Mornin' class!
Today we're going to be discussing openings. Not going into detail on opening press so much - I think my fellow professors have covered that for the most part - but specifically on what you should be thinking about when choosing your orderset for the season.
The Opening is the part of the game that's received the most analysis by far in terms of articles - in fact, if you go to the Diplomatic Pouch's
Openings Library and enter pretty much any strategically viable moveset, you'll find that it's been named by someone out there and probably has an article or two if you google that name.
A mini-lesson inside the lecture here - don't be afraid to do this! If you're unsure of the pros and cons of a particular opening you want to try, look it up; I can guarantee every good player has at some point read up on strategy articles to improve their game.
That said, don't take everything they say as absolute truth. Always think about what's being said and think about whether it applies well to your preferred playstyle. Richard Sharp, the man who literally wrote the book on Diplomacy Strategy, considered the Austrian Hedgehog (F Tri-Ven, A Vie-Gal, A Bud-Ser or A Bud-Rum) to be the only consistently good Austria opening, but that was very specifically based around his lack of trust of other players. If you ask other high level players their opinion on the Hedgehog, you'll often hear opinions that if you have to play the Hedgehog, you've failed in your opening negotiations with the powers around you.
That applies to these lectures as well. Everything you see here is high level advice, but from time to time you might see pieces of advice that don't fit with your playstyle or your situation in the game. It's always worth strongly considering whether you'd benefit from adapting your playstyle to fit the advice, but occasionally you might come to the conclusion that it's not a piece of advice you should follow, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Experimentation is a huge part of growing as a player, and even if things turn out badly, as long as you learn from those mistakes it will have been worthwhile.
Anyway, on to the main part of the lecture:
What should I be thinking about in an opening?
Every power is fairly unique in the way it approaches an opening, but they all have one thing in common - how each power opens will telegraph something of its intentions to the other players. Even if your intention is to not commit to anything immediately, the other players will be seeing that and making judgements based on it. In this sense, you need to have an idea of how you're wanting to play the game right from the moment you enter your orders.
Let's take the English Channel as an example. Unlike the fleets on the coast of the Black Sea, which rarely have anything better to do than arranged bounce, both England and France benefit significantly from their fleets being available to go to the North Sea and the Mid Atlantic Ocean respectively, so you'll almost never see an arranged bounce here in 1901. 99% of the time, these two powers will agree to a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in this province.
But does it benefit both to stick to this DMZ? If you know your opponent is leaving it open, could it benefit you more to get the jump on them in S01? And if the answer to that last question is yes, why do we see so many empty Channels in 1901 in games?
The answer lies in what you want your moves to telegraph, and what position you want to be in negotiation-wise going into 1902. As England or France, jumping into the channel in S01 will usually give you a huge advantage in a war against them -
if you can get support against them. Oftentimes the fact that you've made an aggressive opening will assist in getting that support, because you'll be going all in on a certain alliance and that certain ally will see that and (hopefully) like it - but not always. Because of the way support works, with defenders holding a province in an equal strength fight, it's incredibly difficult to win a 1 on 1 war with equal forces, even if you get the jump on your opponent. If you end up in a 1 on 2 war, with Germany joining your opponent, you'll be in a horrible spot - and by making the move into the channel, you've given Germany the power to decide who comes out on top.
Let's take this scenario a step further and say France has moved to English Channel and Picardy, ready to convoy into Wales to set up for the perfect attack on England. England mistakenly trusted France with the DMZ, so opened to North Sea, Norwegian Sea, and most importantly, Edinburgh, leaving him without a unit to block said convoy. Germany has played the standard Ruh/Den/Kie opening, and Russia has sent her Mos army south, so while England is in a bad spot, he's not facing an attack from the Russkie.
Now say you're given the opportunity to jump into this game as any of the three western powers. Which one do you pick?
England's obviously out unless you're deliberately looking for a challenge. Picking England is choosing the worst of both worlds - they're obviously in a bad tactical position, and unless they can convince France to abandon what would be an extremely effective attack against them, they don't have a choice on who to side with either.
Despite France appearing to have the better offensive position and the easier job pushing into England, the vast majority of high level players would choose Germany here. That's because Germany is in the position everyone wants to be in in the earlygame - having both neighbours wanting to make that alliance with Germany outweighs any tactical advantage France has, because he is both relatively safe since France and England aren't allying, and can dictate the course of the earlygame to best fit what's best for himself going forward.
That's why the Channel is successfully demilitarised so often. Being aggressive right off the bat can work; it can work extremely well if you get that alliance you're looking for - but you need to be sure you can get that alliance, and be aware that you're giving a lot of power to the player you're trying to ally with. Keeping to a DMZ is a good way to build trust with a player more slowly while not alienating your other potential ally - and the majority of the time, this will be the better decision. The rewards are lower, as you'll likely be slower taking out the player you decide to go against, but the risks are also lower, and if you want to consistently do well you shouldn't be taking risks hugely often - or at least, not until you've learned how to read into opening press to the degree that you can be confident someone will ally with you.
Before I close the lecture, I'm going to quickly mention that it helps to not be
too non-committal. Keeping DMZs is a good way to build trust, but playing an opening like the French one that sends every unit towards Spain is a good way to tell your opponents that you really don't want to make a choice, which in turn tells them you aren't that serious about wanting to be their ally. If you play something like this, you need to be explicit about what your intentions are for working with them looking further ahead - make sure you strongly present the opening as part of a longer-term strategy that involves siding with them. This is obviously useful regardless of whether you're playing a non-committal opening or not, but it's
essential if you're not doing anything that will outright show them you want to work with them in the first year.
In summary, for lazy students who need a tl;dr:
- Don't be afraid to use online resources for help on strategy.
- Don't be afraid to go against what the professors are telling you at times, as long as you're prepared to learn from it if it goes badly.
- Aggressive openings are risky and give the player you want to ally a huge amount of power. Don't play them unless you're absolutely sure said player will work with you.
- It helps to present other players with a longer term strategy than just opening moves, and it's essential to do so if you're not actively making moves in the first year that show you want to work with them.