When I last played Russia, Germany helped me into Sweden against England. It worked; England was weakened and eventually defeated. I stabbed Germany later on, but he managed to draw. So I guess it does make sense. England is a bigger threat than Russia, at least in the beginning.

First off, Russia is often quite weak in gunboat games, and unless Germany can miraculously take 2-3 Russian centers before someone else gets them and before F and/or E come storming in, Germany often does pretty crappily too. Something has got to change and I think one thing is that Germany ought to stop weakening Russia.

A robust Russia in the North is usually quite good for Germany. It keeps England busy, or possibly wards him off to seek gains elsewhere (i.e. France). I think the best case scenario for Germany would be to let Russia into Sweden. Russia builds an ARMY in St. Pete. Germany takes Sweden, and Russia disbands his northern fleet. Russia has that useful army up there, keeping things just difficult enough for England to make him consider hitting France instead. Germany gets a build and has options.

Now all this is out the window if it appears Russia and Turkey are working well together, like if you see a full-on Jug opening (Ank - Con, War - Gal, Sev H or Rum). But usually that ain't happening. So give the baby it's bottle. Let Russia borrow Sweden for a year or two, and see what you can grow!

On the other hand if Russia has made a botch of his opening in the south, as Germany it can be a good idea to bounce him in Sweden in order to limit his chance of build(s), especially if Austria and Turkey have both opened against Russia and you have a chance to work with Austria.

me as germany, i always open like this in gunboats, kiel-holland, berlin-kiel, munich-ruhr, you almost always get belgium and if france takes munich while you go to belgium, you can easily take munich back... then i build A munich (if france doesnt take it...) F berlin F kiel, if france takes munich then i build 2 armies, and when i get munich back i build another fleet

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=88877#gamePanel this game shows that working.

You can't make the rule "Germany gives Sweden to Russia" because it depends on lots of things which can happen in spring '01. And Germany needs to "read" the whole map to decide whether to give it or not,there are milions of things in the first move which can determinate the decision,I could name it if you want...

Well I did say that you don't want to give up Sweden if there is an obvious Jug going to happen from turn one. But other than that, I think it helps Germany early on if Russia is a little stronger. It keeps the East less resolved, and it might also help you with England.

If you've got a strong alliance with England then go for Russia, that is, if England opens to the Channel, but otherwise a stronger Russia helps keep England honest and maybe needing you.

"A strong alliance"?!? Weren't you talking about gunboat games?

I think it makes sense to block Russia in Sweden if one of E or F has moved to the channel in the spring.

I guess Split is right too, there is likely more than this one factor.

The moves of all of the seven powers are important for the decision,I believe.

SplitD I have seen you support Russia into Sweden. For the purpose of this conversation, would you care to indulge us in a scenario in which case you would allow Russia Sweden?

Of course you've seen that but you could have seen me doing the other way too,that's why I'm telling you don't give Russia Sweden by default DAMMIT,the topic subject is false.

If England opens anti-french (for eg to EC) then, if germany is willing to cooperate, he bounces russia, to show he will help england against france, and not let russia to bother them.

But there are cases when germany needs a strong russia, for example turkey gets to BS, england opens to Edinborough posing no threat to Germany, it could be a good idea to make them fight.
If Russia opens north (mosc->stp) you might also support him, so he will secure scandinavia resulting a weak england, so germany can fight france.

If Russia opens weak south, you also might want to help him, because he will build south then, to support his units, slowing down turkey/austria.

As Split stated, you have to take all 7 countries' moves into count and make the decision according to that. Basically, if you need a strong russia, oyu let him in, if you have a good alliance by the very first move, you bounce.

My title was supposed to be provocative. To get people to talk. It wasn't meant to get people like SplitD from saying how smart they are, but refusing to offer any proof of that intelligence. C'mon man, just give us one scenario that would cause you to help Russia in to Sweden. Just one...

Why are you talking like this? What makes you to be an asshole? Who was talking about how smart he was? What bothers you in your life?

Of the 'all 7 countries moves' you have only mentioned six.

What of italy? If he's in trieste? If he is playing a lepanto? Or if he is in piedmont?

God, lighten up there ol' Splitty D. I only take offense because you come in to this rich topic and you are a smart guy who knows many answers, but then you get coy and refuse to divulge any. C'mon man, just give us a little taste of your wisdom. One little taste. Answer the question and sate the masses. When is one time that it is good to allow Russia to move into Sweden?

C'mon Splitty D, don't be such a tease!

orathic, for example italy jumps on austria and takes trieste immidiately then all it achieves is to throw the game to turkey. In this case it's a tough call, because if you feed russia you risk a juggernaut, if you bounce you might slow down turkey, but sooner ot later he will get over russia as well. (I would bounce)

If italy moves to piedmont then france might get 1 less build, england might convoy into belgium. If you support england then you bounce russia, and you have a 3 way alliance against france. If england opened north then piedmont is probably useless, you ally with england, let france fight italy, and you go for scandinavia.

Every moves are interconnected, the more you understand the people's willing behind the moves the better you are. Basically every support/bounce/build expresses some kind of cooperation. for example bouncing black sea for years is a show of trust and coperation between russia/turkey. Building just armies or just fleet with germany in the first year shows clear commitment in one direction.

A clear example, if turkey had opened into Armenia, england to edinborough, I would let russia into sweden, since he just got two enemies he won't fight me, but at least england will be occupied, turkey slowed down.

I'd posit that bouncing Sweden is usually a bad idea because it sours relations with Russia before England and France have to commit, and it denies Russia a sure army build that (a) would be employed against Austria and Turkey in the south if Russia failed to get Rumania, and (b) would most likely not be used against you in any case.

Now, it's true that in some cases - actually a surprisingly frequent number of them - that England or France, despite not needing to commit at all in 1901, will of their own volition commit one way or the other. That information would obviously be a very important factor in deciding what to do with Sweden. But I would say the default position should be allowing Russia into Sweden unless given a good reason to bounce, certainly.