Some analysis for Russia

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
Post Reply
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:16 am
Karma: 6

Some analysis for Russia

#1 Post by naked » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:00 pm

First a short preface:

I think the most important thing a russian player has to understand is:
R lives and dies in the south!

R doesnt need gains in the north at the start. Just keeping S.P. in the
early game is a big thing for achieving a solo. If R looses S.P. it can
later go for a retake. Even if R never gets S.P. back he can easily get
a draw. But for all the good things to happen R needs a good run in
the south. If R gets defeated in the south there is no comming back.

Now to some analysis:

My analysis is for R and for sure not complete. After some point it is
simply too much writing for my taste.

spring 1901:

Opening moves pretty normal, except A not moving Tri-Alb, which is
good for R + T (which should be default). Also E moving to Yor and
not Edi limits his options in the scandinavins.

autumn 1901:

E moves worst case for R. G moves worst case for R. It should be
clear after one year A is playing weak. staying in Tri in spring is
dubious, in autumn just bad. not moving with Ser is just awful. I is
also playing bad (moving to Gre looks bad to me, staying in Ven in
spring is suboptimal).

The build in Mos is without an alternative.

builds 1901:

Now R is in a very difficult position. E is going big for S.P, but R
also has to think about his south. The english attack on R is very
commiting. If R is capable to defend for one year versus E, E is in
big trouble. E cannot afford the resources to fight R without gains,
because this gives F the premium plan of invading the west of E.
But R also has a resource problem. Fighting for S.P. makes life very
easy for A. It is very good for R that A only got one build. Versus a
normal A + I with a two build A there would be no choice. R would
simply have to go south and leave S.P. Here R can think about
delaying the movement Mos to Ukr. But defending also not
easy. If E goes all in for S.P. it is a guessing game. What is best ? I
have no clue. It depends on a lot of estimates, but with R: if in
doubt go south. There is only one scenario which looks really awful
to me if R simply givees up S.P.: A good working E + G, with an
english tank in S.P. and two german tank going for War. Probability:
ultra low.

spring 1902:

Ok, now it is clear all opponents in the south are bad. T going for
Rum makes no sense to me. Even if T gets Rum what comes next ?
R will defend SEV, A will push for Rum, Bul and possible Gre
(depends on I). With a growing T I never has the option fighting A.
I has to go for T. No way that fighting three guys is good for T. But
that was the good case with T getting Rum. If T doesnt get Rum, he
only can hope that R understands that he has no other option than
staying with T(, if T stops attacking R). E moving to Nor instead of
Eng seems bad to me. This give F an important tempo for a possible
attack on E. Securing Nor makes only sense to me if G moves to Nor (probability: very low) and gets an advantage out of it. To me this
would mean G can convoy a tank to the isle. This will not happen.
Yes G gets Edi (with a fleet) but after this E will fight G with all he
has giving R + F a sweet life, with lots of options like F helping E
defending, F collecting more of E than G, F attacking G on the
mainland, R escalating in the scandinavian.

autumn 1902:
North is a very happy surprising result. T makes me speechless.
There is no way he gets Sev. Only a war between I + A puts some
sense to turkish moves and there is no sign showing this. Instead
there is a clear path for I to turkish mainland.

Ok, i will shorten this now. The game is pretty weak. Loosing Sev
is the clear first mistake i see for R. Dont know why you didnt
defend it. T moves should make it clear that he has no strategy
except the next SC. Cant say for sure but i guess i would have
gone south in 1902. Looking at the rest of the game it is a miracle
that R as part of the Draw. Seems clear to me that A + I + T poor
play is a big part of this result.

Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:16 am
Karma: 6

Re: Some analysis for Russia

#2 Post by naked » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:01 pm

autumn 1901:

i dont like War to Mos. I would suggest thinking about your
situation and what are your priorities. To me it is clear R
first has to defend versus T (T attacks R), denying him gains
hoping that T gets the message that there is no progress
for him attacking R. No progress always means a step backward.
With your moves in SEV and Ukr (which i like) + a sure build
in Mos your defense is stable. But R can do more. A tank in
Gal can fight for Rum, first versus T and after T (hopefully)
switches his plan to fight versus A. Also i dont think you do
anything to start war with A (which you dont really want right
now with T attacking you). If I attacks A, A will accept the
tank in Gal as R most likely is fighting for Rum and A doesnt
want a two way war. If I doesnt attack A, A will go for Gal
+ Rum anyway. I dont think R has any disadvantage going for
Gal. Does R want more troops north ? Only if R likes two way
wars. Also dont forget: Russia lives and dies in the south!
Optimizing your probabilities in the south helps your game
much more than starting a war in the north.

your question:
Here's my question. Regarding this game, I have this feeling
that a better player would have solo'd. Everything seemed to
go my way in this one. Can you see where I could have done
things differently, or in a different order to set myself up
for 18 ?

To me this doesnt look like an russian solo. If you really
want it keep playing, but it should be an easy draw. What
do you need for a solo? The southern stalemate line and
some part of the northern stalemate line. In the game you
got some part of the northern line right before the end
and i dont see how you could have done it faster. But the
real problem is in the south. If you dont control Ion I
has an easy defense. I dont see how you can get control
of Ion without other big drawbacks. You would have to build
lots of fleets and I gets the message some years before
the war even starts. All the resources you use for that
would be missing somewhere else and I has options to react.

Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am
Karma: 46

Re: Some analysis for Russia

#3 Post by Doug7878 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:24 pm

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.

Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am
Karma: 182

Re: Some analysis for Russia

#4 Post by mhsmith0 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:39 pm

Hey this game looks familiar! :P

Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:05 am
Karma: 46

Re: Some analysis for Russia

#5 Post by Doug7878 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:12 pm

Hello, France !

Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:01 pm
Karma: 85

Re: Some analysis for Russia

#6 Post by Kingdroid » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:29 pm

dont really like that i was in both of these lmao.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest