1900 Analysis

Strategy discussions for the 1900 variant.
Forum rules
trategy
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&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 Analysis

Postby Stanislaw » 06 Jan 2013, 18:05

Started this threat to continue the discussion that was going on in the annoucement thread for 1900. Personally I find this variant extremely interesting and it's leaving me with a lot of thoughts, and I'm hoping we can have lots of well thought out and interesting strategy discussion.

So to contiune the debate about France's positon, Diadem said how France's position in Diplomacy is actually weak long term while more balanced in 1900. I agree with that. While France certainly does have it hard early on, I think a skilled French diplomat can take control of the south west corner, leaving him with a good powerbase and expand outword. I think the biggest problem in that scenario is England. In one of the Fog beta games I played as England and went right for the south east corner with Gibralter supporting Egypt to the MAO. As England I think it's quite appealing to head for that corner as you can have 3 fleets ready to influence the outcome of who gets what nuetral SCs (F Gib, F MAO and F channel). I think as France the key will be stopping England from reaching the channel, keeping the 2 unit attack on Bre out of the question and seizing Spa and Mor while England has to spend a move getting Egy over to the MAO.

Of course you could go for the peaceful option with England, but I think that will be much harder in 1900. Both nations have intrests in the south west corner, and the MAO will be a big issue as both countries will want to use it but an enemy fleet there is a big threat.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby jaelis » 06 Jan 2013, 21:44

I don't know if France's overall position is weak, but it does seem like the map makes allying with Britain difficult. Either you DMZ Mid-Atlantic, in which case Britain is cut off from the Med, or you let Britain have it, in which case he has a sword hanging over France's neck. If anything, it seems even worse than the Trieste-Venice issue in the standard map.

I would have been tempted to include a Bay of Biscay space that separated Brest and Gascony from Mid-Atlantic.
User avatar
jaelis
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 17 Nov 2008, 22:08
Location: Virginia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1060)
All-game rating: (1212)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Bonerparte » 06 Jan 2013, 23:16

Surely the problem for England in moving Egypt to MAO is that he almost guarantees losing the Egyptian SC to Turkey? I can see a multipolar England, maybe even working in alliance with France, being very successful. After all, early conflict can be a drain, and England doesn't want to watch the French SCs fall to Germany and Italy.
Dinah Glass wrote:The Headmaster is a marvellous man and this is the best school I've ever been to.
Bonerparte
 
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Nov 2011, 01:28
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1255)
Timezone: GMT

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Stanislaw » 07 Jan 2013, 01:06

I think England doesn't stand a good chance of keeping Egypt long term but I don't think he is bound to lose it in '01, as Turkey often may not move to Palestine. But if he has a good relation with France he could expand into the eastern med through Egypt, head for Damascus but that will probably be fairly uncommon.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Mortiferus Rosa » 07 Jan 2013, 06:22

Germany cannot be left to his own devices or he will become super dangerous; I know that is the case for any country but I think it applies double for Germany. I also think that an alliance between Germany and Italy is devastating now that Switzerland is a neutral SC.
R/,

Mortiferus Rosa
Gold Classicist
User avatar
Mortiferus Rosa
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 27 May 2011, 22:04
Location: It Varies...
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1115)
All-game rating: (1118)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Stanislaw » 07 Jan 2013, 17:38

Germany is much more powerful now. I think Cologne changes Germany from a potential great power into an automatic one at the begining of the game. It's quite easy for Germany to take the Low Countries and Denmark and still be able to contend Switz and Sweden, leaving him with 7 units in 1902. It looks quite threatening to see Germany right smack in the middle with all those units.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Bonerparte » 07 Jan 2013, 19:04

Mortiferus Rosa wrote:Germany cannot be left to his own devices or he will become super dangerous; I know that is the case for any country but I think it applies double for Germany. I also think that an alliance between Germany and Italy is devastating now that Switzerland is a neutral SC.
Stanislaw wrote:Germany is much more powerful now. I think Cologne changes Germany from a potential great power into an automatic one at the begining of the game. It's quite easy for Germany to take the Low Countries and Denmark and still be able to contend Switz and Sweden, leaving him with 7 units in 1902. It looks quite threatening to see Germany right smack in the middle with all those units.

All the more reason for England to ally with France from the start.
Dinah Glass wrote:The Headmaster is a marvellous man and this is the best school I've ever been to.
Bonerparte
 
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Nov 2011, 01:28
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1255)
Timezone: GMT

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Stanislaw » 08 Jan 2013, 02:13

That's an interesting conclusion. The issue with a E/F alliance is there is so much friction between them. They both have claim to several centers in the South West corner and I think it will be very hard to resolve the issue of the MAO. If England wants to rienforce his position in the east and the med he has to use the MAO which is going to make France uncomfortable. Also I think it will be tempting on England's part to move to the MAO with support from Gib and to move Lon-Channel and grab a bunch of French centers. I think the key for France will be to convince England that Germany would be a huge threat to him if he were to conquer Paris and Marsielles.

Italy also may have the same situation. While it's tempting for him to go after France he doesn't want to see a powerful Germany coming for Milan and Switz, and if France supports Italy to Switz he may gain a valuable ally for his war against Germany.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby frumiousbandersnatch » 30 Jan 2013, 06:30

I am playing the 1900 variant for the first time now, and what I can say without reservation is that life as Italy is much more appealing in the early going. Not having to worry about Trieste-Venice from day one give you a lot more flexibility, and with so many SC's bordering the Mediterranean, making the Med a 'Roman Lake' again is suddenly very worth while.
User avatar
frumiousbandersnatch
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Jan 2011, 19:34
Location: West Coast, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1605)
All-game rating: (1591)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: 1900 Analysis

Postby Mortiferus Rosa » 30 Jan 2013, 07:12

Stanislaw wrote:That's an interesting conclusion. The issue with a E/F alliance is there is so much friction between them. They both have claim to several centers in the South West corner and I think it will be very hard to resolve the issue of the MAO. If England wants to rienforce his position in the east and the med he has to use the MAO which is going to make France uncomfortable. Also I think it will be tempting on England's part to move to the MAO with support from Gib and to move Lon-Channel and grab a bunch of French centers. I think the key for France will be to convince England that Germany would be a huge threat to him if he were to conquer Paris and Marsielles.

Italy also may have the same situation. While it's tempting for him to go after France he doesn't want to see a powerful Germany coming for Milan and Switz, and if France supports Italy to Switz he may gain a valuable ally for his war against Germany.


As Germany I just got destroyed by an English, French, and Italian Alliance. Im curious where they will go from there but England and France can work together.
R/,

Mortiferus Rosa
Gold Classicist
User avatar
Mortiferus Rosa
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 27 May 2011, 22:04
Location: It Varies...
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1115)
All-game rating: (1118)
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to 1900 Strategy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron