Re: [Classic] The Mountain Opening
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:27 pm
It’s ok. I disagree with the whole premise.
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=843
Your reasoning here ("German is sure going to be hostile(France just aupported Italy to Munich") is interesting. Why is Germany "sure going to be hostile" against France but will suddenly trust Italy, the very power who took Munich itself?
This is your God-given right, no one is angry at you for having your own opinion. I merely wish to understand your critic a bit more. I agreed with some of your points, and found some of your arguments flawed.
With all due respect, the correlation between success in online ELO-based rankings and expertise regarding Diplomacy opening theory is somewhat weak. I am sure you are a good player, but good players are not necessarily the best scholars (and vice-versa) so let's be careful here.I think I’ve been as high as 4th inGR non-live classic
I don't know why you mention personal accomplishments in a theoretical discussion about openings between two complete strangers, but if it's relevant for you:maybe try to be a part of the games you actually play.
That wouldn't be fair to poor you, you already revealed your master plan.i hope one day we find ourselves locked in this exact position and you support me to Munich
So am I. Italy has little to gain from it, so it's likely a ruse to bring France into conflict with Germany.as France I am suspicious about offers to support me into Munich
1) Obvious, but hardly avoidable. A French army in Burgundy and an Italian army in Tyrolia are very common sights, right? But how often do you see Germany wasting both armies with a supported attack on Munich? There is not much in their openings that telegraph their dark intentions to the Kaiser.An immediate move on Munich? A little too obvious, and not stable/secure enough.
And here as well:Holding Munich, in any case, is not of essence. It's a quick grab against a very busy power that can hardly afford to launch a punitive expedition against Italy for a good while, as they wrestle with invaders from both west and east.
This is the key thing: **Italy cannot hold on Munich for very long**. It's actually most commonly taken as the **18th Italian cente**r or somewhere along the endgame. **Seeing A BUR S A TYR-MUN as a quick SC grab is for the best** - France will want it anyway, **sooner or later**.
I mean, seeing just one of those moves, as Germany, would get my attention a bit and get to talking - "What's the plan with Bur/Tyr"? Seeing both?! Perhaps I am paranoid, or stick to conservative predictable openings (probably one of my main weaknesses) but that would seem to telegraph something to me, as Germany. If it doesn't to most players, then that's probably because we're so used to I/F going their separate ways in 1901 that we don't even imagine the quick Munich punch as a possibility.Enriador wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:41 am1) Obvious, but hardly avoidable. A French army in Burgundy and an Italian army in Tyrolia are very common sights, right? But how often do you see Germany wasting both armies with a supported attack on Munich? There is not much in their openings that telegraph their dark intentions to the Kaiser.I think I’ve been as high as 4th inGR non-live classic
Come on, you know you'd just abandon your 17th game after things get tough.That’s the best part, i don’t need to keep it a secret
Hmm, if you stop and think about A BUR *and* A TYR then you are actually a very attentive player - a good Kaiser is always a little bit paranoid. The real trick is getting the truth out of "Hey, A BUR is not agressive, I just want to play with Belgium" or "Tyrolia is a trick my fella, I will slip to Trieste/Piedmont/Bohemia next season" and similar chit-chat.Perhaps I am paranoid, or stick to conservative predictable openings
I didn't say it before, but now that you mention it I think that's one of the opening's most important pillars: novelty. No one realistically expects it, and leaving your hyper-confident fellow players utterly astonished is a diplomat's joy!we're so used to I/F going their separate ways in 1901 that we don't even imagine the quick Munich punch as a possibility.
Whoosh, that's tough. Did you bounce them in Baltic Sea at least?I actually did get caught in a similar pickle as Germany, except it was Russia supporting France into Mun in 1901 from Silesia
I cannot blame you at all - it's pure theory. I lack the statistical data to properly corroborate whether the opening is useful or harmful to either side. Just food for thought.I just don’t buy into F/I alliance in 01
Hmm, isn't that an interesting game? Italy/France had quite the potential - by 1903 France had six centers (BEL, SPA, POR), and so had Italy (TRI, VIE, TUN). Denmark was in Russian hands while Scandinavia became an English playground. France had fleets at ENG and IRI ready to take the English mainland, while Italy held an iron grip on the Balkans and Austria itself.ziran wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:30 amat some point, with more games under my belt, i plan to compile a list of games that meet various criteria. here is one of an early f/i*: https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?game ... #gamePanel
*includes at least two new players and a cd in 1901.