1900- less strategy, more diplomacy?

Strategy discussions for the 1900 variant.
Forum rules
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. Members should not seek advice about an active game they are in.
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.

1900- less strategy, more diplomacy?

Postby Idols » 05 Jun 2016, 00:52

I have enjoyed the games of 1900 that I have played. I think that the variant is very good at balancing the game. But I also believe that there is limited opening strategy for Italy and Austria (and the other countries but not as much). Tactics don't seem to play as much of a role in the game.

I think that opening moves in 1900 heavily rely on diplomacy. For example, the Switzerland problem. There aren't really any effective auto-pilot openings.

Well so actually, I think this is a bad thing, and the reason why I think regular diplomacy still wins. In 1900, the emphasis is really on how countries communicate with eachother, and not on the tactical aspect. Of course, it's still there, but I spend very little time thinking about my moves in 1900 whereas in regular diplomacy I can spend a very long time analyzing any particular position. There are volumes on all the possible openings for each country, but very little for 1900. Yes, 1900 is less popular, but I'd argue that from a tactical aspect it's also much less interesting.

Though I may be biased because I actually love the fact that trieste and venice border eachother. I think that it is what makes playing Italy and Austria so rewarding and interesting in the regular game. Without the shared border, they are not nearly as fascinating or interesting to play.

Anyway, what do you think? What is the better game and why?
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.
Yes, that is the unfortunate extent of my creativity.

User avatar
Posts: 68
Joined: 07 Feb 2014, 19:00
Location: Chicago
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1479
All-game rating: 1720
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1900- less strategy, more diplomacy?

Postby NiccolosApprentice » 13 Jun 2016, 19:02

To start with 1900 is my favourite variant so I am definitely biased, but someone should defend it...

Some people enjoy the added diplomacy (especially in a game called Diplomacy) this variant requires, (although it doesn't explain why there are so many gunboat games on this site). Every power truly affects every other power from the beginning of the game. The Suez Canal makes Britain and Turkey neighbours, which removes their position as the wicked witches. Germany's added growth forces France and Russia to communicate, and Austria and Italy in my mind have far more options.

With 3 armies Austria can viably attack any of its neighbours; and with Turkey gaining a new way to leave the med, Italian Turkish Alliances are now possible.

Next time you play Austria try and negotiate into Switzerland in the Fall, that should excite your Austrian gameplay. For Italy, try allying with France or Turkey against Britain.

The variant requires new strategies because it's a very new map. One of the chief reasons for the creation of the strategy was to fix the map. It is historically accurate and lessens the effect of stalemate lines.

I'll leave the creator of the variant's writings on 1900 here as well,

Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Feb 2014, 18:28
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (924)
All-game rating: (1076)
Timezone: GMT-7

Return to 1900

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest