Snapshot: Russian Solo in 1910 following a final stab on Turkey who had been part of a Juggernaught from the start. A Western Triple alliance (with a slightly erratic Italy) formed and gained supremacy over the Juggernaught before a French gamble on the stab for a solo fracture the alliance and allowed the Juggernaught to reassert dominance.
England – bratsffl (replaced miliggy Fall 1902)
France – Phlegmatic (replaced andymandestroyeroflands in 1902 Build)
Italy – DeMize+Mauler
Germany – Tortellacci
Austria – kuoji1
Turkey – Wally the Wombat
Russia (winner) – Brumark
For me this game had three distinct “acts”:
- 1. Early expansion: Spring 1901 – Fall 1903
2. Breaking the alliance: Spring 1904 – Fall 1906
3. Recovery: Spring 1907 – Fall 1910
The other noteworthy bit of this game was that it felt pretty much like it entered the “endgame” starting really in spring 1903 (and certainly by spring 1904 when Austria was eliminated in Fall 03 and Italy moved with the WT in Spring 1904 ). And by that I really mean playstyle being a tactical battle between two power groups:
- A. The Juggernaught
B. Western Triple (well quadruple if you include Italy)
1. Early Expansion
1.1 Aims
So what did I want to achieve:
- 1. An ally in the Eastern Triple
2. Sweden
3. Germany and England on separate sides so that I can press a claim for scandi in later years.
I really wanted Sweden, I find this makes things so much easier as Russia – it takes the pressure off of Rumania (albeit I still want that) for a start and gives some freedom for Mos – Stp although I didn’t actually play it here. So I felt my conversation with Germany was the most important and I would allow it to dictate who I allied with.
Jackpot! Germany informed me he believed it was generally in Germanys interest to allow Russia Sweden and he seemed genuine on this (and would so prove). We talked about trying to set up a Sea Lion but we couldn’t get France to engage properly and I think Germany’s fear of E/F combining meant he was even more amenable to giving me Sweden. Crucially he did not ask me to DMZ Galicia in exchange so I was free to deal with the eastern triangle as I saw fit.
Italy: didn’t get anything sensible or timely here so largely discounted, Austria and Turkey are more important for Russia anyhow
Turkey: we had a decent conversation, agreed to mutual working (but then who doesn’t in Spring 1901?) and we got on well, bonding on a nash equilibrium around the black sea – agreeing we both needed to go there but we might as well do it amicably. So decent rapport, but what about Austria…
Austria: said he would ally but suggested an attack on Germany whereby he went to Bohemia and I went to Silesia. This was extremely interesting proposition, not because I wanted to do it but because of the position it would put Austria in. I strongly encouraged this with zero intention to follow through (and I was at least a decent amount suspicious he was just trying to get me to leave Galicia open.
France: I noticed an extraordinarily high surrender rate (above 80%) so I was pretty sure he was going to drop out at some point and this really coloured my thinking, I wanted to be involved in the West so E/G couldn’t just take all the centres immediately.
1.2 Spring 1901
So all set. Good set of prospects. I think I have Germany on board for Sweden, I think Austria will do some inadvisable moves I can exploit, I think Turkey is on my side and Rum will be ok (this was a risk with the rest of my moves). I think E/F are probably lining up against Germany which is fine (so would F/G just as long as its not E/G) and no idea about Italy. So I go with:
- St p sc – Gob (hardly ground shaking)
Sev – Bla (again earth shattering)
War – Gal
Mos – Ukr (I actually really like Mos – Stp, which I think is hugely unperplayed but in this case I wanted to have the units in place to follow up on Austrian exposure)

So pretty much perfect for me. Turkey misordered which probably helped me long run but certainly slowed us.
1.3 Fall 1901
I decide to gamble on Budapest not Vienna and trusting Turkey/Austria not to bounce me in Rum. I did reach out to Austria and claim it was all a big misunderstanding, “I thought it was a ploy to keep me out of Galicia, how can I make it up to you, Turkey is the real threat, look we bounced in Bla etc” anything to try and sway him away from covering everything.

Success! Budapest, Sweden and Rum and Austria with no builds.
1.4 1902
Having Built Stp Nc(F), War(A) and Mos(A) I promise Germany Vienna in the fall if he helps me take Norway by cutting North sea. At this point was probably going to honour that having picked up Trieste in the Spring (with Turkish help, he was picking up Bulgaria). But France hasn’t built in 1901 and isn’t answering, he doesn’t move in Spring 1902 and in Spring 1902 retreat England NMR and destroys, plus he missed his build in 1901 but did move in Spring 1902.
So I am in a situation where I am pretty sure France is about to be booted (especially given his surrender rate) and England may well be too. I have decided at this point through our conversations that Germany is a formidable player – the prospect of a seven centre Germany with France and England out the game just seemed too risky.
So no Vienna, I would stab him and take it myself (albeit I have to give up Trieste). Try and make peace after, it wasn’t really in his sphere of influence and we could both get fat on French and English centres.
Another twist as England surrenders manually and not through NMR relatively soon before the deadline and is replaced (thanks bratsffl). He wants Norway back – no sale. However by this point I have mentally committed to stabbing Germany and still with France open I don’t like my prospects so I agree with England I will help him to Denmark taking a centre off Germany.

Works out well, France did not move and is booted.
1.5 1903
A new France (Phlegmatic enter stage left) joins and has taken his 1901 builds. We get on well (and would from here on out despite never being on the same side) but is furiously trying to build an alliance against me.
I want to keep working with England but I ask to build fleet stp nc and set out my reasons of faster deployment against Germany which was genuine but he refuse to even engage on the tactical debate which annoys me.
Germany is however talking about still working with me if we both focus on England. This is the first but not the last time Germany jupes me and England and Germany team with France (Western Triple – WT) to stop the perceived solo attempt – fair cop. England and Germany team up to take Sweden in the spring. France and Germany have deescalated their borders. Not great.
Luckily I have the troops to regain Sweden in the fall, plus Turkey and I finish off Austria for a net gain each. However the Western triple has now well and Truly formed and France has moved in force to the med. With Ankara and Sev bouncing until now we don’t have the fleets to push ahead immediately.
I do however fall for Germany’s silver tongue again, we agree not to move against each other and importantly I agree to stay out of Silesia, big mistake. I didn’t think he was genuine but I did properly account for how impactful letting him move to Silesia and Prussia would be. So when I was doing my 30% he is genuine and this is the benefit… vs 70% lying and here is the cost I miscalculated and made a very bad call. I will show the map at the start of the next section as that brings act 1 to a close. I have expanded to 10 centres with my ally turkey on 6. But the alliance against us in now in full swing.
2.Breaking the alliance: Spring 1904 – Fall 1906
2.1 Why
So I think this is the most interesting bit albeit I have been a lot more verbose than I was expecting on Act 1.
This is what the map looked like going into Spring 1904

At first glance it might look good for me/Turkey. But my take was that it wasn’t good, it wasn’t good at all. Especially when you consider Italy joined the WT in the Spring 1904 moves and I was suspicious at this point.
Losing Prussia and Silesia was huge, I was also effectively outnumbered in the Baltic with Germany having two fleets against one (with Sweden likely to be cut as support), there was a gap in my lines in Livonia. Turkey had the armies I needed but they were too far away and could only come to help through my centres, England had three fleets against stp nc and norway. Basically I was out of position on land and slightly outnumbered at sea.
My conclusion at this point was that if the alliances remained as they were and given enough time England and Germany would/should defeat me. Potentially Turkey could make headway against Italy and ultimately France if they weren’t working together (the spring moves blew that idea up – although Italy I don’t think was every a full brought in member) but that was not hugely likely and might not be enough to save me.
I am going to do a bit of a name drop here in acknowledgement to Mr Aedron who I played a game with recently when he was on the outside of a three way alliance which was clearly going to chew up the rest of the board (AAR 148291. Ambassadors only Versailles – if anyone is super interested) – as I learnt a huge amount from him and his approach and how you go about it systematically. He was partially successful as he did break apart the alliance but this did end in a solo.
So the twin objectives:
- A. Break apart the alliance
B. Be in a position to recover
The second can’t happen without the first but is equally important and by recover I can mean into a draw or solo. By breaking apart the alliance I mean making one or more of the parties turn and attack one or more of the others.
Broadly I think there are five things that make an effective alliance, and I would need to attack as many of these “pillars” as possible:
- 1. The alliance is mutually beneficial/ incentives are aligned. (Strategic)
2. Broadly balanced in terms of strength (Tactical)
3. Limited opportunities to stab (Tactical)
4. Good and sufficient communication (Diplomatic)
5. Good relationship/trust (Diplomatic)
I will go through a bit about who I picked as the target and some of the approaches and rationale.
2.2 Who
This was going to be driven by pillar 3 and 4 – i.e. the tactical areas as the rest kind of apply equally and who I thought I could recover best from.
So after a lot of thought I decided that it was most likely I would be able to get either France or England to turn on Germany. I will unpack the pillars in a bit more detail.
2.3 How
Strategic – mutually beneficial
Alliances really exist either to A.defend/attack a common threat which could not be dealt with alone or b1: to take centres that couldn’t otherwise be taken or b2: to take them more efficiently. I realise this is quite similar but I think it subtly different. The “Bs” are early game alliances and the “A” is more of an endgame.
But anyway the real point is that the alliance would likely hold until I (and to a lesser extent Turkey) ceased being an immediate and pressing danger to wiping them out. So the reality was I was going to have to lose ground, I couldn’t stop them nor would they stop themselves till this had gone far enough. And this links hugely to the second macro objective of recovering – they need to stop a little bit too early – that’s what breaking the alliance is all about. This “pillar” is not that amendable to direct manipulation for breaking the alliance but I did try and slow the taking of centres and manage it as best I could so I could recover.
Diplomatic: Communication and Relationship
So I cant stop them communicating but I can drag things out, making the choices tough to put stress on the comms. And I could and did attempt to put relational stress in. I would love to hear from my fellow players as to the effectiveness. This will be familiar to a lot of players but I tried:
- Offering players to be part of a draw with Turkey and I – which was fairly genuine as I was worried I might not be in a draw at all.
Pointing out duplicity – especially with regards to Germany
Pointing out the chances to stab
Pointing out the risks of being stabbed
Spreading misinformation such as tensions between Turkey and I
Threatening to target individual players – pointing out what I was doing in the tactical areas – see next
Pleading
Tactical: Balance and opportunities
This for me is the bit I could most directly influence. I wanted to create imbalance in the strength of the opposing alliance so that some members would become more worried about their “friends” than me. I also needed to create opportunities for the stab and make these impactful and available as often as possible. Temptation in the end normally gets the better of most players.
The game had three theatres and in the main two protagonists in each:
- 1. The med (Turkey vs France)
2.Central Europe (Russia vs Germany)
3.Scandinavia (Russia vs England)
So what I wanted to do was only lose ground in one of Central Europe or Scandi – I could probably hold one area. This would broadly give centres to only one of England or Germany creating an imbalance, I wanted to either over extend whoever was taking centres to allow a stab or to give them the chance to stab whilst in the ascendancy. Losing centres only in one area would also leave me a base to recover from.
Having looked at the board I felt that it would be better to allow Germany to advance in central Europe for three reasons. Firstly this was easier to keep a clean distinction in who was getting centres, in scandi it would have been easier for E/G to split more equally, Second – Germany would get strung out and would never have the reasons to fortify his rear and so would always be open to a French or English stab. Three – I felt it would be more easily recovered, Turkey could come and help and once England gets Scandi its basically impossible to recover.
I of course tried to defend as much as possible but all my resources went first to ensuring Scandi was held and that England damn well knew he wasn’t getting anything (both from unit positions/builds and from my messages) and actually a counter attack from me was possible even whilst the alliance held.
2.4 When
Germany eventually broke through my lines in 1905 taking Moscow after slipping to Livonia in the Spring. However – Italy lost two centres with France taking Tunis and presumably stabbing Italy.

side note: I really think E/F should have stabbed Germany in the fall here – there was a fantastic opportunity which I did of course point out. They could together have wiped him out and taken over his centres before I could have done anything. It wouldn’t have delivered a victory but probably a four way draw (no one had wanted a five way).
Germany was set to take a second centre in mother Russia in fall 1906 and he would have reached seven centres (+2 under the alliance), however the rest of the strategy had been successful, England was till on 4 (as he had been since 1901) with zero prospects of taking more without Germany consent or a stab. Nor was France going to gain, Italy had all but been eliminated but the entirety of the peninsula was falling to the Juggernaught and eventually Turkey would have been able to manoeuvre his fleets to break the French defensive line.
It was now or never for France and England, my defence was broken, Germany was growing quickly and would get all the spoils. England did not break but France did stabbing both Germany and England…

So as I said would love to hear from the other players as to how much of mine and Turkeys strategy actually caused this to happen, was any of the diplomacy effective? Did our tactical choices create the right environment for the stab?
3.Recovery: Spring 1907 – Fall 1910
Honestly not going to spend too much time on this. Turkey and I had our centres of power, I still had fleets aplenty to launch the counter from their Scandinavian dry docks. It was quickly apparent that the Juggernaught would be unstoppable.
All that was left was for the right moment to stab Turkey. Which made me quite sad as he had been a fantastic ally, however I personally believe that the game is set up with solo as the ultimate goal and you show respect to your fellow players by going for this, even if they have been loyal. I realise some players prefer to draw and that’s totally fine – but I hope he can understand why I stabbed.
Basically I have mostly run out of steam if anyone wants to ask about specific moves in this period happy to discuss but really they aren’t that interesting.
4. Reflections and thoughts
Defensive alliances: Turkey played an exemplary game here, he let me have his centres when needed to ensure we had enough forces in the North, when on the racks nationalism needs to be set aside and without his mature play here I think we would have collapsed. It wasn’t this that led to the stab or facilitated it. He probably should have argued for parity earlier in the recovery.
Board position vs centres: I think E&G made some mistakes here and were too keen to hunt centres rather than the board position, in “end game” situations board position becomes much more valuable than early game when centres are more important. Eg fall 1904 going for Norway and warsaw not Liv and skagg (it was getting to liv that broke my line)
Pack of silence: not sure how people expect it to be policed but actually was pretty effective with G & E sticking to it
Stabbing Italy: I think this was a mistake although I don’t have your perspective on whether he was amenable to effective alliance working this allowed Turkey to take centres
stabbing G&E: I was surprised at this, would like to hear the thinking over just G and getting E on board retro or prospectively.
Russian natural break: more so than other powers Russia seems to have the potential for an early push to grind to a halt, I think this is because taking scandi is often possible but then moving on is extremely tough. I was in a great position centre wise but then hit the breaks as it was impossible to convert to onwards motion, to slow to deploy fleets from the single build slot in st p and they are quite a way from front line.
5. Endings
So hopefully this is helpful. I got a bit knackered at the end. This was a great game, one in which I was hugely stressed in the middle trying to defend a front line from tyrolia to Barents with outnumbered and out of position units.
Thanks for playing (and reading) everyone.