My playstyle doesn't seem to fit western nations...

[dijonandme]

I seem to play better with Austria or Russia than France, England, and even Germany at times (when I'm playing with people that aren't new to the game). I honestly think it's because I prefer highly aggressive openings and have an "instigative" negotiation style. It just seems commitment isn't wise with the western triangle. I always wind up being the odd one out in a few turns. Any ideas how I can improve myself in this area?

[Machiara]

You have to conform your playstyle to the country you're playing and to the players you're playing. What do you mean by "instigative"? That you attack early? For France and Germany especially that has an opportunity cost, since both of them have two centers that are pretty much theirs for the taking absent foreign interference.

A lot of French and German players are reluctant to commit early (since they can play the wait-and-see game while getting centers) so they might not appreciate you pushing them into doing something before they're ready. Early attacks can work but both sides need to be on board.

[Olive Branch]

With France, England, Germany, Russia and Turkey I have set patterns that I tend to follow every game (specific to those countries) - so long as the country(/ies) I wish to ally with buy into my proposition. When I'm Italy or Austria it depends more so on the other players - there are far more options. For sure, you have to change your tack depending on the country you play. That said, I'm a very loyal ally, whichever country I'm playing as, so as long as I can find a similarly minded player then I'm set. I'm never overtly aggressive towards another country without confidence I have the support of a mutual neighbour... (Of course, you cannot always be sure that that confidence is well-placed!) Perhaps if you're struggling, you should try to be less cavalier in your approach to the game!

[dijonandme]

What do you mean by "instigative"? That you attack early?

Yes, I generally do attack early - but by "instigative" I meant trying to convince my neighbors to attack EACH OTHER early. Then I either jump in alongside whoever (my usual strategy), or use the war to cover myself while I deal with a neighbor I'm completely unsure of (alternate strategy).

So, this is no good in the west early on no?

[Olive Branch]

What do you mean by "instigative"? That you attack early?

Yes, I generally do attack early - but by "instigative" I meant trying to convince my neighbors to attack EACH OTHER early. Then I either jump in alongside whoever (my usual strategy), or use the war to cover myself while I deal with a neighbor I'm completely unsure of (alternate strategy).

So, this is no good in the west early on no?

Well, I think the point you're trying to make in the OP is that no, this is no good... or at least it's not working for you! I don't think you can ever say a particular style or tactic is universally flawed, it always depends on your allies. For me though, if you're asking me to be your ally, then pushing me against another country without providing assistance yourself, I'm not going to like that!

[Nanook]

What do you mean by "instigative"? That you attack early?

Yes, I generally do attack early - but by "instigative" I meant trying to convince my neighbors to attack EACH OTHER early. Then I either jump in alongside whoever (my usual strategy), or use the war to cover myself while I deal with a neighbor I'm completely unsure of (alternate strategy).

So, this is no good in the west early on no?

There's no reason that strategy is less likely to work in the West than in the East...the problem is, in the West you kind of have to take a side quicker than in the East, especially if you're playing Germany. You don't necessarily have to stick to that side, you can play kinetically if you want to or the opportunity is there, but because it's so difficult to root out both France and England...if you don't pick a side as Germany, it kind of sends a message to both of them that you're not really interested in allying with them, you're only interested in them fighting. Same thing if you're E/F, if you're not picking a side in 1902, then Germany isn't going to be very happy with you cause a smart Germany knows that attacking either of E/F on their own isn't usually going to be very effective.

So yeah, it's a little harder to pull off...but it can be done for sure. Germany, especially, always wants to stay in motion--a Germany that isn't moving is usually a Germany in trouble. So you can make it work--the West is the same as anywhere else, really, you play the people more than you play the powers, but you have to keep in mind what people's expectations for powers are.

[Zosimus]

I don't see why you can't be instigative with France. Just tell both England and Germany that you are not going for Belgium and invite them both to have it, if they please. This usually results in a German-England standoff over Belgium. Then you can take sides comfortable in the two neutrals you picked up. I usually pick this tactic if I'm pro-Germany.

If I'm anti-German, I just ask for a bounce in Burgundy and play Marseilles-Burgundy (for the bounce), Paris-Picardy (to have a say in Belgium) and Brest-MAO (to get Portugal). Germany basically gets no say over who gets Belgium, I get my two neutrals, and if England is feeling particularly frisky, he may bounce Germany out of Holland. Nasty for Germany.