoned, but also to deploy a unit to a neighboring province for defensive support. In such cases one is facing a net strategic loss of units from the front lines.
This consideration has a couple of implications. For strategic purposes, effective captures are better on or near borders shared with a power with whom one ideally would prefer to be at peace. Effective captures have the benefit of producing a DMZ.
Ineffective captures should often be avoided since they produce zero net gain of units deployable to the front line, with the possible exception of borders shared with powers against whom one would prefer to begin a troop buildup.
One of the biggest mistakes that I see newer players make, is that they feel that they need to gain centers as quickly as possible. This is not true. A better strategy is to shoot for defensible growth, while building a solid reputation, ingratiating one's neighbors and developing interesting offensive potentials.