both armies

self standoff is definitely a good strategy as Invictus has described. you can effectively defend 3 territories with 2 units. but just bouncing into yourself, which is what it sounded like you were talking about? I can't see any use for that.

And here's a good counter-strategy by the way, I was playing in a game where I suspected a self standoff - so I supported his move with one unit while moving into the now unoccupied Territory.

that's pretty clever philcore, and what you suggested was clever as well Invictus, but I was thinking more of using it as a psychological strategy rather than a practical one, but if there's any more suggestions like that, keep 'em coming. I guess I'd like to know any and/or all reasons why you'd do it.

to clarify, are you talking about simply running into yourself in an occupied territory? The only psychological aspect to that would be to make yourself appear inexperienced, then make some genius move later in the game.

Just don't do it on your opening. That's the most important part of the game.

Indeed attempting such a move in 1901 would be a rookie mistake. That is not something I would ever try to do. However, I mean in the middle of the game when you are not in any danger of a stab, but may be contemplating one yourself. As I can see, perhaps it would serve as a "warning" to your ally that you are going to stab him and attack a certain place, with the appearance that you mis-ordered a support move as a move to the territory you were providing support for an attack on. I was wondering if there would be an advantage to making your enemy to be think that you want to take a certain territory when in fact you want to move to another one, and thus you would divert their attention from your intended target. Just trying to see if anyone sees this as a legitimate strategy. However, if anyone has other trains of though as to why this would be a good strategy, then please let's hear them.

The most common early case of a self bounce is in Fall 1901 when France opens
A Mars-Spain
A Par-Burg
and the Italians move A Venice to Piedmont.
then the guess is that will the Italians support the French Army from Spain to Marseilles so that the French do not get a build for Spain while at the sametime blocking up Marseilles for a fleet move.
It is rarer to see France open Par-Bur and Mar-Bur in Spring 01.

The goal in all cases is to keep in the place that you start while keeping someone out of the place that is empty, most typically for a build.

Edi, do you have a Word document or something that has a list of all possible questions that someone can ask about Diplomacy along with the answers lol? "If the green behind the ears newbie asks this question, the response is... (copy, paste and insert into forum to reply to query) hahaha. Just kidding of course :P. Thank you so much for the advice, and keep it coming if you have more to add folks!

Actually all the answers are in a gray file locked between my ears.
After 43 years of answering questions you sort of get a set auto response mode when you sit in front of a keyboard (use to be called a typewriter).
Somewhere I actually have an article on the most common questions of new players and the answers, but unfortunately the gray filing system sometimes breaks down for lack of coffee/tea at 2 in the morning like now.
Back to bed.

I did this when I was fighting a war on one front, and didn't want to start one on a second front by helping my ally in his attack. I didn't want to alienate either my ally or his victim so I did a self-standoff, convinced my ally it was accidental, and the victim that it was on purpose and simply defensive in nature. This allowed me to continue my major offensive and remain on good terms with both other powers. Is that the sort of thing you mean (Gen. Ire.)?

Yeah that was a more practical usage of the tactic that I was thinking about. It serves as a sort of "fakeout" that makes some people think you're friendly and other people think you are attacking a certain area when in fact you are not. I was looking more for a discussion on the merits of such a strategy.

I remember a game where was italy and had a shaky alliance with austrua, i built next to his SC, promising to mov eit towards france, he ordered two untis to the threatened sc making sure i couldnt stab him and get it but also meaning that when i moved away he wasnt threating my SC next to it

Another example of self stand-off allowed 3 units to defend four SCs from 1 attacker. Turkey held Ank, Bul and Rum. Russia was in the black sea and Con was unoccupied. Rather than just guess which SC Russia would attack Turkey moved Ank-Con and Bul-Con and Rum-Bul. Everything would bounce back and Russia could get a look in.

*Russia couldn't get a look in.

there's an idea, deter an ally that is in a shaky relationship with you but not threaten their territory by actually taking a territory next to them. Sort of a fake stab if you will. Of course couldn't that provoke someone as well? Of course it is a solid strategy to bounce and protect your centres.