On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Post Reply
Message
Author
ForGrandFenwick
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:14 pm
Contact:

On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

#1 Post by ForGrandFenwick » Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:31 am

To any who may provide insight,

Why are these centers considered easier to defend from the south than from the north? It seems to me that from an adjacency perspective St. Petersburg, Livonia and Prussia should function identically to Sevastopol, Ukraine and Galicia respectively. Therefore, once acquired why should it matter which side one is attacking or defending from. Also on the main stalemate line, Silesia is generally grouped with the north, shouldn't this if anything give the north an edge in both taking and holding these centers? So why are they usually considered naturally southern other than for the purpose of ensuring seventeen on each side?

Thank you for your time,

ForGrandFenwick

mhsmith0
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am
Karma: 186
Contact:

Re: On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

#2 Post by mhsmith0 » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:37 am

Sure!

I think the biggest thing is in respect to WHICH POWERS are defending those centers from which direction.

From the north: England, France, Germany. France is out, because it's damn near impossible to get enough armies into that area to take and HOLD those two centers
England isn't QUITE out, but it's pretty hard to spam armies out there fast enough to take and hold it.
The main "from the north" defender who can get armies in there and legitimately defend it is GERMANY.

Meanwhile, EVERY "southern" power can take and defend those centers from the south. Turkey, Italy, Austria, most to all of their realistic paths to 18 involve taking and holding those two centers. Heck, RUSSIA ITSELF can defend it from the south and it's not crazy to run that kind of model (basically Russia gets run out of scandinavia, loses STP, but rolls up the south and gets to 18 or a smaller stalemate # that way)

So it's just a lot more common to see Moscow/Warsaw being in hands of a "southern" power (I/A/T or Russia without northern navies), and there are a lot more ways to make that happen.

Conversely, Mos/War defended from the north mainly involves Russia defending itself against a northern power, or Germany overtaking Russia. In some worlds England pulls it off, but England can just as easily try for Tunis and then he doesn't need Moscow or Warsaw for 18.

Hope that helps :)
2

teccles
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:10 pm
Karma: 285
Contact:

Re: On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

#3 Post by teccles » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:34 am

I think the point is more general than these two centres. Of the border territories in the main stalemate line, many can be held just fine from either side. Moscow and Warsaw can be held from the North, with or without Sevastapol; Munich and Berlin can be held from the South (together or separately), Tunis can go North; Marseilles, then Spain, then Portugal can all go with the South.

In other words, there are many stalemate lines. The main one is useful because many games finish at or near it - particularly when the solo attempt is from a corner power - but tactically it is not all that unique.
2

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

#4 Post by swordsman3003 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:58 pm

I've written about this topic on my blog; you might find my writing illuminating, ForGrandFenwick.

https://brotherbored.com/diplomacy/gunb ... win-intro/

I go into the details of what makes Warsaw and Moscow difficult for England and France to capture. The gist is that England and France have a big incentive to build fleets, which are later useless in capturing Warsaw and Moscow. I was writing for the gunboat context, but the "North" and "South" tactical concepts are far more meaningful in gunboat anyways (anything is possible in press).

In your typical Diplomacy match, England and France would most likely attack Warsaw or Moscow as part of a bid to reach 18. That fact gives the other players time and incentive to form a stalemate line before losing to a solo. By contrast, an Austrian, Turkish or even German capture of Warsaw and Moscow is "business as usual." Italy would probably only go after Warsaw or Moscow to try to reach 18, but if Italy has rolled up the rest of the South with armies, it is noticeably harder for Northern powers (who might have many useless fleets) to assemble enough armies to safely put Warsaw and Moscow behind a stalemate line.

So, ForGrandFenwick, my answer to your question is that you are not looking at Diplomacy holistically; you are just looking at the map near Russia and not the entire game (e.g., the strategic incentives of the players). In terms of what will actually happen in matches you play, Moscow and Warsaw will be defended from the South far more often than they will be defended from the North.
1

mhsmith0
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am
Karma: 186
Contact:

Re: On Southerlyness of Moscow and Warsaw

#5 Post by mhsmith0 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:09 am

imo...

Probably the simplest scenario for Moscow/Warsaw to be defended from the north in a long term sense is Germany and Italy being the dominant board powers and Germany holding those centers and setting up a line against Italy, POSSIBLY including Sev as well in the set (it can work with or without Sev)

I'd say that in a short term sense, defending Moscow/Warsaw from the north probably is most likely to just involve Russia defending itself from a different southern power invading. Which is particularly hard for Russia to do, since a southern invader is likely to have a bunch of armies, and Russia shouldn't have many centers if he has to defend the center of his home territory. PROBABLY it'd be somewhat relevant if Russia and some northern power or powers are together setting up a stalemate line against a southern power going for 18 (probably Italy or Turkey in that sense; if Austria doesn't have Moscow/Warsaw, he's probably nowhere near 18 anyway)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests