Let me clarify a little. The Anschluss is really only a German tactic, not an Austrian one. The Austrian can do little to convince the France or England from attacking Germany. But Austria certainly benefits and apparently by extension so does Germany.

How does Germany protect Austria? A couple of opening conversations of course. The most obvious is advising Russia that you will let him into Sweden only if he respects Galicia as a DMZ. You can also threaten (or actually follow through with) a Munich-Tyrolia opening to Italy, basically promising violent reaction to any Italian attack on Austria. A couple words promising German and potential English help against Russia to Turkey and you are on your way. Everyone is suddenly clamouring to ally with Austria rather than tear him to shreds. Thats how it is carried out.

I am actually doing a study into "races" to win between different powers, and for Germany, the win rate is 1.24:1 against Austria, or 31:25. He would do better persecuting Russia first, and then hassling Austria for Turkey's benefit, with a 1.68:1 rate.

TheGhostmaker beats me to my point. It is misguided. The percieved benefit is that Germany is using Austria to buffer him from attack from the east. But is that really the case?

The idea comes from the fear of the juggernaught (R/T). If Austria goes down in two years against a juggernaught Russia has free reign against Germany. if that happens early, its usually the end of the reich. Under this scenairio you would encourage Italy to ally with Austria. (Most would probably do it anyway).

But under Anshluss you are basically trying to get everyone to ally with Austria. Russia honours the Galicia DMZ and Italy lepantos Turkey so Turkey goes down quickly. Now what? Austria and Russia are now bigger and have home centres with new armies near your borders. Now your homegrown Austria is going to be flooding your territory with armies.

What does this mean? It means that you want balance in the east. No who goes down first in the east, emerging from the wreckage are going to be invading armies. A good Germany (well any good player really, but especially Germany) wants to maintain balance in the east to avoid the early attack. This means you don't actually act in Austria's best interests because you don't want him to be all the successful, you just dont want him to die, you don't want anyone to die. Italy tell you he is going to attack Austria? Get Russia to dmz Galicia. Italy allying with Austria? Tell Turkey and Russia that Austria has been talking smack about them.

Obviously my opinion is just an opinion. Many believe Austria is the most likely to die, so it follows that you should protect him. But its not so black and white. It seldom is I suppose.

Richard Sharp's Game of Diplomacy.
Historically, the Anschluss was the annexation of Austria by Germany on 11 March 1938; as such, it may seem an odd name for a pro-Austrian opening! However, the German word doesn’t necessarily (or even usually) imply rape the union may be voluntary on both sides, and in this context will be. The essence of the idea is that Germany and Austria play as a single country during the period of their initial vulnerability; and, more specifically, Germany will come to Austria’s assistance if the latter is attacked by Italy and! or Russia.

I think I can claim to have discovered the Anschluss, or at least to have been the first to formulate the idea clearly. What first put it into my mind was a random check on the many disasters that have overtaken Austria in Diplomacy: clearly, if Italy and Russia decide to take Austria apart, with or without Turkish assistance, only Germany can do anything to prevent it. Austria’s record is horrific : in the first 230 completed British postal games, Austria failed forty-three times to achieve the modest performance of surviving until 1904! What is revealing is Germany’s performance in those games: one win, four draws, one second, two equal seconds, seven thirds, one equal third, eight fourths, one equal fourth, six fifths, four equal fifths, seven sixths, and one magnificent seventh, when Germany managed to go out in 1902, a year before Austria. So in the forty-three Austrian disaster games, Germany won 2.3 per cent and drew 9.3 per cent; in the other 187 games Germany won 14.4 per cent and drew 12.3 per cent. To put it more simply, in games where Austria fails, Germany has the worst record of any country; where Austria lasts until 1904 or later, Germany has the best record. Yes, I know the dangers of drawing conclusions from small samples, but I cannot believe that this is all coincidence.

Yes, but the thing is that the other games see it succeed, but not in an Anchluss environment. Normally, Austrian success is linear with Russian defeat, and that is the point. As soon as you make Austrian survival "artificial", the effect stops being so great.

To make it clear, I support a sort of "soft Anchluss":

1. Italy cannot attack Austria
2. More often than not, bounce in Sweden.
3. Let Austria and Turkey know that you are happy to help keep Russia "honest" in Scandinavia if they attack him.

I don't see the merit behind a bounce in Sweden. I perfer moving the fleet to the gulf or playing the Jutland Gambit.

It damages Russia, making him vulnerable to an A/T, which means that:

a) No Russia behind you, and surrounding you
b) Turkey is likely to win in the East. Turkey is far from Iberia and your close to Warsaw, best country to be second to your solo

That is a good plan, and I'd like to add the idea of a British alliance to this German tactic. Helps you take Scandanavia, should the need arise.

I think Sharps point on basing on the flaws of his own statistics is important. There are alot of things going on in a diplomacy game and he has a limited pool.

If we were to do it, we wouldn't though.

See "volunteers wanted" anyone. It should allow us to get the database in a state where we can identify the games that we should be using.