Opening Strategy

[Zosimus]

Zosimus, what do you say to an English-French alliance, where France lets England have Brest in exchange for Belgium? The benefit for England being no northern French fleets, and for France a faster advance into Germany. And no wasteful quarrels about ECH for both.

Yes, I've read about the idea. The thought is that by giving Brest to England, England can be assured that France will never stab him and that by taking Brest with a fleet, France knows that England will never stab him.

The first and most obvious problem with the plan is that normally England has to open to NWG and NTH to ensure that he gets Norway over any possible Russian objections. This can be overcome by careful communication between England and Austria to ensure that AR will bounce in Galicia to start. Without that clearly set in stone, England is taking a great risk.

Presumably France will ask Germany for a bounce and then play Marseilles S Paris-Burgundy and the fleet to MAO planning on taking Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. This situation raises the possibility for two English stabs: One obvious and one not so obvious.

The not-so-obvious one is for England to tip off Germany and to tell him to open F. Kiel -> HOL, Berlin -> Kiel, and Munich -> Ruhr. Again, if France carelessly blabs his intentions, then England can tip off Germany and hold France to one build OR Germany can just support Ruhr into Belgium with F. Holland. Yes, France could take Munich, but he'll get evicted in S1902 and watch while German soldiers pour over the border -- perhaps some of them into Picardy with support from the English fleet in Brest.

The other, more obvious stab, is for England to tip off Germany and to tell Germany to play to Denmark, Kiel, and Ruhr like normal. Then the French 'bounce' doesn't keep Germany in Munich. Germany can then stand Russia out of Sweden while England convoys an army into Brest (surprise!) and if France carelessly blabs his plans about which of the two centers he is aiming for (Munich vs. Belgium) then England can leak this info to Germany and hold France to one build. Presumably England can get Norway in S1902 thanks to Germany's denying Sweden to Russia in 1901.

But the real problem comes from, I think, the nature of an EF alliance. If we define Germany as 6 centers (Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Munich, Kiel, Berlin) then naturally France is going to want his 'fair share' of Germany. That is to say, France wants 3 centers. The problem is that France usually gets Belgium and Munich while England gets Holland and Denmark. From that base, England is likely to pick up with Kiel and Berlin for himself. So England is already taking 4/6 of the centers -- throwing in Brest on top is really a lot to ask for -- at least from my point of view.

[Jack007]

Zosimus, what do you say to an English-French alliance, where France lets England have Brest in exchange for Belgium? The benefit for England being no northern French fleets, and for France a faster advance into Germany. And no wasteful quarrels about ECH for both.

Yes, I've read about the idea. The thought is that by giving Brest to England, England can be assured that France will never stab him and that by taking Brest with a fleet, France knows that England will never stab him.

The first and most obvious problem with the plan is that normally England has to open to NWG and NTH to ensure that he gets Norway over any possible Russian objections. This can be overcome by careful communication between England and Austria to ensure that AR will bounce in Galicia to start. Without that clearly set in stone, England is taking a great risk.

Presumably France will ask Germany for a bounce and then play Marseilles S Paris-Burgundy and the fleet to MAO planning on taking Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. This situation raises the possibility for two English stabs: One obvious and one not so obvious.

The not-so-obvious one is for England to tip off Germany and to tell him to open F. Kiel -> HOL, Berlin -> Kiel, and Munich -> Ruhr. Again, if France carelessly blabs his intentions, then England can tip off Germany and hold France to one build OR Germany can just support Ruhr into Belgium with F. Holland. Yes, France could take Munich, but he'll get evicted in S1902 and watch while German soldiers pour over the border -- perhaps some of them into Picardy with support from the English fleet in Brest.

The other, more obvious stab, is for England to tip off Germany and to tell Germany to play to Denmark, Kiel, and Ruhr like normal. Then the French 'bounce' doesn't keep Germany in Munich. Germany can then stand Russia out of Sweden while England convoys an army into Brest (surprise!) and if France carelessly blabs his plans about which of the two centers he is aiming for (Munich vs. Belgium) then England can leak this info to Germany and hold France to one build. Presumably England can get Norway in S1902 thanks to Germany's denying Sweden to Russia in 1901.

But the real problem comes from, I think, the nature of an EF alliance. If we define Germany as 6 centers (Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Munich, Kiel, Berlin) then naturally France is going to want his 'fair share' of Germany. That is to say, France wants 3 centers. The problem is that France usually gets Belgium and Munich while England gets Holland and Denmark. From that base, England is likely to pick up with Kiel and Berlin for himself. So England is already taking 4/6 of the centers -- throwing in Brest on top is really a lot to ask for -- at least from my point of view.

Okay, I would open like this:

France: MAO, Mar s Par-Bur. (The Burgundy opening, which as France I use always anyway, even when allying with Germany, despite what rd45 said here, but that's another story, we had already that discussion in our Fight Club game some time ago.)

England: ECH, NTH and York.

France hasn't really to fear an English army in Brest, because when he sees Liv-Wales, he already knows what's coming and can still bounce Brest, no other than he would have agreed DMZ ECH and England had stabbed.

For Germany it looks like England goes anti-French, and this error could be sustained till after the spring 1902 moves. Very sneaky, Germany cannot decide whether England is allied with him or with France. Of course, if France takes Munich in the fall 01, then things get clear sooner.

Now the fall 01 moves:
England: F Brest and A convoy to Norway.
France: F Por, A Spain and Bur either to Munich or Belgium.

If Germany has opened Den, and Ruhr is free (because he agreed a bounce in Bur), then France gets Belgium uncontested. If Germany went to Hol and Ruhr, then France can play Munich or Belgium, but I would prefer Munich. Chances are high that Germany would protect Munich, so he gets only Hol OR Bel, and Russia is in Sweden. Or he enforces Belgium, but then he could build only 2, too, as France sits in Munich, with 2 builds.

Then England helps France to Belgium in 1902 and has good chances for Denmark together with Russia. In any case devastating for Germany, imho.

Followed for France by Por-MAO, Spain-Gas, Par-Pic and [F Mar-Spain sc or A Mar-Bur or Mar empty] in 1902. And England has many options anyway.

You are right, there is the risk of a northern opening by Russia, but firstly the northern Russian is seen rarely nowadays, and secondly England might check for Galicia, as you stated to be a must for England anyway.

Of course, both of E and F can stab eachother. If England does, Germany would gladly take the option to ally with France after this start. And France would presumably be able to take back Brest with MAO, Gas and Paris (or Pic), and this without hurry. Anyway, the fleet in Brest hasn't much other functions than make sure France builds no northern fleet, so it's no real gain for England's fighting force.

And why should England ally with France, then stab him in 1902, instead of allying directly with Germany? Apart of any GF alliance having a hard time to take France out. England has more to fear from a GF junction, than France from a GE gang. So England hasn't really a motivation to stab France.

[Zosimus]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The thought was that England would open the army not to Wales but to York. It appears that he is going to convoy it to Norway and to take Brest with a fleet, as agreed. However, it is not impossible for England to convoy it to Brest all the time -- it will merely require two fleets rather than one. Sure, he gives up the immediate gain of Norway because he can't use both fleets to convoy AND get Norway. However, he may view it as a gamble worth taking -- especially if Germany can be persuaded to stand Russia out of Sweden.

And I don't think what you call the Burgundy opening (and what I have always known as the Maginot Defense) is that great. The benefit is putting Germany fully on the defensive and forestalling any Italian lunge in your direction. But surely an English invasion of the Channel is a far more common threat to defend against, and the Maginot Defense does nothing about that except to require that the fleet in Mao may have to slink back into Brest in Fall 1901.

Surely the same or better results can be obtained by asking Germany for a bounce in Burgundy and playing Marseilles-Burgundy and Paris-Picardy. If the English lunge into the Channel, you can either cover Brest with the Picardy army or double-bounce in Brest while Marseilles picks up Spain. Then you can build a fleet in Brest and punish England for his lunge in your direction.

In most games simply telling Germany that you accept his claim to Belgium and that you will not contest it in any way is enough to forestall any German attempt to move into Burgundy. Why would he do so when he can easily play Munich - Ruhr - Belgium? This usually results in both E and G standing each other out of Belgium and both of them appeal to you to back their claim. Diplomatically, you can hardly do better than that!

As I said, I prefer the Lisbon Leapfrog if I am pro-German. It is flexible enough to go pro-English if you change your mind. If you stay pro-German, then your fleet stays in MAO and is much better poised for an anti-English push. I have had some luck with MAO->NAO and BRE->MAO in S1902 and a later convoy of an army to Clyde or even Liverpool. If you are faced with an Italian lunge west, then Italy will find himself staring at an unmoved Marseilles. Yes, this opening can run into trouble if you are facing a determined Central Triple that decides to off France immediately, but this is unusual. Generally speaking, Germany pairs with France to kill England and then pairs with Italy to kill France as part of the CTA. It's just as effective at killing England as the Sea Lion is.

[rd45]

The Burgundy opening, which as France I use always anyway, even when allying with Germany, despite what rd45 said here, but that's another story, we had already that discussion in our Fight Club game some time ago.

omg was THAT what that whole thing was about? Christ. Now I have even more reason to dislike that opening. I wasn't even playing as Germany, ffs. Quickest way to make sure no-one in the west trusts each other even an inch. Result: Austrian solo. Who knew?

[Jack007]

@Zosimus:
Yes, I also like the Lisboa Heapfrog. It is so elegant and puts France into a very good shape. He has so many options subsequently. But, the big Achilles' heel of the Heapfrog is Burgundy. A Germany entering Burgundy in fall 1901 will seriously damage France. Yes, France can eventually get rid of this German thorn, but he needs almost all of his forces during several turns, all of his nice options and plans falling apart like a house of cards, and he loses many tempi, too hard to ever catch up again.

A German army in Burgundy is much more devastating for France than a French one is for Germany. Don't forget, Burgundy is French territory. Germany can simply sit in Munich and everything is fine and safe. As France I do never accept a Germany as my ally, who does not allow me moving around my units in my own country as I like.

You said that Germany naturally gets 3 builds, France 2, and England 1 in the first year. I don't agree to that. I would even go further and say, that when Germany has the choice between Belgium and Burgundy in the fall 1901, then Burgundy is the stronger move. Anyway, I know opinions differ on that.

Coming back to the agreed English Brest opening, from which I don't even know it's name. Okay, if you don't think like me, and you are willing to take the risk of an open Burgundy, then you can well go to Picardy instead of Burgundy. And Marseilles to Spain, or bouncing Burgundy in spring. Wouldn't change much, apart from the above said. (Picardy wouldn't bounce Brest if an English fleet there is agreed, of course.)

Then you said England can stab France by double convoying York to Brest. True theoretically, but that's imho a bit looked for specialities. Haven't met any England so far, being so courageous to content himself with one build in such a risky context.

[Zosimus]

So let me see whether I have this straight. You, as Germany, log into a brand new game and you have a letter from France offering an alliance. He says that he wants the two of you to kill England to start. He says that the split will be 50-50 — Belgium/Edinburgh for you and Liverpool/London for him. As a token of his good faith, he offers you Belgium from the start as a down payment on your alliance.

So you reply saying yes, but you also write to England to see what he's up to and you basically write to all the normal people. Then you log out.

Sometime later, you log back in. You have no message from England, but you have one from Russia and from France.

Russia says that France has already contacted him about going against England, and he would be very willing to relieve England of Norway so that the attack succeeds.

France says that it's all set up and ready to go. Russia has signed on. France is prepared to take on England. All you have to do is say yes and take Belgium, which France assures you is rightfully yours, and then build a fleet in Kiel like normal. The rest will fall naturally.

Do you mean to tell me that under those circumstances you would still open to Burgundy?

---------------------------------------
If you're really worried about Germany moving to Burgundy while playing the Lisbon Leapfrog, you can always ask Germany for a bounce in Burgundy. That will leave your unit safely in Marseilles, ready to take Spain, and defang Germany. It kind of defeats the point of the LL, though. If your plan is to attack England, why on Earth would you start by giving Belgium over to England?

----------------------------------------
As I said before, my fundamental reluctance to pair with England as France is the point that it's hard to manage an equal split of Germany. Too often I see England running off with Holland, Kiel, Belgium, and pushing for Berlin while France just gets Munich and Belgium. Worse yet, those two centers don't even touch, so you may well have to devote another unit to maintaining one or the other. Giving England Brest on top of that is just too much for me.

Plus, the technique for pulling it off is to ask for a bounce in Burgundy. Personally, I would never agree to that as Germany. Why should I bounce in Burgundy? This arrangement only benefits France. I'd much rather broker a DMZ in Galicia between Austria and Russia (Austria will be relieved) and tell Russia that I'll be glad to give him an uncontested Sweden if he opens Moscow north to St. Petersburg. Assuming Russia agrees, I can open Kiel->Holland, Berlin->Kiel, and Munich->Ruhr. The next turn, I can take Belgium by force, and get Holland and Denmark too. Sure, France may take Munich, but I'll still get two builds and evict him immediately.

[Jack007]

So let me see whether I have this straight. You, as Germany, log into a brand new game and you have a letter from France offering an alliance. He says that he wants the two of you to kill England to start. He says that the split will be 50-50 — Belgium/Edinburgh for you and Liverpool/London for him. As a token of his good faith, he offers you Belgium from the start as a down payment on your alliance.

So you reply saying yes, but you also write to England to see what he's up to and you basically write to all the normal people. Then you log out.

Sometime later, you log back in. You have no message from England, but you have one from Russia and from France.

Russia says that France has already contacted him about going against England, and he would be very willing to relieve England of Norway so that the attack succeeds.

France says that it's all set up and ready to go. Russia has signed on. France is prepared to take on England. All you have to do is say yes and take Belgium, which France assures you is rightfully yours, and then build a fleet in Kiel like normal. The rest will fall naturally.

Do you mean to tell me that under those circumstances you would still open to Burgundy?

As Germany no, I wouldn't go to Burgundy.

As France yes, and I would say it to Germany beforehand, that I'm going to deploy an army in Burgundy. Then I see how he reacts. If he protests, whines and claims not to, then he is probably not the right ally for me. Continuous fear of a German step into Burgundy is not at all trustbuilding for France, such as the GF-alliance will suffer substantially. Paradoxical as it may sound, a French army in Burgundy stabilizes the alliance. As mentioned before, Germany can simply let an army in Munich, if he is afraid of a French stab. Important is imho that the French army in Burgundy is announced beforehand and accepted by Germany. And if not, then you want to have an army in Burgundy anyway. I had to learn that the hard way, too many games as France completely got busted cause of Burgundy.

If you're really worried about Germany moving to Burgundy while playing the Lisbon Leapfrog, you can always ask Germany for a bounce in Burgundy. That will leave your unit safely in Marseilles, ready to take Spain, and defang Germany. It kind of defeats the point of the LL, though. If your plan is to attack England, why on Earth would you start by giving Belgium over to England?

The problem is not so much the spring, but the fall 1901. Apart of Germany might agree a bounce in spring and not do so, so the Leapfrog gets wrecked, leaving France in a bad position with an open Marseilles (imagine Italy moves Piedmont) and an army in Gascony.

You may break it to a simple formula: If the trust between France and Germany is very, very high, then the Lisboa Leapfrog is the way to go. If the trust between France and England is very, very high, then the English Brest opening is just great. But how often can you trust your partner enough already in the first move, that's why these are played rarely, I presume. Otherwise you go conventionally, means Sea Lion for GF, or Northern for E with Pic or Bur for F respectively. A German-English alliance needs Italy as a helper, otherwise it becomes a long and hard thing, and the game will mostly be lost against the southern powers, later.

Your question about Belgium: Belgium is in my opinion a "weak spot", of which the owners frequently change. As long as 3 powers border Belgium, it is not a stable center. So you can easily use it for trading, and this the better the more the others overestimate Belgium. So no problem to give Belgium to England in trade for any other "advantage". A good GF-alliance can get back Belgium easily later. Another GF advantage is that England has to bind units for Belgium's defence, which makes the GF attack even more efficient, if England falls into this trap.

As I said before, my fundamental reluctance to pair with England as France is the point that it's hard to manage an equal split of Germany. Too often I see England running off with Holland, Kiel, Belgium, and pushing for Berlin while France just gets Munich and Belgium. Worse yet, those two centers don't even touch, so you may well have to devote another unit to maintaining one or the other. Giving England Brest on top of that is just too much for me.

Plus, the technique for pulling it off is to ask for a bounce in Burgundy. Personally, I would never agree to that as Germany. Why should I bounce in Burgundy? This arrangement only benefits France. I'd much rather broker a DMZ in Galicia between Austria and Russia (Austria will be relieved) and tell Russia that I'll be glad to give him an uncontested Sweden if he opens Moscow north to St. Petersburg. Assuming Russia agrees, I can open Kiel->Holland, Berlin->Kiel, and Munich->Ruhr. The next turn, I can take Belgium by force, and get Holland and Denmark too. Sure, France may take Munich, but I'll still get two builds and evict him immediately.

Well, we need a name for the English Brest opening. I propose to name it the Celtic opening (from Brittany being one of the seven Celtic countries).

Now to the center distribution:
The agreement of the Celtic opening is no French fleets in the northern seas, and no English armies on the continent west of Denmark. So France gets Por, Spa, Bel, Hol, Mun. England takes Bre, Nor, Swe, Den, StP. The sequel could be for France Ber, War, then Austria. And for England Kiel, Mos, Sev. Or any variant of that. France hasn't to go to Italy till late, as he would need too many units for that. He can easily close the gate to the west with 2 fleets (MAO and Por resp. Spa sc) and an army Mar. For the endgame, France has even more prospects than England, but England can control him at the shore, so neither of the both gets tempted to long for the solo too much.

I think the Celtic is a very fast and safe game, provided the trust between England and France is high enough at the beginning.

[mhsmith0]

Germany: I want to ally and take down England
France: Great but I insist on getting into Burgundy, and I may or may not bother going to the channel

Germany (to England and/or Italy):

[Zosimus]

As France yes, and I would say it to Germany beforehand, that I'm going to deploy an army in Burgundy. Then I see how he reacts. If he protests, whines and claims not to, then he is probably not the right ally for me. Continuous fear of a German step into Burgundy is not at all trustbuilding for France, such as the GF-alliance will suffer substantially. Paradoxical as it may sound, a French army in Burgundy stabilizes the alliance. As mentioned before, Germany can simply let an army in Munich, if he is afraid of a French stab. Important is imho that the French army in Burgundy is announced beforehand and accepted by Germany. And if not, then you want to have an army in Burgundy anyway. I had to learn that the hard way, too many games as France completely got busted cause of Burgundy.

I have no problem with an army in Burgundy, but not in Spring 1901. Assuming that I'm playing the Lisbon Leapfrog, I end the year with A Portugal, A Spain, and F Mid-Atlantic Ocean. Then I build a fleet in Brest and an army in Paris and in S1902 I play Paris - Burgundy and Spain - Gascony. From that point on, France can resist a major invasion of Burgundy with support from Gascony while remaining in a position to cover Marseilles, Paris, or Brest if necessary -- even with a double bounce to keep the square open for later builds.

Only once have I run into trouble with the Lisbon Leapfrog. Germany opened to Burgundy and Italy opened to Piedmont. In the end, however, Germany played Burgundy - Belgium anyway because it was a sure build for him.

The problem is not so much the spring, but the fall 1901. Apart of Germany might agree a bounce in spring and not do so, so the Leapfrog gets wrecked, leaving France in a bad position with an open Marseilles (imagine Italy moves Piedmont) and an army in Gascony.

Again, not likely to happen. But at any rate you can take Spain with an army and cover Marseilles with the army in Burgundy. It is no worse than the Maginot Opening in that regard.

Otherwise you go conventionally, means Sea Lion for GF, or Northern for E with Pic or Bur for F respectively. A German-English alliance needs Italy as a helper, otherwise it becomes a long and hard thing, and the game will mostly be lost against the southern powers, later.

The SeaLion, as I understand it and as outlined at http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resour ... ealion.htm is not what I would call a standard opening. I don't think I've ever seen this opening. I think most people want to call a French-German alliance a 'SeaLion' for some reason, but I am not so inclined.

Well, we need a name for the English Brest opening. I propose to name it the Celtic opening (from Brittany being one of the seven Celtic countries).

And I propose that we call it the Brest Gambit.

[mhsmith0]

Ran a sealion as Russia quite profitably in pdl round 2
https://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play ... _id=141622
Ended in a three way FIR draw too

And yes a sealion DEFINITELY needs Russian help and support. Otherwise it becomes a slog to kill england instead of a quick early success for the FGR set. If england can use f NWY to take Norway in fall 1901, he then has a lot of options for the fleet in NTH including bouncing either Germany or France from Belgium / holland, instead of being forced to commit fully to Norway just to get that single valuable build.