Skip to main content

The Powers - Part 4: Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!

In this series, I'm going to take a brief look at the seven powers in the game of Diplomacy.  This will be not much more than a brief introduction to each power, looking at their position on the board, their neighbours and the pros and cons of playing them.  More detailed strategy will follow in future posts.


OK, I admit - Germany looks strange in light-blue...

Like Italy (and Austria, but I haven't written that post yet) Germany is a central power.  However, unlike Italy (and Austria) it has a number of advantages.


Germany borders three neutral SCs: Denmark, Holland and Belgium.  Unless something unusual goes on, or she decides to forego one of them, Germany can have an almost guaranteed two builds in 1901.

This is somewhat lessened as advantage in that she has five immediate neighbours (again, I'm stretching the point to include Italy).  This means that she has a lot of communicating to do in 1901.  If she can persuade all these neighbours that they shouldn't come after her immediately, she's done well.

Austria isn't likely to, admittedly.  It is common for these two powers to leave each other well alone.  Both need the other to be peaceful at her back.  A German army heading into Tyrolia or Bohemia is rare.

Italy is also unlikely to move north beyond Tyrolia.  Germany would do well to persuade her and Austria to DMZ Tyrolia, or else encourage them both to move there.  However, it is common enough that Italy will order A Ven-Tyl that Germany probably has to expect it.

In fairness, Russia is also unlikely to move against Germany.  The two non-SC spaces of Prussia and Silesia, in Germany, tend to act as natural DMZs between Warsaw (Russia), and Munich and Berlin (Germany).  The usual flashpoint between Germany and Russia is Sweden.

So that leaves England and France.  England can't do too much harm to Germany directly but she can be an indirect threat simply by agreeing to an Anglo-French alliance (the Entente).  This frees France to move against Germany immediately.

France is an ever-present threat to Germany.  With Burgundy the barrier between Paris (France) and Munich, and a space which allows access to Belgium, this is the main bone of contention between the two.  So much so, in fact that Germany's Munich army is often ordered to simply HOLD.

Germany will often open with F Kie-Den simply because she can.  With a fleet in Denmark in F01, she can be guaranteed of holding either Denmark or Sweden - and perhaps both - at the end of 1901.  One well-used threat to Russia is that, if Russia opens with A War-Gal Germany will prevent Russia getting Sweden.  This is to protect Austria - as I've said, Germany would prefer a peaceful and stable Austria at her back.

This has always seemed a little bit of an empty threat.  If Russia can successfully move into Galicia, then she's going to get a build anyway, and if Germany is going to prevent her moving into Sweden, then she may as well try for Vienna or Budapest.

Still, whether or not this warning has been issued, Germany will still often move to Denmark in S01 simply to prevent an F01 order of F GOB-Swe from Russia.  This often makes some sense: Germany doesn't need or want a strong Russia to her east.

Often, Germany will also move A Ber-Kie.  This allows the army to move to Denmark, should Den-Swe work, or Holland; most often the latter.  Occasionally, however, Germany will move after Russia, and order A Ber-Pru, and if she's really going after Russia, A Mun-Sil.  But this is risky - it leaves the Low Countries (Belgium and Holland) to go to France or England.

The Munich army will be the key move.  It can move to Burgundy, either to bounce France from Burgundy or to threaten France.  It could move to Ruhr, where it can be used to support an attack on Holland or, if she's also ordered F Kie-Hol, then to try for Belgium as well as Holland.  And A Mun H is also a possibility, if Germany needs to be cautious.

As far as alliances are concerned, most of Germany's "alliances" will often be a non-aggression pact (NAP).  This is because, rather than actively allying with powers, she is more likely to be eager to prevent herself being attacked by other powers.

Germany will probably get a NAP with Austria and Russia, for instance.  With Austria to maintain the "If you have my back, I'll have your's" idea mentioned above.  With Russia, to prevent Russia stretching eastwards.  This allows Germany to concentrate in the west.  Italy is another candidate for a NAP, for the same reason, but Germany may need to accept A Ven-Tyl, whether she likes it or not.

However, Germany will look to ally with either France or England, and may ally actively with Russia.  So which is the best alliance?

The Franco-German alliance, the Rhineland, is clearly anti-English.  It may even be part of a triple alliance including Russia (the German Ocean Triple).  This simply means England is not going to survive.

With the Rhineland alliance, the problem is that it means a strong French fleet presence in the north, that isn't easily shifted south, so Germany will need to build fleets to counter this.  Not great.

With the GOT alliance, Germany is left sandwiched between France and Russia, so she needs to have a strong alliance with one from France or Russia to survive this.

The Russo-German alliance, the Chequered (which I've named because on the original map Germany and Russia are coloured black and white), is aimed at splitting Scandinavia between the two and pushing on against England, then France.  Assuming Russia can't expect to take any French lands, and therefore should be expecting to be taking all England's SCs, this means Russia is going to become big much more quickly than Germany... and is then sitting right behind her!  Not ideal for Germany.

The Anglo-German alliance, the Saxon, is potentially best for Germany.  She can build armies while England builds fleets.  They can split Scandinavia and move together against Russia, and they can work together against France.  Given their positions on the board, neither is likely to get much of an advantage on the board.

But, as always, the best alliance is with the player you can build the best rapport with... you just need to be aware of what position that puts you in.

THE POWERS series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a  Supply Centre Scoring  (SCS) system. I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome: England - 12 SCs Russia - 9 SCs Turkey - 8 SCs Italy - 5 SCs France , Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is: A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points. A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on ...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...

Tournament Scoring - Part 1: Tournament Games are Variants

Tournaments have come to be a big part of Diplomacy, whether face-to-face or online.  If you're running a tournament you need to be able to find a winner, and so a scoring system has to be introduced.  In this series of posts I'm going to look at different types of scoring systems and discuss the pros and cons of each one.  And I'll end the series by discussing my own, as yet, prototype system. The first thing to be aware of is that a scoring system will change the way people play the game.  It has to do.  If you're playing and you need to do well then you need to play to the system.  This means that the way the system affects the way Diplomacy is played. Tournament games are already a variant of Dip.  Ideally, they wouldn't be.  Players would be able to play x  number of games and play them as they would any other game.  In FTF play, you'd expect the game to run until they're finished or time runs out.  Online, there should ...