Yep

I think this is how a lot of people think, and it's useful to a certain extent. The problem is when you start considering it as gospel that as Eastern powers, you cannot be involved in the west early, and vice versa - obviously, much of the time that is true, but you need to be prepared to vary your strategy and jump over the line early if it's going to give you an advantage.

Additionally, the view of 'Once the third member is gone, the ally is stabbed.' can be really unhelpful too. Quite often you'll stand a much better chance of soloing if you steamroll over the line with your ally than if you stab him before you are over the line.

Your words on controlling the other sphere are pretty damn accurate, though. Many newer players forget how important manipulation of the other side of the board is.

I love mucking around In someone else's sphere with my poison pen. Impossible to win if there isn't chaos in the other hemisphere.

@captainmeme
I tried to be as concise as possible, but I definitely left out a lot of details!

You're right. This "theory" is very stiff, in that it doesn't allow for flexibility or complexity. When it comes to "jumping" over the line, Italy comes to mind for me. One thing I didn't mention was that Russia also has a Western side to it. In fact, Russia could be considered a Western power.

With respect to stabbing your ally in your sphere, I agree. From personal experience, I have seldom stabbed my ally even after controlling my sphere. And it wasn't until the end that I did so. In this "theory", I want to emphasize the importance of controlling one's sphere, which doesn't necessarily mean eliminating one's ally. Your ally could simply be a minor power, which is perhaps more common. The important part, though, is that you control your sphere.

Here's where the complexity kicks in. While you're working with your ally to eliminate the third wheel, you've got to be talking to players in the other sphere. (That's my metaphorical version of "crossing" the line. You establish relations, which you will need in the future.)

Italy adds a new dynamic to the situation. Italy has the choice of pairing with the third wheel of a sphere, which acts as a counter balance. This is like "crossing" the line. But beyond that, though, I don't think any powers in different spheres can effectively coordinate at the start of the game, which is why I ignored the "jump".

@ishirkmywork
You're on the right track. Thank you for mentioning that. It's something I forgot to explain.

Ideally, you want to resolve (control your sphere) your sphere before the other sphere is resolved. How do you do that? Easily. Delay them! Use your "poison pen" to bog them down. You want the other sphere to be as balanced and unguided as possible. Gridlock them. A good way to do that is to get Italy involved in their sphere. Arrange the alliances so that Italy joins the third wheel of that sphere, so that it becomes a two-on-two battle. That gives you time to do what you need to do.

Good feedback!

I disagree with the interpretation.

I think the spheres are
"north" - England, Germany, France
"south" - Turkey, Austria, Italy
Russia, uniquely, has home centers in both spheres.

England, Germany and France each need ALL of each other's home centers to solo win. Same with Austria, Turkey, and Italy (slightly less so for Italy, but rarely)
Russia usually needs many home centers from both sides to solo win.

And then there is the Mediterranean sphere

Spheres? Pshaw.

##VOTE Circle

@swordsman3003
That's another way to interpret it. But to isolate Italy to the Southern Sphere seems to ignore the flexibitilty of Italy's position. Italy is seldom attacked in 1901, and is never an immediate target. Furthermore, Italy can easily get involved in the Northern Sphere.

Russia, on the other hand, doesn't have that flexibility. Russia is seldom a target of the Northern Sphere, but almost always a target in the Southern Sphere.

@CAPT Brad
Can you elaborate on that?

England, France and Germany are all counting on at least one Russian home center to win the game, sometimes two or three. Therefore, Russia is almost guaranteed to be attacked by a player in the northern sphere attempting a solo win. This won't happen in 1901 or 1902, but it will happen. Russia also likely cannot win the game without German home centers. Therefore, I consider Russia a northern power.

Italy is seldom attacked in 1901, but what happens in 1901 is not nearly as important as what will happen over the course of the entire game. Italy will, without exception, be attacked by an Austrian or Turkish player attempting a solo win, because a solo win by either of those players is impossible without Italian home centers. Therefore, I consider Italy a southern power.

Italy's theoretical ability to attack France first is mirrored by France's ability to attack Italy first. I think it is inconsistent to describe Italy as being between two spheres when France has a similar strategic position. Italy sometimes needs 1 French home center to win - Marseilles - but Munich or Iberia can suffice as well - and this is not much different than Turkey needing Munich to win or Germany needing Warsaw.

The theoretical ability of Italy to play a western game is highly overstated. When Italy attacks France first, this almost always results in Italy advancing no further than Marseilles and Iberia.
I have an very good record with Italy, my personal favorite power, and I can recall taking English home centers with Italy exactly once in my life - which is the same number of times I recall taking Turkish home centers with Germany. I rate the chances of Italy taking English home centers in any given game at <1%.

