.

[LordDwia]

.

[condude1]

Interesting.. probably a niche situation, but how does a Russian BLA s Arm-Ank impact this? It's not the hardest self-bounce to predict.

[LordDwia]

An interesting side line!

The parallel to a Piedmont-Marseilles situation with french armies in Burgundy and Spain is obvious, but the crucial difference is the situation of the black sea fleet:

When it's an Italian army doing it in Piedmont, there's no risk in choosing to guess the self-standoff -- it's no worse than a hold. In the Black Sea situation, Sevastopol stands open. Suddenly a guess on the support is doubly as risky -- risk leaving the enemy center open for a build AND risk losing the home center --- also, F Bla is no longer available to support Ukr -> Rum (or vice versa) to keep Turkey out of Rumania.

In the event that Russia chooses this route, they come into spring 1902 with Sevastopol STILL open, and now threatened by the army in Rumania. True, there's no second fleet to contend with, but Turkey can build a fleet in Smyrna, and simply use that new threat to support Con-> Bul from Rum (if Rum is dislodged, it can retreat to Sevastopol!), while moving a new fleet from Smy to Con with support from Ank. Delays the inevitable by a season, while actually giving Russia LESS chance of picking up a center.

Still, I would probably try it with Russia in that situation. Good eye!

[lb1785]

Thanks for sharing, that looks interesting as a 1901 tactical arrangement. When I looked at the following map, I started to have serious objections about what could happen in 1902 though:

Take a look at this slow-motion catastrophe:

https://imgur.com/a/VwESA

No builds for Russia, Austria is STILL completely safe, and Turkey now owns the Black Sea. The secret to the success of the alliance in 1902 is simple:

1. The Turkish army in Rumania needs to be supported into Galicia by the Austrian armies in Vienna and Budapest right away --- to extend the flank to the left, and prevent that army's destruction from the triple Russian attack incoming while still allowing A Con -> Bud.

2. Turkey must play to destroy the Russian fleet rather than to take Sevastopol by the end of the year. Usually, both can be accomplished by the end of 1903.

The end of Russia is inevitable at this point, and other powers will smell blood. Expect England to go all out to take StP -- it's over for the Bear already.

Let me explain: you are assuming that the alliance structure in the East will not react to the situation you are depicting here at the end of W01. Actually, if I'm Italy and I see a board like this, I knock at Austria's door and tell him that I'm pissed by his two F Tri -Ven moves in '01, and that at least one of three things will happen in 1902:
- Italy gets a free shot at taking Greece, remains neutral in the AT vs R conflict
- Italy starts going Lepanto-like (F Nap-ION, F ION goes to either AEG or EMS, but I would personally choose AEG), the East becomes an RI vs AT war
- Austria stabs Turkey, and AIR gangs up on Turkey
Actually, depending on S02 moves Italy is free to remain ambiguous about which alliance structure he favors until F02 orders are resolved, so the three choices can more or less be recombined depending on the situation. Whatever happens next, I don't think Turkey can really go all-out to the North under such an Italian threat/proposal.

Now, before you offer me a counterargument about France coming after Italy in case Italy heads East, I'll state again that the picture you uploaded involves 2 French fleets in the Med, which means you are assuming some sort of EF alliance, or at least neutrality with a lot of goodwill on both parts: that's the best possible case for AT, when England can focus on Northern Russia while France keeps Italy busy. Even in that case, by reaching out to Germany and showing him how E and F seem to get along great together, Italy can give an incentive to Germany to advance towards France, thus preventing France from going all out on him and buying himself time to mess up with Turkey.

tl; dr : It can work in 1902, but only under some diplomatic landscape that the AT alliance needs to nurture. The best possible case for this AT would be E vs R conflict, EF alliance or neutrality, and no RI. The worst case for AT would be something like a strong FG getting ready for an attack on E, G having let R into Swe in F01, and RI getting along well in 1901 already.

[DQ]

What if I were to tell you that there are a sequence of moves, which, if played by two of the powers, virtually guarantee their place in a finish? Would you believe me? Maybe you're wondering which two powers I mean. "Sea-Lion", some of you are saying. "Juggernaut", others. The obvious answers are wrong, however. We're talking today about the most overpowered alliance in the game: "The Austro-Turkish Double Hedgehog"

There is merit and some truth to the arguments here. However. What I have to say next is pretty negative in places, so apologies - I do think there are things here worth discussing, and appreciate you taking the time to bring this up, as I love the A/T Alliance!

Essentially, I read your argument as "If one person is moving six pieces, they have a tremendous advantage over two people moving three pieces each." That's great and I'm sure it will work against sub-par players. But the instant Austria supports Bulgaria to Rumania, any competent players know what is going on, and will adjust their play accordingly. Then your advantage - total coordination - fails in the face of overwhelming force.

