If I am Austria and Italy stabs me in 1901, there is asbolutely no way italy is surviving that game, plain and simple. I will support Turkey into every centre that i own and watch as Italy fades equally fast as I do. Sorry to the western powers for taking away solo-chances from you as at this stage only Turkey can do it. Were you happy with your choice, Austria?

I will also say that I have more gunboat solos with italy than any other power. In none of these have I stabbed Austria before 1903. Usually 1903-1905 is your only chance to do it, otherwise it will be too late.

As Austria in gunboat at this point I almost always open VIE-TYR. The crusher opening si hugely popular right now and I am doing everything I can to try and limit its uses. it throws games right out of balance right from the get-go, and is not as good for Italy as most of you think.

good, now we know your stragedy, Lando ...

I think that still validates my argument that the Italy/Austria relationship is the most unique for any bordering country on the board. If France takes Munich in F1901, Germany can easily recover and still solo, the same goes for England taking Brest, Germany grabbing Paris or Marseilles, or France grabbing London. Those are by no means crippling blows. But if you're Austria, and you lose Trieste or Vienna in 1901 to Italy or Budapest to Russia, you might as well hold that grudge, because its the most satisfaction you'll get out of the game.

Also, Lando's strategy is the natural evolution of the game. As soon as one country starts to favor a particularly effective opening, other players will find ways of negating that advantage.

I disagree that Russia in BUD is a game-ruiner. You can always come back since Russia can be so easily knocked elsewhere.

I also don't think that an Italian stab kills your game earlier. I always remember a game where Eden was Italy and I was Austria, he went right for me really hard. I just stopped thinking about anything else and defended him. He disbanded a unit thatc ould retreat. I knew he understood and we subsequently went and formed an alliance that lasted until the end of the game.

I think too often Italy cannot see a mistake when he has made one - the move to TYR and subsequently against Austria can work in rare instances, but when Austria defends properly, a smart Italy can move to re-adjust and both can continue the game with good chances.

Balkans gambit seems rather risky to me, yet many austrias i have seen in full press try it and lose little.

The problem, for austria, is not i think turkey and russia working together but that even if turkey invades russia in '01 and continues a true assault; once the south of russia is dealt with turkey is coming for austrian centers.

Italy on the other hand has a choice of allies, can wipe out austria and then decide which of russia and turkey to ally itself with. Or if they become busy fighting each other ignore both and head north/west...

I've had that experience as well, but I've also had experiences where I successfully defend an Italian stab and they just keep trying until France gets big enough to take Tunis and move into Piedmont. I've also seen and played too many Italys that try the Lepanto and fail to make any headway in Turkey since the move is so obvious and easily defended. I just don't see the benefit in committing three units in an attempt to get Smyrna that results in a solo half as much as an Italian stab. If the Lepanto fails, it's difficult to change your approach midgame. If the Austrian stab fails (unless Lando is Austria), at least you've got two armies in an easily changed position.

Ever heard of Chainsaw Diplomacy? If not, you should read this: http://devel.diplom.org/Zine/W1998A/Windsor/Chainsaw.html

@2ndwhite - can you do an engaging analysis of Eng v Turk over on vdip too?

high five though bro, that first seven paragraph post is the stuff we Diplomacy geeks live for, love it

"If the Lepanto fails, it's difficult to change your approach midgame." I disagree with this as well. I think the lepanto bounce then a move to AEG sets up a great take on GRE, which is truly the most important centre for italy. With an army in Greece, Italy will win out the east every time.

Yeah, it's a slow morning at work. If I devoted that level of energy to this final paper staring at me on my other screen as I did to that breakdown, I'd be done with this damn graduate program already.

EvT analysis: P(E victory): 1, unless E = idiot, although we don't play EvT nearly enough for me to prove that hypothesis :)

I think Italy attacking Austria in 1901 is a pretty bad idea.
If Austria is competent he will throw everything against Italy until he backs off which means Italy doesn't get anything out of it before Turkey wipes the floor with Italy.

