I'd say the key is to reassess the board each and every turn, and stay as friendly as you can with everybody. Identify the strong players, the trustworthy players, the unpredictable players. Make sure that everybody knows (through actions as well as words) that you will work with them under the right circumstances.... this should open up avenues of diplomacy that you might not otherwise have.

Imagine how the game will develop by playing it out in your head (or with a computer adjucator like Jdip). Then see if you like the way the game is developing. If not, do something about it. This might mean you should stab an ally of yours because you won't have any chance afterwards. But maybe this means you should patch up an old alliance and start building a stalemate line.

For example: gameID=54152. I checked the messages this game and the first time I started worrying about a French solo... was in Spring 1903! He was going to 7 or 8 that turn, but it wasn't hard to envision where the next 10 centers would come from. The game lasted another 10 years, but the French-Russian-Austrian alliance that eventually ended the game was forged that soon.

F/G/T. F/I/R. F/T/R. F/A/E.
E/I/R. A/G/I. E/T/R.

Look for triangles. If the lonely member is dominating, it's a stable balance and it will probably three-way. If not, you might be able to establish a new balance.

You're nearly at 200 games and you haven't figured out balance of power?

This might sound really basic but do the math. Count the units along a front and look for the over-lap. Watch out for those minor powers who might be convinced to push someone over the line.

What i do is look for irregularities. In 1901, its ok for a country to gain 1-2 centers. If a country gains nothing in 1901, it will often mean that a power is under-balanced and another country or two will benefit strongoy early on. If a country gains 3 or more builds in 1901 its often ovee balanced and will have a large advantage.

After the initial year, simply look for countries gaining too quickly. You dont want a country eliminated in 2 to 3 years from the start of the game because it means a power will look to target someone from the other sphere of influence too quickly.

Other things to look for might include a country moving across the stalemate line too quickly to target a power it ordinarily wouldnt or a country successfully taking on two powers at once, etc

Having played a game recently with you (EOG threadID=872220), I would say you need to work on two aspects to improve your game:
Learn and Think

Study stalemate lines
http://www.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/visual.htm
Without one, there is little hope of stopping a competent solo threat

Think ahead and try to anticipate the consequences of your actions. Look at the entire board and try to predict how it may play out. Constantly reassess the position.

i like to pay attention to who is going to benefit the most from the current situation. Look for untenable situations, or areas of great turmoil. is austria going down? who stands to make the gains there fastest? russia? turkey? or italy? find those players that are about to make a big break, and see who else is around to put the brakes on them. if no one can stop them, start raising alerts.

I also recommend putting yourself in the shoes of the other players, and seeing if you can predict what their moves will be. Think about what you'd do, but also try and figure out what other moves might make sense to a player working with information you don't have. Maybe england is going against france. I would, but what if he has made an arrangement you don't know about? what would an attack on germany look like, from his current position?

also, unless it's a gunboat, talk to people. suggest moves, if you can make a strong case for them. people will tell you what they think, and you can see what they did versus what you said. it's a great way to figure out who's working with whom.

A gunboat suggestion: if you aren't the strongest player in the game, make the riskiest moves whenever you can. I'm talking about the move where you stand to gain one center if it works and lose two if it doesn't. Other players almost never take such moves into account ("nah, he wouldn't dare").

i disagree with what truninja said, somewhat. a country that gains too much too early is likely to experience a backlash. imagine a 1901 3 build russia. i don't have the stats of course, but that fucker is going down, and fast. a good solo starts with measured, even, success. a couple countries, including yours, pick up a couple centers this year. a couple other countries, hey! including yours!, pick up a couple centers next year. Now you're 7 and everyone else is 5. Once you get to around 10-12 or so, you need to get very aggressive towards crossing stalemate lines. if you're england, get into st. pete and mao as fast as you can. if you're france, you need to have everything around switzerland on lock. watch that big no mans land between russia germany and austria. whichever side you're on, get on the far side of it as fast as you can.

i like that idea, zmaj.

This all means jack shit if you don't take the players into account though. It's easier in a press game, harder in a gunboat, but study the other players. I do this more than I even look at the game balance, probably because I come from a poker background and not chess or something like that. If a bad player takes 3 centres by luck in 1901, then it's an overextended vulnerable juicy piece of early leader feast. If a good one does it, you're fucked. More than anything else in this game, you play players, not stalemate lines or vague coalitions or patterns. I haven't read the Art of War, but I think Sun Tzu would agree, and I'll say it with the same arrogant certainty as a college student quoting Nietzsche.

