Turkey and Austria

What are your winning tactics? Kill them all? Discuss strategy for the classic and variant games using the classic map, or visit the sub-forums for the variant maps.
Forum rules
Strategy
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. When discussing strategy, reference should not be made to any active game. This section of the Forum is for general strategy discussion, not specific situations within games.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
Posts which refer to a specific situation in an active game, or which link directly to an active game, are subject to editing or removal.

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby jimbobicus » 03 Jun 2018, 08:17

AKFD wrote:Oh cheese,

True. I have never seen a G/R alliance.

It's actually more impossible imo


I think G/R alliance can work in the short term at least. It's hard to get a 2 way G/R draw, but I think it's common to see 3 or 4 way draws involving both. My views on it are similar to A/T - it can be a good alliance for both players in the short term - for the first 5 years or so. If combined with a strong Italy as part of a RGI, it can also have long term success. RGI along with with RFI are my favourite 3 way alliances. Very good for creating positions where all 3 players can expand without stepping on each others toes and can lead to 3 way draw, or better if the participants then want to slog the endgame out.

My candidate for hardest alliance to make work is I/T. In my experience, if that forms, it's normally out of defensive necessity for one of the two - normally Italy. It doesn't have much by way of long term attacking potential.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 03 Jun 2018, 08:26

I actually disagree on I/T. I/T done right can be a very strong alliance, though it does face the same problem in Scandinavia that the A/T does (that any Eastern alliance without Russia does, really).

I think I've been an Italy in what ended up being an I/R/G, if memory serves, but I'm not positive and I'm too lazy to look right now. As i recall, it sort of grew naturally from a strong I/R alliance and decent G/R and I/G alliances--I/R killed Austria and Turkey, R/G killed England, and I/G killed France. Not necessarily in that order. It worked pretty well, if memory serves.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

NorthEast

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod (but I'm normally not talking as one)
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
 
Posts: 7784
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1225
All-game rating: 1407
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby AKFD » 03 Jun 2018, 09:40

nanooktheeskimo wrote:I actually disagree on I/T. I/T done right can be a very strong alliance, though it does face the same problem in Scandinavia that the A/T does (that any Eastern alliance without Russia does, really).

I think I've been an Italy in what ended up being an I/R/G, if memory serves, but I'm not positive and I'm too lazy to look right now. As i recall, it sort of grew naturally from a strong I/R alliance and decent G/R and I/G alliances--I/R killed Austria and Turkey, R/G killed England, and I/G killed France. Not necessarily in that order. It worked pretty well, if memory serves.


IRG quite works well, but I havent tried it. Also I/T is easier to make than A/T, they say.
Apparently "the biggest GoT fan" (@Pootleflump)

Have fun on this website. Signing off.
User avatar
AKFD
Premium Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: 24 Mar 2018, 15:55
Location: Metro Manila, Philippines (Any Filipinos out there?)
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 863
All-game rating: 836
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby Don Juan of Austria » 03 Jun 2018, 14:56

AKFD wrote:Oh cheese,

True. I have never seen a G/R alliance.

It's actually more impossible imo


I quite like the G/R alliance in the early to Mid game. Never seen it carried to a two way...But few game end in a two way anyhow. ;)
"In everything, moderation". ~Aristotle
A proud member of the Whippersnappers,
Bronze Classicists,
Lancer in the PBF cavalry.


The USA in WitA7!
Britain in WitA8!
House Martell in DoIaF-III,
Athens in GCS4.
User avatar
Don Juan of Austria
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 19 Feb 2014, 11:50
Location: South Africa, though given to travel
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1050
All-game rating: 1177
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby AKFD » 03 Jun 2018, 16:13

Don Juan of Austria wrote:
AKFD wrote:Oh cheese,

True. I have never seen a G/R alliance.

It's actually more impossible imo


I quite like the G/R alliance in the early to Mid game. Never seen it carried to a two way...But few game end in a two way anyhow. ;)


Right. I thought they were natural enemies.
Apparently "the biggest GoT fan" (@Pootleflump)

Have fun on this website. Signing off.
User avatar
AKFD
Premium Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: 24 Mar 2018, 15:55
Location: Metro Manila, Philippines (Any Filipinos out there?)
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 863
All-game rating: 836
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 03 Jun 2018, 16:44

AKFD wrote:
Don Juan of Austria wrote:
AKFD wrote:Oh cheese,

True. I have never seen a G/R alliance.

It's actually more impossible imo


I quite like the G/R alliance in the early to Mid game. Never seen it carried to a two way...But few game end in a two way anyhow. ;)


Right. I thought they were natural enemies.

I dunno that it’s a two way alliance, but alliances shouldn’t be judged solely on their ability to deliver a stable two way. G/R is certainly a good early to mid game alliance, and depending on the game can be an end game alliance with a third party.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

NorthEast

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod (but I'm normally not talking as one)
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
 
Posts: 7784
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1225
All-game rating: 1407
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby mhsmith0 » 03 Jun 2018, 18:50

nanooktheeskimo wrote:I actually disagree on I/T. I/T done right can be a very strong alliance, though it does face the same problem in Scandinavia that the A/T does (that any Eastern alliance without Russia does, really).

I think I've been an Italy in what ended up being an I/R/G, if memory serves, but I'm not positive and I'm too lazy to look right now. As i recall, it sort of grew naturally from a strong I/R alliance and decent G/R and I/G alliances--I/R killed Austria and Turkey, R/G killed England, and I/G killed France. Not necessarily in that order. It worked pretty well, if memory serves.


I/T is a bit stronger than A/T in terms of scandinavia, mainly because once you puncture MAO, scandinavia can't really hold up... and Italy is FAR more capable of puncturing MAO than any other eastern power (Turkey can spam fleets, but it takes a while to make it near MAO, and Italy needs to fall first anyway, and that's a lot of time for the west to get its act together, which in contrast Italy can just spam up two fleets at Rome/Naples in a winter, send them west immediately, and MAO goes from "not really a priority to defend" to "oh shit there it goes" fairly fast). Also Italy can potentially ally with Germany and/or England against France without raising major alarm bells, which can get him into MAO early on, and then things can potentially steamroll.
Proud holder of the Superior Tophat of Solving, an item entrusted with the forum's most prominent smartass
User avatar
mhsmith0
 
Posts: 3528
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 06:55
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1269
All-game rating: 1439
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby jay65536 » 03 Jun 2018, 19:27

nanooktheeskimo wrote:alliances shouldn’t be judged solely on their ability to deliver a stable two way.


Of course they shouldn't. And there's really no such thing as "natural enemies". I think a lot of what people consider "natural enemies" is just one community's groupthink.

I think the reason people consider G and R to be "natural enemies" is simple--it's virtually impossible for either country to solo without fighting the other. If you try to imagine 18 centers for Germany, it's nearly impossible to do without taking centers from Russia. And if you try to imagine Russia pushing for a solo, it involves either taking German centers or fending off a German stab. But really, this is true for virtually any pair of neighboring countries in the game. It's hard to solo, and it's nigh-impossible to solo without fighting your neighbors.

Personally, I view alliances through the lens of "how much does it help my objectives to play this alliance". (At the beginning of the game my objective is always 18 centers, but things change depending on how things develop as well.) In almost all cases, there's an interpersonal component too--for example, as Russia, it doesn't matter whether I prefer R/A or R/T if I know Turkey is gunning for me. So to my mind, I have to be able to understand the dynamics of every possible alliance.

To get back to the first paragraph, for example, if E and F are allied, Germany's survival is a more immediate priority than any long-term solo strategy, in which case trying to work with Russia (and probably also Italy) against the E/F is obvious.

And to get back to the thread topic, if I'm Austria, and I don't trust Italy or Russia but I think Turkey is sincere about working with me, then I need to be able to accept that offer while also understanding how to set things up so that I won't just lose the game 4 or 5 years down the road. OP, when I read your account of your A/T alliance, the thing that stuck out to me was that Turkey stabbed you "in Budapest". To which my question is: why was Turkey able to get next to Budapest without you considering it a stab?
jay65536
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby AKFD » 04 Jun 2018, 03:35

jay65536 wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:alliances shouldn’t be judged solely on their ability to deliver a stable two way.