2WL made a convincing case for *starting off* by attacking Austria, I think. You don't even necessarily have to succeed; the mere attack itself will have Austria on plan B for the rest of the game and at least cut down Austria's solo chances, which is the key point behind attacking Austria in the first place. But you needn't stick with that - as Lando already recounted, he and I have an excellent game somewhere (which I might be able to dig up) that demonstrates the old axiom about Italy is still true: be flexible. Go for the attack - it's a good strat - but if Austria blocks you, and manages to defend itself for a little bit, own up to your gambit's failure and work it out.

And yes, EvT analysis should conclude PE victory = 1. ;)

EvT, now we're talking... wait, is it really a cake walk for E? i didn't think so. i'm sure i've lost as either E or T... what would bring some balance?

Turkey starting with a fleet in Smyrna would level the playing field tremendously.

@2ndWhiteLine - Regarding your original post, that seems decent analysis and good writing. I suppose I'd say that I agree with or wouldn't want to contest most of what you've written, save for one point, that a powerful Austria will eventually need Italian centers to solo.

The thing is, there are many more than 18 centers available outside of Italian territory. There are something like 25 centers available even assuming that Italy gets Tunis and expects Italy to stay out of the French provinces, fully 7 more than would be needed even to solo.

Too many players, IMHO, base early strategies in the game upon wild projections about how the end game is likely to play out, projections that tend not to amount to much as gameplay progresses. These same players have ignored broad categories of opportunity for strictly irrational reasons, and have squandered considerable resources to block unlikely threats.

The other implication is that players must take as sacrosanct a dogma that one must invade one's closest neighbors in order. Just to be honest, if one is at one's last day of summer camp playing a live FtF game with some compatriots that one is unlikely ever to see again, then yes scooping up a bunch of points in an extreme hurry is no less an unreasonable goal than the other sort of shenanigans that are likely to accompany sophomoric play.

Basically, what I'm alluding is that any two countries on the board can ally with each other, and with only two or three exceptions any two countries may reasonably conduct war against each other. Sure, some targets may be attacked with greater logistic ease than others. But think about it. Imagine if the United States had, at the outset of the war on Terror, invaded Canada for the reason that Afghanistan is "too far away" or if Ireland attacked England right in the middle of the Olympic games for the simple reason that "England is close by and likely to attack us if we don't attack them."

The unfortunate side effects of these lines of thinking is that they make the game less interesting. If strategies are all cut and dry, then the game of Diplomacy becomes what scientists would refer to as a "closed field," which would be no more exciting than a game of tic-tact-to. Without trans-oceanic attack or region-spanning invasions, Diplomacy becomes much more like another popular board game, Risk, which I think most of us would acknowledge to be a drastically inferior game.

The start of the game is really too soon to begin planning end game necessities - indeed if you already feel by 1902 that a certain country needs to be taken out for security reasons merely by virtue of the geometry of it's starting territories, this does in fact fly in the face of the spirit of the game.

Sure, a game where one negotiates a fairly complex standoff with a powerful neighbor does require a bit more effort than an attack, and an invasion of a distant country may actually extend the game time by 10% or so. But players wanting a quick match are better of playing something like the video game "Command And Conquer" or Diablo III. Indeed, quick matches were the reason that real-time strategy games were invented.

Additionally, even phrases like "Juggernaut", etc. represents what a media analyst would refer to as FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. What I'm saying is that if you're playing a Diplomacy match and someone warns you of the (Russia-Turkey alliance) Juggernaut, they are either trying to irrationally scare you or they themselves are quite feeble-minded and superstitious. Labeling countries with fear-terms is not conducive to skilled play and represents an attempt, usually, of a smart player to manipulate (and insult the intelligence of) a weaker player.

In conclusion, what I mean to point out is that many of the statistics are meaningless. If Italy and Germany want to ally, there is no reason they cannot profitably do so. If Italy wants to attack England, given a little patience, there is no reason this cannot be successful. I hate to put words in antibody's mouth, but I have a hard time as envisioning Kissinger as not being disappointed by game-play during which all options are not on the table. Forming preconceived notions about which countries can or cannot ally safely is not conducive to competitive play. I hope that you will agree that the game of Diplomacy is more fun if all options are left on the table.