This has nothing to do with balance of power, but is an important advice in gunboats and has to do with what I just wrote. Look at the kind of moves a player makes. If he does what Zmaj says, you can see that he loves crazy shit and then it ironically becomes predictable. I can't tell you how many players I've beaten because I've seen them do the riskiest maneuvers possible, and then I just plan for them. In your own playing style, mix it up. A lot. Become extremely hard to read. Build a stable line, then throw raiders everywhere. Advance slowly and then freak out. Approach it with just enough schizophrenia.

I'm not the best player on here, but I do well enough, and that is my view. I'm open to what others have to say about it.

In a full-press game, you can also just ask to a power that seems to share your interest what he believes the balance of power at that point looks like. Italy and Austria can ask such a question to England, Turkey to Germany, France to Russia etc. Your opponent will feel respected, he'll think the better of you for openly addressing the question and you have little to lose. If you believe he misinforms you, then you acquired even more information, that he's there to misinform you. If he informed you correctly, then aside from the correct information you now have, you know you're dealing with a trustworthy player.

I think you can get better at understanding balance of power if you look at a bunch of games where somebody solo'd. Start from the turn they got 18 and work backwards. Each turn ask "How could this person have been stopped? Who could have changed their focus of attack/defense to stop this country from winning?"

When you find the turn when he could have been stopped, consider the actions of each country the previous few years.

@ balls deep: um...thats the reason a 3 or 4 build russia experiences a backlash...because hes an unbalanced power. You merely confirmed what i was saying, not rebutted it.

That said, when a country is unbalanced and hes not in check, he leads to a solo. Plain and simple.

Plus, ill play a 3 build France over a 2 build France any day just as id play a 3 build russia over a 2 build one. If the nations around allow me to build 3 then ive got something going for me.

A three build Russia in yeanr one doesnt mean much when it comes to center count. Its simply a decent start. Those units are spread out in two directions unless he is leaving a front open. Players make too much of a 'good' start. A 3 build France is much more dangerous imo, especially if the 3rd build is london.

I agree with previous posts. Consequences is a very important word in Dip. Probably the most important. And words to consider when you think of your next move:

Just because I CAN do something, SHOULD I?

Not everything you can do should be done. And why? Consequences!

If your problem is specifically coming in second place to solos, then I recommend looking into stalemate lines a bit, at least enough to get a sense for which big powers are dangerous and which are not. For example, England essentially cannot win the game without reaching one of Tunis, Venice, Vienna, Warsaw, or Moscow. A 10-center England that has removed the entire French fleet and has taken Tunis is therefore probably more dangerous than a 15-center England that has a fleet in St. Petersburg, most of France and Germany, but would have to contend with a strong Austria on land and a strong fleet power in the Med which is knocking on the doors of Marseilles.

One other important thing to remember, though: balance of power is something to always be aware of, but your goal is not to keep the game in balance, but rather to create conditions under which it is correct for you to grow (meaning, conditions where you are capable of growing and where growing helps you rather than hurts you). When I see another player on the board that is about to grow, my first instinct is not to stop their growth, but rather to see if I can find a way to benefit from it. I'll give you an example:

Imagine playing England and seeing a big, scary Russia on 8 centers in 1902. Yes, one option is fighting over Scandinavia and reducing Russia. But if I'm successful, then I might get one center out of it; Germany will probably get more, and if we do reduce Russia a bit, we're back to a 7-player game where anything can happen. That's not a bad Plan B, of course, so negotiating a Western Triple that lets Germany and I push back Russia in the north makes sense.

But if the setup is right, I would be much more inclined to let Germany swing East and help fight Russia *to a draw*, while I stab a vulnerable France instead of continuing with the Western Triple. Then, Germany is faced with the choice of letting me grow or letting Russia grow, and will probably stick with the war he's already in, since he's already in position and since, ultimately, he'd rather see me grow than Russia while Russia is already on 8 and I'm growing to 8-9. In other words, Plan A is using Russian growth to negotiate my way into conditions where I get to grow and catch up, and rolling things back towards equality is Plan B.

sorry, tru ninja. maybe i misunderstood. you said: "If a country gains 3 or more builds in 1901 its often ovee balanced and will have a large advantage." but what you seem to be saying now is that "a 3 or 4 build russia experiences a backlash" which to me are opposite statements.

I disagree Balls Deep, any other country that grabs 3 builds in 01 is typically in excellent position, normally because for that to happen the player has to be talented at diplomacy or be facing poor opponents. If that's the case they can probably talk their way out of people's overreactions since a 3 build France doesn't "look" as threatening as a 3 build Russia. Russia however has it tougher. People tend to overreact to a strong Russian opening. This is why you don't often see successful juggernauts. The same goes for a 3/4 build Russia. England, Turkey, Austria and occasionally Germany will all rally to ensure that Russia doesn't come away with a quick victory.

three build Englands ftw?

Yeah. It is impossible on the standard classic map.