Kill France

[FlaviusAetius]

Sure Russia could backstab you, but then he'd quickly die by Austria and Turkey for not devoting enough units to a hostile border, makes no sense really

[FlaviusAetius]

We are talking about a world of rational people in a world of irrational players, so you never really know, that wasnt the point of this though, the point was to explain why everyone SHOULD want to kill France, and the only way France can win is by making people do what is AGAINST their best interests
ie; Turkey benefits greatly from Germany attacking Austria in the beginning of the game, is it in his best interests? No.
Can it happen? Yes.

[mhsmith0]

For Russia in particular, I'd dispute that a dead France is helpful (Russia and France are strong natural allies for the most part). As Russia, I'd certainly agree that it helps to have England moving towards France instead of towards you, but I'd generally prefer England to be UNSUCCESSFUL in this effort. An E/G that stalls, very very slowly grinding against France is pretty good news for Russia, as it removes a northern threat for a while. An E/G that rolls up France quickly is bad news for Russia, as their next target will either be each other (and eventually someone will win that fight and then attack Russia pretty strongly), or their next target will be Russia directly (and Russia isn't built to fend off E/G without additional help, particularly if he needs to put units into the south).

Of course it's difficult to have England fight France but basically have it be a big stalemate, but that's what Russia prefers by board design (in particular, Russia tends to very strongly want peace between Italy and France, since France can hold down E/G and Italy can hold down A/T).

[FlaviusAetius]

By the time France is rolled over, England and Germany are fighting no matter what, those two powers always end up fighting, and its just a matter of when, also not necessarily true though, England rolling up France, might end up clashing with Italy, benefiting Russia in particular,
and Russia shouldnt and wouldnt sit by a England v Germany fight, there would be Russian involvement 100%, Germany would not attack Russia, the benefit there is weak, Russia gets to play king maker

and always remember we need to look at alternatives, a living France, is a scary France

[ssorenn]

you do understand that the board is balanced in a way that all countries are symbiotic there's repercussions to killing any one power off. whether directly or indirectly

[mhsmith0]

No one benefits less from France's demise than Russia (a strong England can spam fleet builds and become a big hassle; a strong Germany can spam fleet OR eastern army builds and become a deadly threat; etc).

Also, as Russia, as long as you have 3 or so fleets up north, then you can hold off France more or less indefinitely: F STP NC supports F Bar H; A Finland holds the space; F Baltic holds the space, depending on builds and positions then maybe you also want/need F GOB; and it takes a LONG time for France to shift enough fleets up north to seriously threaten you even if you're less well equipped than the above list. Moreover, if France ever gets big enough to seriously threaten you up north, then (barring intentional solo throws and the like) any southern power with a functioning brain will back off of you and let you have the space you need to set up and/or maintain a northern stalemate line against France.

[mhsmith0]

I think I'd also argue that Austria tends to benefit from France surviving to create problems for Germany at the least, though I'm not 100% on the point (I'd probably guess that the real benefit for Austria is the west being divided, so there's more time to grow and eventually try for a solo run, as opposed to specifically wanting France alive or dead).

But I'd generally tend to think that Austria and France have somewhat correlated success rates (mainly b/c bad things happening to Italy and Turkey is good for both Austria and France; probably also because a strong Austria and France are only likely to compete over Tunis, Munich, and Berlin, which is a pretty short list of overlapping interest centers).

PS I did gunboat solo as Austria once picking up Marseilles for 18, but that also involved France intentionally throwing Marseilles to me b/c Germany stabbed him, so I don't know that it's especially relevant - in general, Austria in Marseilles, and/or France in Italian mainland, is likely to be somewhat rare, though probably less so in press games than gunboat)

[Matticus13]

This topic is poppycock. At the very least, hogwash. There are no absolutes in Diplomacy.

[David E. Cohen]

All other things being equal, and they never are, if you are trying for a solo, it is best if no one gets killed at all.

[Chaqa]

This topic is poppycock. At the very least, hogwash. There are no absolutes in Diplomacy.

I don't know, Matticus, I think eliminating France is usually a pretty good play

[Claesar]

All other things being equal, and they never are, if you are trying for a solo, it is best if no one gets killed at all.

You'd expect that, but a study from about a year ago showed no such correlation. Didn't save the link..

[David E. Cohen]

To expound on my point, simplicity, in addition to being boring, is the enemy of the solo, unless you are talking about a final push where the player attempting to solo has reduced matters to a purely tactical exercise. You want inefficiency (where inefficiency means other players turning in suboptimal order sets from the point of view of preventing a solo) among your enemies. Tactical, strategic and diplomatic complexity tends to give rise to inefficiency.

The more players still in the game, the more chance there is of players working at cross purposes, of miscommunication, of suspicion, emotion or simple error giving rise to inefficiency. Knowing nothing else about a board, with you at 16 dots, do you think that on balance you would have a better chance at a solo playing against 2 players with 9 dots each, or 6 players with 3 dots each? I know which of those boards I would rather be on!

Obviously, if there is an in-game situation where elimination of a player will increase the likelihood of you getting a solo, then kill away! The in-game situation trumps all.

[FlaviusAetius]

you do understand that the board is balanced in a way that all countries are symbiotic there's repercussions to killing any one power off. whether directly or indirectly

I just explained why its best for every single power to do so

[FlaviusAetius]

not best* but if every power is on it, its best for every power

[FlaviusAetius]

I think I'd also argue that Austria tends to benefit from France surviving to create problems for Germany at the least, though I'm not 100% on the point (I'd probably guess that the real benefit for Austria is the west being divided, so there's more time to grow and eventually try for a solo run, as opposed to specifically wanting France alive or dead).

But I'd generally tend to think that Austria and France have somewhat correlated success rates (mainly b/c bad things happening to Italy and Turkey is good for both Austria and France; probably also because a strong Austria and France are only likely to compete over Tunis, Munich, and Berlin, which is a pretty short list of overlapping interest centers).

PS I did gunboat solo as Austria once picking up Marseilles for 18, but that also involved France intentionally throwing Marseilles to me b/c Germany stabbed him, so I don't know that it's especially relevant - in general, Austria in Marseilles, and/or France in Italian mainland, is likely to be somewhat rare, though probably less so in press games than gunboat)

If France isnt getting killed by Italy, Italy is killing Austria, not a good look for that, if Austria can wrap it up real quick,, which they usually can without Italy they are doing good

By contrast without Italian involvement Turkey also stands a good chance
Basically France dying, makes it easier for them all

[FlaviusAetius]

I do take your point though about Russia being able to stop France easily in the north, the problem is they cant control the South, and thats where the magic happens, also an England + Germany are way more likely to attack each other, than you

[Matticus13]

You are making a blanket statement: "The death of France is good for everyone." It's simply not that simple... There have been no doubt been hundreds upon hundreds (probably thousands) of games where that statement fails. I bet you can even look through your own game history and find at least one example where it led to negative consequences for other Powers. If you can't find at least one, you aren't looking very hard...

[FlaviusAetius]

I’ve made several statements here explaining the caveats and you haven’t shown my evidence to the contrary
But in the end if we are talking about a perfect gunboat game; It’s better for every power to attack France
It’s better for Germany and Italy A LONE to attack France than with England, but it’s really bad for England if he does not join on in
It’s better for Russia Turkey and Austria as well because then they get to decide who wins amongst themselves than with an outside power intervening
Killing France of course has negative consequences I’m saying those consequences do not outweigh the benefits and certainly don’t outweigh the consequences leaving him a live leave
If I’m England I should not want to root for France to die quickly, if he does it benefits me but I need to JOIN in, if I don’t then I will lose out quickly so yes it’s better for England to kill France, since it makes complete sense for Germany and Italy to do so, and if he does not participate he also loses out
Better for Russia that a France doesn’t grow out of control and something that as stated before he can only stop the advance not counteract it

Respond to my points please if you feel I’m getting something wrong, I have made no blanket statements I explained it very thoroughly you on the other hand have not

[Matticus13]

If England is under attack by Germany/Russia from the onset, they should try and ally France. If Germany is under attack by say England/Russia, they should ally with France. If Italy is under attack from Austria/Turkey, they have no business attacking France.

As Russia, you usually want France to make it into at least the mid-game. If not, you will more than likely face pressure from England or Germany, or both as early as 1902. As Austria, you generally want France around to keep Italy honest. As Turkey, it depends...

Other people have already said all of these things... You're not listening. You claimed that E/G doesn't hold past a dead France, which is nonsense. Plenty of times it continues down into Russia and into the Mediterranean. You also said that if Italy isn't killing France, they are killing Austria. Bull. Lots of times they are busy with Turkey.

Pretty sure you are trolling at this point. At least, I hope you are.

[FlaviusAetius]

Why would England side with France? To get into a big stalemate? Join in reap the rewards fight later makes no sense to ally a dead power

If England is under attack by Germany and Russia is not the point;

The point is if everyone is attacking France and killing France, is it good or is it bad for everyone on the board; if France convinces someone to act against their own interests that’s a different story, we are talking about if everyone is on board kill France(which they should be) is this beneficial or not?

I have already addressed this point before but if Germany attacks Austria right from the beginning I’m sure you’d agree that’d be silly
But guess what? It happened, are you now going to say well because it could happen all strategies with Austria? Throw out the window!!!!
As it was said before in game scenarios take over strategy, it does not change the point that killing France is in everyone’s best interests and NOT to distrupt the killing of France as you do describe

E/G is destined to die, now and always, and with an Italy jumping on board you really don’t think those three will have some problems? Your a joking right? Russia is the least of their concerns and why would England go after a single territory in Moscow?

Your first paragraph completely misses the point

Maybe Russia faces pressure or maybe he gets helped by Germany to hold a Scandinavia Germany cannot?
Or maybe Russia gets steamrolled
Or maybe England helps Russia storm across the German continent
Or maybe Russia is left a lone and England and Germany go through their war
Those scenarios are MUCH better for Russia than a Russia taking Scandinavia to give France England,
Basically you aren’t weighing the benefits and consequences, keeping France a live is the alternative, meaning France becomes big, there’s a reason why (I believe) France has the biggest solo winnings, it’s because if left a live it becomes a very very dangerous player on the board. Everyone suffers when France is left a live that’s undeniable

Keeping Italy honest against a person whose busy? Or keeping Italy occupied? People want expansion, and you can only keep someone ‘honest’ for so long

Italy benefits a lot more from a dead France than a dead Turkey, and Austria benefits from a dead France because then they can’t get backlogged as so often happens(because Russia focuses south, and the three play kingmaker kingmaker