I'd actually expect a Western triple to form (much the same way one might in response to a juggernaut) in response to such an opening, and if you have German armies and French fleets on your side of the board in 1903, you're not going to be the one's taking Warsaw, much less Tunis. Turkey will probably be ok in this scenario, but Austria is toast. The English player who runs in on St.Pete (alone, or while embroiled in some sort of western conflict) when Russia is getting clobbered in the south gets what they deserve, I think - though I will grant you that far too many players will make that mistake, thinking "it is only 1902/3, what's the worst that can happen?"

How does the alliance deal with Italy supporting Apulia to Venice, while taking Tunis with the fleet, and building a second fleet? Even a convoy to Tunis + F Naples (unlikely given the Austrian hedgehog, IMO, but for the sake of argument) means that no one is contesting Ionian -> Aegean, which any sensible Italian is going to order.

Hah, I see that @lb1785 has posted most of this already.

tl;dr, I love the Austro/Turkish alliance, it can be one of the strongest on the board (ability to apply force together to two separate theaters and then go their own way without stepping on toes, more or less). IMO This isn't how you run one against real (or at least competent) players.

/edit for content, didn't read closely enough the first time. If I am Russia I am FAR less concerned about Fleet Armenia.

[Radical Pumpkin]

A minor friendly ammendment: A Smy-Arm, F Ank-Con on the first move seems superior to me. The army is more threatening to Sev, and the fleet in Con helps defuse any threats from Italy. Plus there's some diplomatic advantage, since the moves can potentially be passed off to Russia as interest in a Jug (with some insurance). Or passed off to Germany as a Russian stab after a planned S01-out-of-the-gates Jug (and so Turkey is odd one out in the East and Sweden should get bounced, especially if Austria says they're OK with that).

[LordDwia]

A minor friendly ammendment: A Smy-Arm, F Ank-Con on the first move seems superior to me. The army is more threatening to Sev, and the fleet in Con helps defuse any threats from Italy. Plus there's some diplomatic advantage, since the moves can potentially be passed off to Russia as interest in a Jug (with some insurance). Or passed off to Germany as a Russian stab after a planned S01-out-of-the-gates Jug (and so Turkey is odd one out in the East and Sweden should get bounced, especially if Austria says they're OK with that).

You are correct.

[DirtyHarry]

The English player who runs in on St.Pete (alone, or while embroiled in some sort of western conflict) when Russia is getting clobbered in the south gets what they deserve, I think - though I will grant you that far too many players will make that mistake, thinking "it is only 1902/3, what's the worst that can happen?"

Hey DQ - it sounds like what you are saying is that if Russia is being hammered from the south early, then England should not attack St. Pete? If I've got that part right, then can you explain to us relative noobs why you consider this to be a mistake?

[LordDwia]

The English player who runs in on St.Pete (alone, or while embroiled in some sort of western conflict) when Russia is getting clobbered in the south gets what they deserve, I think - though I will grant you that far too many players will make that mistake, thinking "it is only 1902/3, what's the worst that can happen?"

Hey DQ - it sounds like what you are saying is that if Russia is being hammered from the south early, then England should not attack St. Pete? If I've got that part right, then can you explain to us relative noobs why you consider this to be a mistake?

Well, the Norway-stP corridor can end up as a cul-de-sac -- if occupied with a fleet, it can end up taking as many units to hold as you get from it. So you're not really getting any unit growth out west.

[Machiara]

The English player who runs in on St.Pete (alone, or while embroiled in some sort of western conflict) when Russia is getting clobbered in the south gets what they deserve, I think - though I will grant you that far too many players will make that mistake, thinking "it is only 1902/3, what's the worst that can happen?"

Hey DQ - it sounds like what you are saying is that if Russia is being hammered from the south early, then England should not attack St. Pete? If I've got that part right, then can you explain to us relative noobs why you consider this to be a mistake?

Here's my take on why that can often be a mistake. When you're looking at launching an attack, the question is not only what you will gain from it, but what other powers can gain from it and what you might lose from it.

What can you lose? Well, let's say that Russia has three units. Those three units are involved defending himself from Austria and Turkey. What does that mean for England? Well, it means that you have a quiescent eastern/northern front since the last thing Russia will want to do is to initiate hostilities with yet another power. You might not even have to garrison, depending on the situation.

But let's say you grab St.P, what happens then? Russia likely falls and then you are looking at an avaricious Austria and Turkey heading north and east. Now, you can hold St.P against the south so it's not always a bad idea but you're freeing up a lot of Turkish and Austrian units to do other things and giving Austria/Turkey twice the number of centers you're getting. It's possible the diplomatic situation warrants this, but often it won't.