Of course they shouldn't. And there's really no such thing as "natural enemies". I think a lot of what people consider "natural enemies" is just one community's groupthink.

I think the reason people consider G and R to be "natural enemies" is simple--it's virtually impossible for either country to solo without fighting the other. If you try to imagine 18 centers for Germany, it's nearly impossible to do without taking centers from Russia. And if you try to imagine Russia pushing for a solo, it involves either taking German centers or fending off a German stab. But really, this is true for virtually any pair of neighboring countries in the game. It's hard to solo, and it's nigh-impossible to solo without fighting your neighbors.

Personally, I view alliances through the lens of "how much does it help my objectives to play this alliance". (At the beginning of the game my objective is always 18 centers, but things change depending on how things develop as well.) In almost all cases, there's an interpersonal component too--for example, as Russia, it doesn't matter whether I prefer R/A or R/T if I know Turkey is gunning for me. So to my mind, I have to be able to understand the dynamics of every possible alliance.

To get back to the first paragraph, for example, if E and F are allied, Germany's survival is a more immediate priority than any long-term solo strategy, in which case trying to work with Russia (and probably also Italy) against the E/F is obvious.

And to get back to the thread topic, if I'm Austria, and I don't trust Italy or Russia but I think Turkey is sincere about working with me, then I need to be able to accept that offer while also understanding how to set things up so that I won't just lose the game 4 or 5 years down the road. OP, when I read your account of your A/T alliance, the thing that stuck out to me was that Turkey stabbed you "in Budapest". To which my question is: why was Turkey able to get next to Budapest without you considering it a stab?


I was a noob in my first game. He was rushing through the Balkans for some reason and then he surprisingly stabbed me. I learned how to play decently from then on.
Apparently "the biggest GoT fan" (@Pootleflump)

Have fun on this website. Signing off.
User avatar
AKFD
Premium Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: 24 Mar 2018, 15:55
Location: Metro Manila, Philippines (Any Filipinos out there?)
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 863
All-game rating: 836
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: Turkey and Austria

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 04 Jun 2018, 03:54

jay65536 wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:alliances shouldn’t be judged solely on their ability to deliver a stable two way.


Of course they shouldn't. And there's really no such thing as "natural enemies". I think a lot of what people consider "natural enemies" is just one community's groupthink.

I think the reason people consider G and R to be "natural enemies" is simple--it's virtually impossible for either country to solo without fighting the other. If you try to imagine 18 centers for Germany, it's nearly impossible to do without taking centers from Russia. And if you try to imagine Russia pushing for a solo, it involves either taking German centers or fending off a German stab. But really, this is true for virtually any pair of neighboring countries in the game. It's hard to solo, and it's nigh-impossible to solo without fighting your neighbors.

Personally, I view alliances through the lens of "how much does it help my objectives to play this alliance". (At the beginning of the game my objective is always 18 centers, but things change depending on how things develop as well.) In almost all cases, there's an interpersonal component too--for example, as Russia, it doesn't matter whether I prefer R/A or R/T if I know Turkey is gunning for me. So to my mind, I have to be able to understand the dynamics of every possible alliance.

To get back to the first paragraph, for example, if E and F are allied, Germany's survival is a more immediate priority than any long-term solo strategy, in which case trying to work with Russia (and probably also Italy) against the E/F is obvious.

And to get back to the thread topic, if I'm Austria, and I don't trust Italy or Russia but I think Turkey is sincere about working with me, then I need to be able to accept that offer while also understanding how to set things up so that I won't just lose the game 4 or 5 years down the road. OP, when I read your account of your A/T alliance, the thing that stuck out to me was that Turkey stabbed you "in Budapest". To which my question is: why was Turkey able to get next to Budapest without you considering it a stab?

Amen. Agreed with this wholeheartedly, especially the first three paragraphs.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

NorthEast

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod (but I'm normally not talking as one)
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
 
Posts: 7784
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1225
All-game rating: 1407
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Strategy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests