2pc France vs Austria?

[SantiagoJaxson]

Why is France vs Austria considered the most balanced 2pc game? I feel like since France is on the side and Austria’s a central power, Austria can expand more easily. The Russian centers are an easy walk in, with Turkey not that much harder, while France has to deal with either taking English centers with fleets or convoying armies, either of which take more tempo. Austria’s fleet is also much closer to the Italian centers.

[sroca]

Who's the attacker and who's the defender in the default configuration? That has an effect. France has more options at defense than Austria does.

[NicholasJaxson]

Why is France vs Austria considered the most balanced 2pc game? I feel like since France is on the side and Austria’s a central power, Austria can expand more easily. The Russian centers are an easy walk in, with Turkey not that much harder, while France has to deal with either taking English centers with fleets or convoying armies, either of which take more tempo. Austria’s fleet is also much closer to thttps://9apps.ooo/he Italian centers.

Well, for once the German states were not exactly fond of the French given their common past. The war between Austria and Prussia was very much fought with the objective of gaining the supremacy over the smaller German states rather than a territorial gain or something like thay. Allying with the French would have served no purpose for the Austrian, except ensuring an even stronger position for the Prussians amongst fellow german states; not to mention that there was probably a treaty bounding the two states to a sort of non-aggresion pact and breaking that would have had lasting repercussions for the Austrians.

[TTBen]

I had run a 2 player challenge in 2018 and Jensen computed some stats after the fact that might be interesting to this discussion: 2018 2PC Statistics

[FloridaMan]

I had run a 2 player challenge in 2018 and Jensen computed some stats after the fact that might be interesting to this discussion: 2018 2PC Statistics

It sounds to me as if this supports the conclusion that it is a somewhat balanced pair of combatants, although Austria is statistically a bit stronger.

I will certainly say that it's more balanced than Russia or Germany or England vs France would be, since Russia's unfair advantage is obvious, while Germany is even more central on the map than Austria, and England is in a significantly worse position.

The only countries that I could accept even might be more balanced vs France than Austria are Turkey or Italy (and I'm pretty doubtful about both).

[Jensen]

Yes, Austria can expand more. But if they expand into the balkans and Turkey, they are moving AWAY from the Tunis to Stp stalemate line.

Also, Austria cannot defend stp without a northern fleet so to get to 18 they need Tunis and at least 1 German SC. If they are quick enough, 2 German scs will do the job. But if Austria blocks off the pass through piedmont, then every French army is heading to the German front. So does Austria really want to be sending all of their armies to the south east for quick expansion?

IMO Russia beats everyone else whilst England and Turkey lose to everyone else. In England v Turkey, the defender has the advantage although a bit of guesswork is required to secure victory.

I think France Austria and Germany have the edge on Italy due to Italian armies being bottlenecked. However, I have had the odd win as Italy against all 3.

Austria v Germany and Austria v France are relatively well matched. Germany has the slight edge over France as French armies need to squeeze through piedmont which can be blocked off.

[FloridaMan]

IMO Russia beats everyone else whilst England and Turkey lose to everyone else. In England v Turkey, the defender has the advantage although a bit of guesswork is required to secure victory.

I would say you're right about Russia, but in England v. Turkey, Turkey has the advantage. It's impossible for England to get three builds coming out of 1901, but it is possible for Turkey to get three, and that ends up being an advantage that compounds quite dramatically over time. Being an island is just a very bad situation for 1v1 games.

[Jensen]

Its not all about the builds, position is also important. After spring 01 it takes 4 moves for Turkey to get an army from Con to Munich (convoy to rum), but it's only 3 moves from London. Similarly it takes Turkey 3 moves to get an army in stp but England can get there in 2. If England can establish the stalemate line quick enough, no amount of extra units will help the Turk get to 18.

[FloridaMan]

Its not all about the builds, position is also important. After spring 01 it takes 4 moves for Turkey to get an army from Con to Munich (convoy to rum), but it's only 3 moves from London. Similarly it takes Turkey 3 moves to get an army in stp but England can get there in 2. If England can establish the stalemate line quick enough, no amount of extra units will help the Turk get to 18.

But England won't be able to establish a stalemate line if Turkey plays competently. Because Turkey will have more units, and will swarm over the English defenses before they're established.

I would bet I'd win significantly more than half the time, playing Turkey against anyone's England.

[Jensen]

I would consider myself to play Turkey competently. In 1901 I would open with Smy to Arm to Sev, con to bul to ser, and ank to con to bul sc. Then build f smy, a ank and a con.

In 1902 ank to arm to sev, con to bul to rum, smy to aeg to ion, ser to tri to ven and bul to Greece then hold. Sev to mos and then most likely stp if there's already been a convoy to Norway or war if there has not.

Would you do anything differently?