I think the basic premise of these spheres is good, though perhaps it makes them sound more airtight than they actually are. Russia can easily have a say and some force in the "western" discussion over Scandinavia. Italy/Germany/Austria can each get diplomatic or military leverage on one another by occupying Tyrolia. I'm not sure how _often_ those sorts of things happen, as there is some underlying "oh well experience shows that power won't do X action, since it's really not a gamble in their best interest."

I wonder how much of the "sphere" discussions are due to the psychological impact of of the way the map looks. To what extent is the strategy is influenced by the visual and not by the actual node-to-node connections?

Compare our beautiful webdip projection with these two:

http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Online/maps/stdmap.gif
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/regularmaps/diplomap.gif

I think my description of a "northern" vs. a "southern" sphere arises out of objective fact that Italy, Austria, and Turkey all need each others' home centers to win, and German, England, and France all need each others' home centers to win.

There are actually three spheres. The western sphere with England and France. The eastern sphere with Russia and Turkey. And the internal sphere with Germany, Austria, and Italy.

Didn't Trump put his hand on a glowing sphere on his first overseas diplomatic trip?

@swordsman3003
Hypothetically, a Great Power can capture any supply centers to win the game. They don't have to belong to a particular power, so I'm not entirely in favour of describing spheres in that way.

I think it's more productive to describe spheres in terms of initial influence. England, France, and Germany can capture Russian supply centers to win, but this isn't an immediate objective. Russia is typically content with Sweden at first, and the interaction ends at that (at least momentarily). That being said, think of all the German players who foolishly attacked Russia immediately. It never ends well. The fact that Russia is a passive threat in the north is why I don't consider it to be part of the Northern or a Western Spheres.

You're right. Italy rarely enters the Western Sphere. But that doesn't mean Italy's automatically part of the Southern or Eastern Spheres, either. (Italy doesn't need to attack France to become part of the west.) There are occasions when Italy makes a play for Munich, which also yields the result of joining the west. The game is designed to discourage Italy from going west. There are more resources in the east.

Like I said, no Great Power needs to have supply centers from a particular Great Power to win. That doesn't mean that owning certain supply centers isn't easier than owning others, however. But this is where the influence factor comes in. I don't think that Russia has much influence in north. But Russia has more leverage in the south.

@eturnage
Perhaps you can explain how this "theory" applies to the spheres you mentioned. I never considered the "Internal Sphere", so I'd like to know what factors made you coin it.

@teacon7
I don't think Russia has much say in Scandinavia. Usually Russia is the one who is bullied about it. Even if Russia had a lot to say about Scandenavia, not much can be done to enforce those policies.

Tyrolia is a very sensitive province for Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, so it's not unlikely they'll have a discussion about it. That interaction could be considered an influence of sorts—but you said it yourself; who, other than Italy, is willing to go there?

I never mentioned this, but the idea of influence affects all Great Powers. It's true that Austria-Hungary has influence on Germany and vice-versa when it comes to Tyrolia, but consider the bigger picture. Suppose Austria-Hungary goes to Tyrolia. What happens if Russia goes to Galicia? Russia also has influence on Austria-Hungary. In short, I don't consider aggressive moves against Great Powers in differing spheres because these actions are often nullified by aggressive moves against Great Powers in the same sphere. (Great Powers must prioritize their enemies in accordance to whoever yields the biggest immidiate threat.)

what is this nonsense about Russia not having a say in Scandanavia? THAT IS THE WHOLE GAME for Russia.
also -- all the spheres. gameID=199344

Russia germany and england are the northen triangle, they fight over norway, sweden and denmark (and most often stp). The counter side is italy turkey and austria in the southern triangle, fighting over tunis, servia, greece and bul.

France is left put having to decide whether to move away to iberia or in to mess with bel and hol. Or instead to hit the med. but since the borad is split by the stalemate line from stp to spain/naf it is often important to cross this line. Russia and france are the only power who can build on both sides of the stalemate line. Both can build fleets in the northern seas and in the med (via constantinople).

So russia is the power in the middle of shit on both sides, and france is isolated from shit with space to comfortably sit and wait see how things shake out north and south. Russia can do as much growth but not without immediate conflict (whether in rum/swe/nor/austria).

Austria loses the southern triangle if they can't convince russia to look elsewhere. That's why turkey getting russia onside is the most famous two-some. England russia can likewise tear germany apart, or germany russia can engage in a little sealion...

France can't get that deep, is too far from centers in italy, and has to tip the balance between germany and england without being too big to force them to team up.

Overall this is just as useful a way to think of the map as the east vs west spheres.

In fact there are 7 spheres. They are:
England,
Germany,
Russia,
France,
Italy,
Austria,
Turkey.

Oftentimes two or more of these spheres will combine to form a larger sphere which then acts to make itself larger by consuming the smaller spheres.

Sometimes these spheres will divide along horizontal geographic lines but can also divide on vertical or even tri-vertical axes.

I heard if you manage to get a unit in all 7 spheres at once, before winning the game, that zultar himself has to give you infinite free energy from his passport-powered perpetual motion machine.

I am probably reiterating someone else, but I think the map divided into regions: the Western region, Northern region, and Balkland/Black sea region (or South Eastern region). The western region is first occupied by France, England, and a little of Germany and Italy. The Northern region is occupied by Germany and Russia. The Eastern Region is occupied by Turkey, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
My theory goes that if I am in a certain region, I have to communicate with each of my "neighbors" or Powers that share my region. You MUST communicate with whoever is in your region first, and then you will try to control the "core" of your region, or where the most SCs are bunched together, and move on to invade the "core" of another region. It is worth noting that in this theory some Powers, like Italy, are in two regions. This means that Italy would have to communicate with members of the Western region and South Eastern region, and Russia would have to deal with members of the Northern and South Eastern regions.
The only flaw in this is that I don't know what would be the Western region's core

the Mediterranean sphere.
In every game control over the Mediterranean involves every country except two. Often the one who controls the med ensures at least a draw with them included. The important points are the IO, Tunis and Marseilles. Next is the aegean and Greece. Those are the eastern and western conflict points and are always in contention.

In seriousness I tend to look at the game based on hot zones. So I figure there a few pretty important "hot zones"
-Balkans (this region is the neutral zone between Austria and Turkey
-Black Sea+ (the Black Sea, Rumania, Armenia)
-Austro-Italian Border
-Russo-Austrian Border
-Piedmont and the western med
-English Channel / North Sea
-Maginot Line (burgundy, Belgium, Ruhr, Munich)
-Scandinavia


When I play I try to influence as many of these areas as possible in my favor. As an example if I am Germany:
-I want to see a stalemate in the balkans that ends late in turkeys favor.
-in the Black Sea I want to see Russia at a disadvantage and forced to draw power south.
-Along the Austria-Italian border I want to see Italy and Austria at peace
-Along the Russo-Austrian border i want war
-in Piedmont and the western med I want Italian fleets early.
-Along the maginot line I want concessions in my favor and France cannot get belgium.
-in EC/ North Sea, I want whoever my ally is between France in better control.
-in Scandinavia I want to deny Russia builds.

This assumes I am allying with France.

Of course whatever I choose for an ally changes this but once I choose based on press this is how I play the game.

I also tend to break my press down this way when I talk to people. And I usually talk counterclockwise so to slow down the opponent or ally's thinking so they are what I am seeing better. So if I am talking to turkey with the above example I would likely write:
"Hello sultan! Beautiful day for a game. Just touching base I know we don't have much to work together on early but we do share a sizable neighbor. Just looking to see you in control of the balkans, and wondering how I can help you against Russia? May I suggest a bounce in Black Sea while I bounce in Sweden? I am up for anything but given that I don't know much about the happenings between E/F F/I or I/A I am not sure what will be on your mind.

For now why don't we agree to share information, and hash out a better plan soon. "

I'd wait a few hours and send another message with whatever small obvious and inconsequential Intel I've found. Never a lie but always unimportant. Maybe it's Russia saying he plans on moving St.Petersburg to GoB.

CB, I find it interesting that you want to deny Russia builds when you ally France. In my experience, allowing Russia Sweden leads to an army build in StP which then pressures England (more than you).

(I did just throw that together without much thought, mainly going on premise)

That's Byron, no thought

Brad your only contribution was to talk about the Mediterranean. Which while important I don't see how it's a sphere of influence in of itself. Since usually the convey there doesn't develops until 1903 when either turkey or France end up navally involved with Italy. Before that it's just Italy taking Piedmont and maybe attacking Austria or France. I'd say the med is important but far from its own sphere of influence.

I like the "spheres" theory, but simply put, I think there are three steps to a victory:

1. Control your sphere/triangle
2. Control the stalemate line
3. Cross the stalemate line to get 18.

France is a good example. In the early game, where spheres are most important, s/he has a lot of influence over how the western sphere breaks down. Eventually, France then solidifies their hold on Munich/Berlin or Spa/Mar but inevitably has to cross the stalemate line to take the 18th, usually Tunis or Warsaw. If France crosses too soon and, say, takes Tunis in the early game, they put the process out of order and risk making themselves vulnerable to a stab.

