but how about Austria? Russia? seems hard to accomplish for those...
and how far should you go?
trying to get a discussion here :)

I think it's important as Austria (and I've only played it once) to have everybody believing that you are neutral-friendly. Set up DMZs and agreed splits, cover what you can, but hedge on alliances until you can truly see what's best for you. Everybody wants to be your ally (or to have you think you are) so diplome accordingly.

Ok, and other countries? Good strategies consirming being neutral?

Problem on being neutral is that it also means slow expansion, as more agressive countries will probably push quicker and stronger even if they earn animosities. And a slow expansion can mean death in the long run, or surviving but being pointless. So I wouldn't go for playing a full neutral country. On the contrary, I'd go for a country that selects their allies/enemies carefully and tries to keep those bonds as long as possible. But you need room to expand beyond the 4-5-6 regions of winter 1901, and for that you need enemies.

I disagree Sepherim. I find that expanding slowly is one of the best - and often most rewarding - strategies in the game depending on the country you play.

For example, as Turkey it is much better to play it cool and slowly grow. You're momentum will be hard to stop later on in the game.

But in general, it comes down to gameplay preference. I like to be flexible to the extreme. If I'm England and there's something going on in the Med that I don't like, I'll do what I can to make France or Russia nervous for a turn or two to get them to pull back, just to make sure they don't go all out on the person I'm trying to protect. By holding back in the short term and leaving ample forces for you to commit elsewhere, you can respond to situations quickly on a seasonal basis. You can still gain SC's with a single or pair of attacking units, and leave yourself much more secure in the long run. Any country that grows too big will force the board to balance against him.

You said it, gain SC's with a couple attacking units. As far as I know, that is an aggresive and non-neutral action (maybe the words are used differently in this forum? Haven't been around for long). You can't stay 2 years without gaining SCs. I'm not talking about the speed you gain them, but the fact that you have to push somewhere and not stay neutral while everybody else is fighting. Doesn't give you the punch when in 1906 or so there is a major power already or two.
So you need to grow: quick or slow depends on you, the country, and your playing style, but remaining aside and playing neutral is not really an option.

yes, but i mean; with the example of Italy, if Austria gives you no chance for a good stab and you get no chances first few years it might be better to wait for those chances...
of course it's not a choice to stay neutral forever...
and with neutral i mean having no enemies and in fact not really allies either...
so, for example, let's say there's Austria fighting with Turkey, Russia fighting with England and France fighting with Germany and all wars are pretty evenly and there might be some small advances but getting an SC is a way to wild dream, then you could try to convince Russia and England to push south, you're still neutral with 4 SCs as Italy...
then there will be some movement and then you could always choose who to attack while you didn't lose much advancement in comparison with the rest of the powers...
so, to finish this story Russia attacks Turkey and England attacks Germany, you could take an SC from both and then you're on 6 and still neutral to the "real" powers (Germany and Turkey die quickly), 5 players left and then you might get attacked but even if more players attack you, you're probably only dead if ALL players attack you, am i missing something here?
is this a good strategy?

bump

I think it depends on which power you are. I prefer early growth as Russia in particular becasue otherwise it becomes too easy for England, Germany, Austria or Turkey to attack you. Austria is another one in which I do not wish to be hanging around on a fairly low centre count for too long, as is Germany.

On the other hand, patience as Turkey, Italy, France or England can be very rewarding. Getting one of your neighbours to consider you friendly and commit hard against another neighbour which allows you to send units crashing into them in the Autumn can be very rewarding. Take Italy as an example. You go for a steady lepanto with Austria without getting too much yourself, and so Austria becomes large and you remain neutral to the majority. Then when Austria begins to move to Russia, you crash into him and seize most of his territory within two years. All of a sudden, Austria is cactus, Russia is friendly, Turkey is defeated, and the western powers have a strong R-I alliance to suddenly deal with.

I think in general, neutral is generally regarded as neither good nor bad, so this thread is rather redundant.

This whole thread is weird to me. If someone is attacking me, they're my enemy. If they're supporting me and we're working together, they're my ally. I've never had a game where someone was doing things in between that, unless they were all the way across the board.

In other words, if you're not with me, I think of you as my enemy. If you're telling me you want to keep neutral, I assume you still want to win, meaning you have to attack me eventually, ergo ... you're my enemy. I'm going to take advantage of your slowness to realize we are enemies and go after you. The only way I won't attack someone is if we have an agreement to work together, or I'm trying to convince them that we need such an agreement.

I agree with goldfinger/YJ.
Neutrality works very well and is probably the only way to exist as Austria past the first five years (i.e. to be involved in a draw). As was also pointed out: growing too fast will let you lose your neighboring allies and teams up everybody against you. But this depends on a large extend on the game itself.
Especially the first year this is a very viable option for all countries, as discussed you try to negotiate to all of your neighbors that whatever you'll be doing is okay. After the first year you decide with whom you're going to ally.
@Kochevnik: so you also attack allies for the mere possibility they will stab you (because they also want to win)? It seems I otherwise don't get your post.

No, if someone tells me they're "neutral," I assume that they're against me.

Basically, I'm saying there are two categories of players: those who are working with me, thus ensuring I have an interest in their success, and those who are not working with me, thus ensuring I have an interest in their failure. Sure, you could divide the second group into those who are actively working against me and those who are merely not working with me, but the point is, I have a vested interest in seeing both of those groups fail.

Say I'm France, and England says to me "Well, I plan to play neutrally between you and Germany." My response is to write Germany and say "let's take down England together." Unless he wants to run a Western Triple or something, I'm not interested in a neutral neighbor. If we're talking about Austria being neutral toward my dispute with England, I don't care; he's too far away at the beginning of the game to matter, so it's a reasonable position. But if he's a neighbor, and he's telling me he's "neutral," I don't class him as an ally.

It's also possible that I am completely misunderstanding what is meant by "neutral" in this discussion. Could someone clarify, perhaps with an example of what kind of situation we're talking about?

I consider neutrality as having no one thinking they're your enemy. I've still taken centers without permission and been allies with that player. Neutrality.

I'd say that's not neutrality, that's hostility covered in a nice velvet glove. ;)

I'm talking about not attacking and not being attacked...

If neutrality is defined as goldfinger defines it, then to me that's just good diplomacy. For example, in my last game, I was England, and "allied" myself to Germany and France. That gave me the chance to realize that Germany was a good player, and France was terrible. So I allied with France, destroyed Germany, and then beat France when he made a bunch of mistakes.

But there was a good period at the beginning of the game where I honestly hadn't decided which one I would ultimately side with. I tried to provoke them into attacking each other and sort of stayed on the sidelines, all the while justifying my late entry into the fray with vague excuses about Russia to both of them.

Is that what we're talking about here? A brief period in which you don't make your alliance clear for tactical reasons? I wouldn't have termed that "neutrality" because I'm just delaying my decision, but if that's what "neutrality" means then yes, I think it's a good strategy.

That's what I call neutrality, and you do decide, you decide to do nothing yet, that way you could either country when you believe the time is right...
This is a perfect example for what I mean...

So, my question is basically how far you should go and when to stop being neutral and how? For example, help the weak one by fighting the strong to keep balance or get easy SCs by attacking weak?

My rule of thumb is pick an enemy by fall 1902. About 70% of the time I make my stab in fall 1902.

But in general, it again depends on your playing strategy and situation. I tend to balance rather than bandwagon. It is my opinion if I'm going for a solo that you want as many powers alive as possible, no matter what. The larger the coalition against you is (in number, not size) the harder it is for them to coordinate against you and the more likely it is that you'll find an ally. I always, always keep people alive when I can