You answered your own question - security. If neither country can trust the other, better that nobody bets a province than one player does. This happens a lot with the Black Sea specifically. Neither Turkey nor Russia want the other to occupy the province for the same reason - the possibility of losing a home center (or two).

But then in the next turn you've got the exact same issue. To continue your example, there's still a Russian fleet in Sevastopol and a Turkish fleet in Ankara, and either could still take the Black sea the following turn. If you both agree to move off then, you've wasted a turn with that unit. And if they're really gunning for you, it's easy enough to agree to bounce one turn and then just make the move again next turn. So it seems like it would only delay an attack while tying down a unit, or tie down one of your units for the rest of the game.

I guess my question is, once you've bounced on the first turn, where do you go from there and what has been gained?

Germany and France will often bounce Burgundy aswell, of England and France in English Channel.

On the other hand, i wouldn't agree to bounce piedmont, if italy asked me (and i was playing france) because france moving to piedmont is a bad thing, and italy could offer to bounce and then let france move in. (in '01 being in piedmont for france means not taking spain with that army, and italy can afford a french unit which only threatens venice... contrasted with a Russian fleet in black sea which might have a 50/50 shot at con/ank.)

Usually you can see a bounce as a trust building exercise.

So If russia bounces Black sea in spring, the his fleet can move to rumania in fall. And it is less of a risk, because that one turn delay means he can build a second fleet in sev and even if turkey occupies black sea he's not risking losing a supply. (though losing black sea is still risky)

The diplomatic benefit is that you build a little trust, and also you get to delay doing anything else, so you don't commit too early to an attack under the assumption that yo have an ally before you've even seen that ally make a move.

The real reason why bouncing the first turn is useful is because you defer the risk of a hostile unit entering a sensitive space to the first fall turn instead of the first spring turn. Take Galicia for example -- if you're Russia and I let you into Galicia as Austria in S01, you have a shot at either Vienna or Budapest in A01, and if you're successful my game is basically over. But if I bounce you the first turn and then allow you in during A01, you don't get a shot at my centers until after W01, when I get to build and cover myself.

Most bounces in perpetuity are wastes of time; the only one I can remember seeing for long periods of time is the Black Sea bounce, and that one is only because the players can't figure out what to do with the Russian fleet during a Russian-Turkish alliance.

Very little of importance happens during or is achieved out of troop movements during the opening.

In that regard, a bounce can be a highly-satisfactory outcome between two neighbors who are not intending to begin a first season major offensive against each other.

I mean, I pretty much need to capture one supply center the first year, but that's it. My only other real objective during that year is to find out who the idiots are. One way that idiots can be easily identified is that they will frequently lie to you during the first season.

By offering a bounce to one of your neighbors, you signal to him that you are not an idiot, and that you think he is not an idiot. This becomes important because the first objective of senior players is to eliminate idiots from play except where they appear rather easily manipulable.

The other nice thing about a bounce is that it usually prevents you from becoming squashed during a surprise attack.

Remember bounces are usually a temporary situation. If you and I bounce each other, meanwhile a third party may attack you and a fourth party may attack me. It's then logical for me to assume that you're going to leave me alone to deal with the person attacking you, and my optimum response will be to leave you alone to defend myself from the guy who's attacking me.

Obviously, idiots can neither follow nor employ that sort of logic. Some of the most difficult (and rarest) skills for an operative to develop in response to a threat-heavy environment (e.g. the Diplomacy board) are risk assessment and risk management.

But by offering (or accepting) a bounce, you demonstrate to your neighbors that you possess basic credibility and that you're not a total douchebag. That's what people worry about - you'd be surprised how many noobs lack the wherewithal to follow through on a simple commitment, even one that will cost them nothing. By offering, accepting and then honoring a simple agreement, you stand out from the crowd.

Skilled players like idiots, but we dislike total idiots. If you look at results from the matches that have multiple heavyweights in them, you'll understand that our opening offensives usually proceed towards the goal of wiping out the noobs. Then and only then can we attempt to broker a desirable endgame with the remaining parties.

People who are too dumb to perceive what is in their best interest, at best, serve as foils to the more dominant players.

it can be very strategic. it can give the appearance of a war, or at least not of peace. if turkey and russia do not bounce in Black Sea, it is almost always a signal for a juggernaut, which would make it so that the alliance would fail because of all the people saying juggernaut, we need to ally against it. it can prevent a stab also, in the russia turkey example, turkey has nothing to do with ankara, other than move there. russia also can afford to bounce there while still being able to get rumania. it makes it so that they can't backstab each other that early on though. unless you have something better to do with it, bounce.

no, i hate opening to black sea with turkey, if i don't bounce there it's not a sign of anything, other than the fact that i'm ready to block lepanto...

Though i've usually offered russia a bounce in armenia...

that was just my experience and opinion on it... it is definitely suspicious if it doesn't happen.

Yeah, russia never seems to beleive me when i tell him i'm not moving to black sea, but getting the turkish fleet into the med in A01 stops lepanto in it's tracks, so i usually try. I have to tell russia to look at my history of playing turkey to see that i've done it before.

I don't like bouncing in Black Sea as either Russia or Turkey.

I do very much like bouncing in Galicia as both Austria and Russia. It means neither of us can surprise the other that first move and it also leaves those two units in defensive positions in case Germany or Italy try and jump us.

But as said above, not a perpetual bounce.

Al Swearengen: "My only other real objective during that [first] year is to find out who the idiots are. One way that idiots can be easily identified is that they will frequently lie to you during the first season."

Those two sentances stand out from the rest of your hummorous rant as the funniest words I've read on this forum in a while. Bravo, ha ha. You can only go worse with a Spring 1901 stab in a public press game.