Russia is in a similar boat. In my experience, once Russia crosses the North Sea, for example, s/he is too far extended and risks being vulnerable for a stab. Germany can also shift too far east or west. As Germany, I'm usually hesitant to take Sev for that reason if the opportunity arises. At WDC last year, I took Sev with a single army but didn't provide any support because I was focused elsewhere, but it turned out to be a useful army that helped out Turkey quite a bit. The important thing, though, is that I didn't dedicate too many units to holding a center that was outside of the three steps to victory.

That's very interesting 2ndWhiteLine.

I personally think it's more important to get across the stalemate line first, and then try to get control of your side of the board. My reasoning here is that it is relatively easy to get control of an entire side of the board once you have 12 or 13 units, but can be impossible to cross the stalemate line even if you have 17.

For example, as Turkey I have bypassed Italian centers in order to get to Munich or Marseilles faster. As France, I common make a play for Tunis around 10 SCs.

Generally speaking, I interpret someone taking a center on the other side as an intention to solo win and expect them to betray their allies very soon, if they haven't already. For example, when Germany has control of Warsaw and Moscow I expect the stab on France or England shortly after (because that's usually what I would do).

As with any personal set of rules, mine are situationally based but there's definitely a general trend. As Turkey, if you can afford to skip a few Italian centers, that likely means you have Austria (if not most of Russia) wrapped up and solidified already. You wouldn't go after Marseilles if Austria was still hanging around. So I think my algorithm is still correct.

"@eturnage
Perhaps you can explain how this "theory" applies to the spheres you mentioned. I never considered the "Internal Sphere", so I'd like to know what factors made you coin it."

I don't have any correlation statistics to back this up. In my limited experience, the internal powers have a better opportunity to solo if they manage to cooperate or at least achieve nonaggression in the early game. If squabbling occurs in the internal sphere between those occupants (Italy, Austria, Germany) in the early game, then the powers in the eastern and western sphere generally profit to the detriment of the internal powers. It is in the internal power sphere players interest to keep the players in the western and eastern sphere's deadlocked and fighting for as long as possible. Or, from the perspective of the western/eastern sphere players, they wish to quickly dominate their respective sphere as soon as possible so that they can spread to the internal sphere in force. Otherwise, they risk a stab from one of their partners in their sphere.

The sphere analysis really is not much applicable to the end game. It only is very relevant in the early game and marginally so to the midgame.

Test "sphere theory" in World games... Two fun games, 201160 & 201162...winners decide if Dipbro Brainbomb is real, only five points to enter, one game is anonymous.. PM me for the passwords, or crack them if you can ( they're very simple )

Addressing this from captainmeme from the top: "Your words on controlling the other sphere are pretty damn accurate, though. Many newer players forget how important manipulation of the other side of the board is."

Yes, and this is probably where I wind up getting my ass handed to me. I've a tendency to stir the pot too much. I have to temper it a bit.

Thanks to everyone who posted their thoughts. I love the discussions that are taking place. And it's nice to see that I'm not the only one who has considered the idea of "spheres".

Just to clarify, I define spheres according to critical interactions between Great Powers. A sphere, as I interpreted it, is just a group of powers that have immediate influences, quarrels, and/or contests over various provinces between them.

Based on this definition, it's easy to see why powers must control their sphere first before they can win. Bear in mind that the interactions between Great Powers in a sphere is only considered for the year 1901. I don't look beyond it because I believe that the first year is what defines the spheres as they are on the board. (Even England and Turkey can interact at some point, but this "point" is too far away to reasonably consider, so I only look at immediate interactions.)

I also don't consider the possibility of conflicts between inner powers—Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy—or powers that shouldn't fight early—England and Russia, Germany and Russia, etc.

Since powers must focus on their sphere before focusing on the other—this is the reason why interactions between powers in opposing spheres is ridiculous (at the start). For example, Germany and Austria-Hungary could fight in 1901, but think of how silly and counter-productive that would be. (Assume that the other Great Powers focus on controlling their sphere.) Since all powers are small at the start, it's silly to allocate resources towards conflicts that have very little gain, and which don't focus on important goals. It's more important for Germany to capture Denmark, Holand, and Beligum, and to resolve the West, than to fight Austria-Hungary.

And "controlling" a sphere means owning the majority of supply centers in it. The supply centers in a sphere are: all home supply centers of Great Powers in it, and neutral supply centers that are typically contested by those powers.

I've heard a lot of mention that Italy does belong to a sphere—but there isn't much agreement on what that sphere is. I've considered the possibility of Italy belonging to the Eastern Sphere—but I feel that this choice limits the flexibility of Italy's dynamic position. I think it's feasible for Italy fight a two-on-two battle in the Western Sphere with England or Germany as an ally against France. I know that this idea is fairly romantic and impractical, but the choice is there—and it's a choice that not too many powers have.