Why?

1:1 isn't a diplomacy game and shouldn't even be on the site ... so not really worth discussing imo

* If both players are starting in the game, Austria is easier to play and stronger.
* if both are experienced players, France has the advantage of the initiative.
* Between skilled and experienced players, the opening is important because it influences the capability of adapting your strategy for next moves. Both countries are equivalent. Maybe Austria can offer more "surprises".

Austria can blitz 18 centers and win if France sucks. France has the edge in every stalemate line and longterm positioning. If France can stop Austria's rush it'll win basically every time.
If they suck, they won't be able to stop the rush, and so if your opponent is bad you'd rather be Austria.

Bladerunners is right.

IMHO, France has the advantage because Austria can only build fleets on the SE side of the stalemate line, while France can build fleets on both sides. All it really has to do is bottle up Austria in the Med while taking Tunis and head toward stalemate positions in the North.

@ Speudebradeos : That's not that simple. Austria has huge advantages for armies. Eg: StP is on the French side of the stalemate. But StP is at 4 steps away from Vie and 4 steps away from Bud on a path comprising supply centers. It is 4 steps away from Brest only if the French plays doesn't stop at Lon, which he can't offer... Another point: Berlin is on the French side of the stalemate but there is also a Austrian stalemate to keep it... Based on this, you could claim Austria is much stronger.

That said, I find GvI more equilibrated. The opening can give some advantages but then both players have to fight for each center. It can become much more chaotic very fast.

@WiseJazzer: here is an illustrative example between 2 great players.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200543

France succeeded in pushing enough pressure on Austria so that this latest had to took risks whereas he was trying to rush... Austria didn't really make a mistake but finally made a bad guess in the too many 50/50 he had to manage. And his front collapsed.

Cpt Mike .. lol - no such thing as 2 great players in a 1:1 game. great players at what?> not diplomacy. 2 junior players can have a game that looks the same. why talk so much about 1:1 games? they aren't diplomacy. wish the site would at least eliminate their stats on player pages - so we can tell how a player is doing in real diplomacy games

No *real* diplomacy player would ever consider trying 1v1 now, would they?

Should have said, "No *true* diplomacy player..." if you catch my drift...

People keep putting forth this myth that France is stronger among good players, but looking at high-level games shows the lie there.

If you want to 1v1 me as Austria, I'll gladly show you how France wins in the long run.

If Austria plays right, it doesn't get to endgame situations.

If you're serious, I will take you up on that. I can't do less than 24 hour phases, but I ready up whenever I'm online.

1v1 played at 5 minute intervals is a very good variant to practice tactics for ftf tournaments.

@Zyb check your PMs
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200724
For people that want to spectate

Get him yoyo
I'm on team France all the way

Well thanks all for your thoughts. Those of you who think 1vs1 is not worth discussing, don't discuss it.
I guess I still have much to learn since I still get better results as Austria.
I'm expectating the game between Yoyo and Zyb.

When you say that a power if favored, how much are we talking about: 6:4 France? 7:3 France?

I think whatever the difference is, that difference is less than 6:4, (like 5.5:4.5 which is "balanced" as much as any asymmetrical game is likely to get.

A long game favors France, but Austria can win. I have no fear of playing Austria.

Austria is better.

When an intoxicated Ghug has France and I have Austria, France has the advantage..it's been proven.

If the question really matters, a good way would be to check among the strongest players how many times they lost (or drew) with Austria and how many times with France (when not intoxicated or dopped). If strong players lost or concede the draw more often with one country rather than the other one we can conclude there is stronger country.

Another way to solve the problem is to perform the same analysis among players discovering AvF but in recording the number of victories, not of defeats.

Guys, have a look at Spring '02 move of SplitDiplomat here :
* http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200638

That shows why France or Austria does not really matters are not "stronger" than the other one among skilled and expererienced players. ( Take care we can't comment more. It is a currently running game. But it is talking...)

Or check this game, which Austrian move would you say was a mistake?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200541

First one I see was not taking Munich in Autumn 1902, and it went downhill from there.

Actually, cancel that. Heading east from Warsaw in Spring 1902 is a dicey move, and probably the more damaging one.

Knowing that Austria only needs 1 fleet in Ionian Sea and 1 fleet in Naples, and armies in Italy to lock down everything east of there is critical to success.

Take 2 of 3 from Berlin, Munich and StP and that's 18. Norway can speed things up if you get lucky. If France doesn't pressure Tunis, take that and fall back as needed.

Are you watching my game with Zybodia Jeff?

Took a peek just now.

Here's the epic Austria win...4 years:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200561#gamePanel

4 years and 1 fleet

Not taking Munich is pretty standard without army in Paris - some think it's better to bottle up Piedmont. Moving to Warsaw is also pretty standard because you want to rush St. Pete to take one of keys as outlined by Jeff.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=200561 - mistake by France not pushing Silesia, it would've been much different game.

As Austria? It's always better to bottle up Piedmont. You really only need one of Mun/Berlin to win the game, and often enough I just rush Berlin, turtle it, and race to the other 17

Exactly my point, so the move to Piedmont was very standard and not a bad move.

Obviously we have different thoughts on Austria. (Also, just because something is standard does not mean it's not a bad move. :P)

However, I am certainly claiming to be the best Austria player ever; just a regular guy who will gladly take Austria versus anybody.*

*1v1 only. Austria is my least favorite country to play in Diplomacy.

Dang it! "certainly *not* claiming".

1v1 is not Diplomacy, but it is an alternate fun strategy game using the same map. Gunboats are only a shadow of Diplomacy too, since your communication is limited to signaling with moves, but there is at least that form of weak signaling.