i think jugernautt is overrated.
can be unstoppable if no one spots it at the begining but in most of the cases france is the most benefied of the situation

I USED to think the Juggernaut was deadly and should be stopped imeddiately

However, i have played a game where I, as Germany, was able to DEFEAT the Russian part of the Juggernaut myself, after elminating England. I spotted it early on, but decided to finish what i had started

Russia was defeated

The Juggernaut is only as good as its players, like all alliances

Although it is true that if no one else is paying attention to what they're doing an early Russia/Turkey alliance can and almost inevitably will eliminate Austria. So perhaps Juggernaut fear is just a result of a bunch of noobs playing in games with very persuasive Austrias and being tricked into thinking that any Russia/Turkey alliance is the end of the world.

In general, I fear a RA alliance much more than a RT alliance.
In my experience, a juggernaut is only as strong as it's French counterpart. You can put a pretty good squeeze on the board if you are able to avoid the EG alliance and get France to push East.

what i am more afraid of then the Juggernaut is the Western Juggernaut.

In my mind, that is much more effective

what is western jugernaut?
eg?

I love the juggernaut, but i think that it is very overrated, but if i can ever get a successfull juggernaut going, i always draw/win...

I started to ally up with Austria instead of Turkey just because everybody panics when Russia and Turkey are allied.

In my opinion, there are countries -for instance France, like you already mentioned, that benefit from that panic. So in my opinion it is oversubstantiated.
Lepanto is easily able to stop it in the south, and England can stop Russia from getting a strong naval power in the north.

But I also use the fear against the east when I play on the other side of Europe. ;D

I pretty much agree. Ive noticed that a lot of the board will talk to Russia and Turkey and tell them they are willing to ally so long as they arent allied with the other power. That sort of dynamic isnt found with any other country pair. After all, Russia doesnt spout to England that hes willing to work with him if he allies with France. It seems that many players--and not just noobs--will immediately gang-rape Russia or Turkey if theres even a whisper that theyre working together.

This isnt a reference to any single game but rather a trend I noticed that even I have come accustomed to supporting even when playing countries like Italy who could easily benefit with R and T joining in on an Austria gang up that turns into a IT or IR afterward, or when playing a western power that has less to fear if Russia opens 3 south or Turkey and Russia bounce in the BLA for multiple seasons.

A Juggernaut is at its most feared when R and T DMZ the BLA and immediately get rolling. If that occurs and Russia can get his flwet out into open waters and the west is complacent at that point, it can be deadly in the right hands.

Even with that said, I have yet to play a game where a RT alliance was played successfully and didnt break down in the midgame.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=88514#gamePanel

I think it's a great alliance......for Russia.

I agree with dipplayer. Every time I was Russia in a Juggernaut, I successfully stabbed Turkey.

I think it is an incredibly effective alliance when it doesn't break down at the first resistance. I find that the stab comes to early, in most of the games I see a juggernaut they stab as soon as Italy or Germany prevent them from taking an sc. They see the ally as being open an easier target so they stab. This gives ithe other folks time to fortify stalemate lines and you get a 3 or 4 way draw. If r and t can wait till a stalemate line is crossed then one I then will solo.

I honestly think discussions of which alliance is the best are totally overplayed.

What I mean is that, as in poker, you play the man, not the cards. In Diplomacy, you play the man, not the country. A juggernaut can be devastating, but an England-France or England-Germany can be just as good in the early game. Honestly, the only relationship that's a bit harder to get going in the first 3-4 years is Austria/Italy, and even that can be done.

In the mid-game, a juggernaut is just as vulnerable as any other alliance to stabs. It depends on the trust the players have built, the contingencies that both of them have established to prevent a stab, and the like. Again, it will depend on the overall layout of the board, what's happening in the Med and the west, but most of all it will depend on the two players in question. Just like any other alliance, really. The only tactical difference is that fleets can be built north and south, but you can do that in the mid-game with a Germany/Italy partnership or an England/France one or several others. It's overrated as a difference maker as compared to the actual people behind the screen.

Good point, Kochevnik. Personalities matter, as much if not more, as tactics and position.

I want return to this discussion after a game I am in gets a little farther along because there are two RT juggernauts; classic and slingshot.

Slingshot juggernaut?

Google it

"People often confuse a Juggernaut with a simple RT"

I thought juggernaut was the name for the RT alliance. The other name that I know of is Steamroller. This is the first I have heard that Russia must open to the North.

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/juggernaut.htm

In this article, "Driving the juggernaut", Stephen Agar, mentions various openings.

How to deal with a Juggernaut?

England and Italy will want to split that alliance up VERY much so they can ally with Russia.

France and Italy will want the same thing for the same reason. But if France is leaning pro-Turkish, the move will be F/G/T.

So what happens when you get an E/I/R versus an F/G/T? No Juggernaut and a dead Austria.

@AWB That's one of hundreds of possible scenarios, what's your point?

@Largeham: Must've been said before.
'Slingshot juggernaut'? Good name for a band.

The point is, there are ways of dealing with Juggernauts that don't involve turning your back to France.

Juggernauts (and by this I simply mean a strong RT alliance; your definition, TruNinja, is not one I use nor have I heard) truly are dangerous and should be stopped immediately *only* if you are certain people, namely, Austria and Germany.

England and France benefit, and can form a sort of "reverse juggernaut" against Germany while RT take the south.

Italy can go either way, either fearing being trampled after Austria or getting in on Austria and hoping later on to break up the RT alliance.

That's my opinion on it.

However just because Russia and Turkey ally, as you rightly point out, doesn't mean Austria, Germany, or Italy are screwed, nor does it mean EF will happen.

If one of the two partners is shitty for some reason, either by playing badly or being too selfish to their partner, the alliance will collapse.

This is most often the case in one of two ways in my experience:

1) Russia eats up most of the growth and by mid-game Turkey is at about 2/3 Russia's strength - this leads to a schism either because an arrogant Russia decides to stab Russia or because a disgruntled Turkey decides to try to even out the bargain by force.

2) Russia is engaged on too many fronts at once (usually when England moves on StP or if he is bounced at Sweden) and begins to collapse - Turkey will usually abandon the alliance and attempt to recover Sev, Rum, both, or even more.

I'm not married to juggernauts but they do tend to be a solid alliance just because Austria truly is so shitty.

Unless Austria is a wily, creative player, there isn't much good reason for either R or T to ally with him, because uncreative and untrusting Austrias usually kill Turkey once Russia is weak because he is behind them, or, after splitting Turkey with Russia, feel threatened by him and attack. Or finally Austria is simply attack from the north or west, and is a useless partner, condemning his ally to stalemate in their war.

My $0.02

an arrogant Russia decides to stab Turkey*, obviously

I find myself going along with this trend too. I will shout "Juggernaut" to the high heavens, but only to achieve a result that benefits me. If I'm england and there's an E/F against me, I'll shout and shout and shout some more just to get Germany to start peeling units away to the east, or if I'm France and need an excuse to move into the Med (I recently did this in a game) I'll help form a Juggernaut so I can "reinforce" the Italian fleets, stab for Tunis and the comfortably start stabbing my way north to hopefully get the solo.

I'll admit that my Juggernaut definition is a bit narrow, but there ought to be more of a clear line. After all, there are any number of alliances that are equally strong, but not too many people stress about those.

I guess, ultimately, I'm simply trying to dispel a myth. While I love the intrigue, I find that it's getting harder and harder to play Turkey and everyone begins fighting for Austrian affections. What's she got? Geez...dress a woman in red and the others go crazy.

I have noticed in games that people are only too eager, even if they are countries that could possibly reap benefits from the juggernaut, to do anything to stop it. Because of this overreaction I feel that the juggernaut is overrated. As Russia I always feel some pressure to stay away from the juggernaut as not provote a world wide vendetta.

I've definitely noticed that spreading fear of a juggernaut forces one into existence.

As France, I want juggernauts to happen so E/G don't pile me, so that Italy is busy in the south, etc. If Russia goes down quickly, it's never a good idea.

Alliances of different flavors fall in and out of favor on this site. When one is particularly widespread, a thread is started in which many discuss the merits of said alliance. Once it was the Juggernaut. Then it was Austria-Turkey. Then it was England-France. Then it was Italy-Austria. Then it was France-Italy. Then it was England-Germany. Now it is again the Juggernaut. Each has their place in the cycle, and the cycle repeats infinitely...

"I'll admit that my Juggernaut definition is a bit narrow, but there ought to be more of a clear line. After all, there are any number of alliances that are equally strong, but not too many people stress about those."

juggernaut is any R-T alliance, but a good Juggernaut, ie one to be feared will make some specific moves in order to take the west by surprise... germany rarely expects warsaw - sil/pru;

alternatively england doesn't like it when russia opens with moscow - stp; thereby threatening norway.

There may be some very good openings, depending on whether england usually opens north (and thus takes norway anyway) or germany arranges a bounce with russia (which i haven't seen here in a long long time)

The name juggernaut holds more power than the alliance it stands for. Which is why people use it... though in my current game... welll you can see for yourself, just don't talk about it...

Perhaps the rare thing about the Juggernaut is that you automatically pick up France as an ally. So you think you're fighting two nations, but you're actually fighting three?