I once saw Italy open their fleet TYS-WMS-MAO-IRI-LVP in order, they successfully took LVP.

Al - the beauty is it only takes one person thinking dynamically to get the game away from the cookie-cutter jugg vs. CT vs. E/F.

Al, I'm just calling it like I see it. I think a discussion like this is a great way to get rid of a lot of the 'preconceived notions' about the game and to spark discussion about different approaches to the same game. For example, next time I play Italy, I'm totally going to take Liverpool. Why not? I've got a bunch of strategies in my back pocket I want to try out, except I usually play gunboat out of convenience and I rarely get the country I was hoping for.

I think you'll all agree that it's easy to get stuck in a rut in this game, especially when you play a lot of gunboat. In a recent live game as France, I was considering a relatively crazy (for me) opening, but I instead went with the standard MAO, Burgundy, Marseilles support to Burgundy opening because shit, it's gunboat and I'm France. I ended up winning, but that's beside the point.

I played a FP game not too long ago as Italy with Eden as Germany. He opened Munich-Burgundy (Germany wasn't the brightest player) and I opened Alpine Chicken, but in the fall, he supported me to Marseilles and France was gone in three years. It was a hell of a lot of fun and the two of us ended up drawing with Russia.

Unfortunately, you don't always play with players of Eden or Lando's caliber. The vast, vast majority of players on here are idiots. I won't name names (insert Zmaj joke here), but in Diplomacy, most good players have a certain sense of what works and what doesn't. There is a kind of thrill involved in trying something new that works, but more often than not, it doesn't. Besides, fun and failure both start out the same way. Certain approaches to the game have become the standard because they are effective. Before I joined this site, I never would have dreamed of bouncing Russia in Sweden, but it works well enough to become a given in most games. If Italy and Germany want to ally, that's great, go ahead and do it and you'll probably be better off. I was. Eden was. In my original post, the preconceived notion was that Italy and Austria HAVE to work together. In my experience playing Italy here, I've taken a step back and said "wait a minute, there's really no need to work with him." In general, I've been better off as Italy for it.

The bottom line, though, is that Diplomacy is always changing because it's a game played by humans with the ability to talk and reason and think. What works one day is probably not going to work the next day. I'd venture that Lando's opening of Trieste-Venice will probably become pretty standard over time on this site, just as the number of Obrianis have increased. There aren't many constants about Diplomacy, and it's a beautiful thing.

@ President Eden: You said: "Go for the attack - it's a good strat - but if Austria blocks you, and manages to defend itself for a little bit, own up to your gambit's failure and work it out. "

I have to disagree with you there. Sure attacking Austria right off the bat *can* be a good strat. But I disagree with the part where you're suggesting it's the way to go.

There can't really be a discussion there for me, as there are no context to a game, so all of this is speculation, what we're talking here, except those that have put concrete games where a specific move was good.

Briefly, I think what resumes my thoughts is: "Always put Diplomatic considerations in front of Tactical considerations". That is the heart of the game IMHO and there can't (or shouldn't) be only one way to play your country.

Attacking Austria in S01 or not... There's too much *what ifs* in my own opinion.
What if:
-Austria is the one you feel is the most genuine and trustwrthy on the map?
-You understand that Turkey is lying to you, and Russia is not someone you want to ally with?
-England is sending you genuine press, and E, A and you are having solid talks through the first round?
-There's a 3VF scenario shaping up, and you get along well with Germany?
-*Insert your favorite "what if" question here*

Although, if you were mentionning this regarding a gunboat game, I agree that you can do the same opening every single game, as there are no pre-game talks (well... never!) in a GB.

Those were my 2 cents...

VIE-TYR not TRI-VEN, don't want to give up chances on Greece, right?

Traditionally, people have placed huge importance on opening moves. A quick google search and you will pages and pages on each of the different openings, when to use, when not to, etc. I think this is mostly bullshit. The essays likely appropriately described why it can work, what beenfit it might have - but is any opening really better? I would say no.

I think that a good player can make any reasonable opening work. I have seen England accidentally bounce in NTH and do OK in the game. Likewise, I have seen Germany open aggressively against Austria and make it work. It all depends on appropriately understanding your opponents and then appropriately usign that information or influencing it.

Lando I think it's worse to let Russia into Galicia than Italy into Tyrolia to be honest.

I disagree, Russia cannot build in GAL or RUM so the odds of him keeping BUD or VIE assuming he does take one are lower than the odds of Italy keepign TRI. Also, a Russian who ends up in GAL is not necessairly anti-Austria. That is a neutral Russian opening and the lack of bounce may even motivate him to be pro-austria. On the other hand, Italy moving to TYR and VEN is unambiguously anti-AH.

I agree with Lando, an Italy in Tyrolia poses a significantly bigger threat than Russia in Galicia. It's no bigger threat than France moving to Marseilles is to Germany.

*Burgundy

I agree with this. Similar to England opening to ENG, not worth it for France to cover BRE in 1901 as it will always be re-attainable in 1902. Might as well cede BEL to G and move to PIC. Then build in PAR and push for it with all three units.

First off, I think people are discussing two different games here - diplomacy and gunboat.
; )

But kidding aside, I find that my willingness as Italy to attack Austria has so much to do with Russia. I think an Italian/Turkish alliance might be the most unnatural (I'm not saying impossible - before people jump down my throat with beautiful examples of IT alliances) on the board so having some confidence in a receptive Russia is key.

Furthermore, like was said, if you don't have help to quickly dispose of Austria and France gets an idle fleet you really just take one step forwards to take two steps back.

I think I/T is one of the most effective alliances on the board. However, it is so effective that it succeeds so quickly that it is doomed to fall apart within like 5 years when the whole east is conquered.

It is almost as good as E/R

I just find it so difficult not to trip over each other that as italy I would not have much faith in allying with turkey after Austria is disposed of.

Well, I like it is the most effective way to get rid of Austria and control the south/east in an alliance. I also like it because Ionian is safe as Italian, Turkey cannot build fleets on its border so there is no risk of him forcing it (he lies and builds a fleet Italy can likely move to hold this line.

There is obviously opportunities to stab on both sides, but it is no weight in favour of either - another good thing in an alliance.

They can even keep it going as Turkey moves into Russia and Northern Austria while Italy moves after France.

On the same token, I believe whatever someone wrote above - any alliance can be amde to work.

@Yonni: true that having Russia as an ally, being Italy, is deadly and clearly one of the best scenario for you if you are Italy. But again, there's too many factors to consider outside of this alliance. Funnily, while I really think IR is the strongest alliance to have being Italy, I never ended up allying with Russia because I never clicked with the one who was playing it.

Talking about factors we have to consider, I remember that one time where I was Russia and I considered Germany being my long term ally from the beginning, but it all changed when he stabbed me after some years... Oh, wait! I think I'm posting in the wrong thread here, right?!? ;)

haha, yeah, both GR and IR make for pretty strong alliances. I guess the only thing to take from those scenarios is that you can't keep an alliance ; ).

@Lando
No, I agree. Some of my most enjoyable games are the least conventional.

@2ndWhiteLine
No, I agree. Any discussion forum such as the one we're posting on is bound to attract gossip, and certainly gaming strategy is the sort of gossip that's most interesting to game aficionados. I cared enough about the subject matter enough to click on your post, and I was interested enough in what I read to take the time to respond. Your post is certainly a lot more engaging than most of the political discussions, IMHO.

Going back to an earlier point about the vast amount of publications regarding opening strategy. While I agree that the first two or three years are hardly a reliable measure of end-game performance, I think it's so deeply discussed because it is the only time in the game when board positions are predictable.

It's much easier to speak in-depth about where to put pieces in the first couple years because the game always starts identically and there are relatively few deviations and circumstances to consider. Discussing the transition from mid-game to end-game may be the most impactful way to contribute significantly to one's ability, but even by the time a game gets to '05 or '06 there are so many factors and possibilities to consider that most of the topic is subjective guidelines and best practices. Practically the only concrete advice for end-game play is regarding the construction and nullification of stalemate lines.