you dont want a 6 SC russia bearing down your neck unless hes friendly

Bouncing is not so automatic. And it doesn't have to do with how friendly or not Russia is. You may want to have Russia there because he's rather weak in the south and it buys you some latitude to deal with England. You may want Russia there because it allows you to play an angle in relation to your dealings with Turkey and Austria.
Given Germany's position on the map, any choice you make can be the right one if you set up the proper diplomatic context. I don't think that there's one general way to approach it.

It depends on a lot of factors, and each is specific to that game. Your relationship with England and France, whether you are of the school that a strong Austria begets a strong Germany (don't move to Galicia or I'll bounce you). You can also do the not often seen F Denmark move Ska, A Kiel move Denmark, and guarantee yourself Sweden next turn unless England support holds Russia, in which case, you're in a very bad position

gameID=66442
I played this game some time ago. Russia was adament to open North and take Sweden, it told me from the start. I also wanted it.

That's all fair and interest. But what if, for whatever reason, you decide that you do in fact want to bounce?
I tend to not want to lie so early in the game so what is the response to "So, I'm going get Sweden in F01, right?"

The response is: "No. <emoticon>".

Whenever somebody talks to me in 1901 presuming that they're going to take a contested neutral, I generally do what is diplomatically necessary to screw them over. I have no interest in even attempting to ally somebody whose approach to the game is taking as many SCs as possible.

It depends on what I want. I always negotiate Sweden for one of a few things. Most often, it's a protective device for Austria (temporary anyhow). I also use it as an alliance tool. I am to the point now that I less frequently bounce him there unless there's good reason to believe that he is working with England and/or France in the north or isn't doing what I need him to do in the south.

I think you need to consider France and England when figuring out what to do with Sweden. If France is looking strong at S01, I think it's best to have a weak Russia to facilitate a strong England and therefore would at least bounce Russia out. If you have a weak France, you will likely end up with a strong England so you will need Russia's help and allowing them to have Sweden will help build an alliance.

I tell him he can have it then block it anyway unless France and England both open anti-German, then I let him take it knowing I have an ally to my East.

If you want sweden, let's make it beneficial to us both. I don't want to block you, so let's agree to a nap and figure out a way we can both get an SC...

An example:
Perhaps you get swe, then I help you get norway in exchange for sweden?

Se we are taking naps now? Can I do that at work?

non aggression pact.

Or, as they say in spain. Siesta!

If I'm playing Russia, I'll always always always try and get Germany to move Kie-Hol or something similar.

Conversely, as a German, I'll usually move Kie-Den, even if I then stand pat in the fall. It's as much a guarentee of Russian neutrality as anything.

Of course, if Russia is looking good for a build or two down south, and is on good terms with England, then Germany can be seriously hurt by Nwg-Norway, Yor-Den (Nth convoy), GoB-Baltic.....

As Germany, a large Russia can be a hugely useful negotiation stick. Tell France and England "don't mess with me, or Russia will be able to pick up my dots at their leisure."

On the other hand, I rarely see a F STP(sc) from Russia if they didn't make it into Sweden because their units are then way bunched up.

A huge Russia puts fear into the board, so think about putting yourself in a position to benefit from that.

But the same can be said as Austria because of a possible juggernaut... and that usually doesn't work.... so I wouldn't play with fire if you are germany (meaning, I wouldn't purposely grow russia just to try and force france and england's hands).

I purposefully grow countries all the time to force players hands.

Of course, the diplomatic situation has to be right (playing with quality players who will recognize the threat of a huge Russia in German centers). If Russia getting that 1 extra dot is going to cause concern about Russia across the board that you can use, let them have it.

A huge Russia rolling Austria is a different bag of beans for the West because it's not across the stalemate line, so the diplomatic response is much more likely to be "who cares?"

This piece of analysis by Ivo_ivanov back in 2009 is the best I have seen for considering the G/R situation. I have reprinted it below ( hope Ivo's OK with that)

"5 Dec 2009: Re: School of War - Game VI
@SunZi

Sorry for not responding earlier to your question. I saw there's a new turn and jumped to the commentary right away. Your question in not inane in any way, actually, it's one of the 'eternal' questions - what should GER do about SWE first year. There're many opinions out there, I haven't seen one that is sound in its entirety, but here's what I've come to:

1. The main problem for GER, in relation to SWE, is that he has to make the fist move. Chances are that by Fall'01 there're not enough clear indications of where the game is going, so it's really a shot in the dark. All that a GER player will know for certain, when he inputs the DEN-SWE move, is that he's not gaining anything more than an enemy. Everything else is speculations and assumptions.

2. Many times a GER player will bounce SWE and claim he was pressure by the others to do so. This is a really lame excuse, which can only mean that either the GER player is not that experienced, or that he thinks RUS is such. Because, the fact of the matter is, that a bounce in SWE is beneficial to at least 3-4 other players, but not to GER or RUS. Just as any other war really. Starting a war for the sole reason that others asked you to is simply poor play.

3. When you take a look at Scandinavia, it's clear that the three powers present are all natural enemies. Should any one of them grow too strong, this is usually very bad news for the other two. GER starts in the strongest position, noone can stop him for DEN, while both NOR and SWE can be contested. So, what is the worst thing you can do in a triangle-type relation, when you have the upper hand? Commit against one of the others, leaving the third player (ENG in this case) to call the shots and "be the decider", as G.W. Junior would put it :)

4. Let's examine the builds and second year, to see how each approach will play out:
- If RUS is not in SWE, this usually leads to no build in St.P. RUS is in a weak spot, not knowing whether to move back to protect St.P., or keep trying for SWE. Without an agreement with ENG he can't do anything really, as nothing can stop ENG from walking in St.P. So, to repeat myself, all you gained is an enemy who can be easily manipulated by ENG.
- If RUS is in SWE, most likely this will lead to a build in St.P. Probably an army, maybe a fleet on NC. RUS does not want war with GER in the beginning, his focus is in the South, security is all that's needed in the North. Give him that and he's yours.

5. Obviously, in some situations bouncing SWE makes sense. If you see RUS is getting two builds in the South, if you have already made up your mind and are planning to place two fleets (as in our case), which will automatically make RUS an enemy anyway, and so on. But these are really rare cases.

6. For this site specifically, you should keep in mind that people sometimes do background checks. Meta-gaming or not, that's the situation. So, the one thing you don't want, is every RUS knowing that you always bounce SWE. One has to take care about such things.

7. Whatever you are going to do, never ever tell RUS you will bounce him in advance. Unless you want to end up in SWE with a RUS fleet in BAL and an ENG army in DEN. It's a really ugly sight for any GER.

So, to recap, bouncing SWE is a huge unknown, when it comes to the benefits, while there're some clear negatives. For me, this is a clear decision.

What I usually do as GER is let RUS to take SWE, place in St.P. and then proceed to take NOR, while I move in SWE behind him. Having NOR provides better control for RUS, as he has two neighboring units now, plus it leaves everything from G-o-B to SIL as a DMZ.

If I'm RUS and I get offered such a deal I'd always take it.

And, keep in mind that if your goal, as GER, is to take SWE, it really makes no difference whether RUS's fleet is in G-o-B or in SWE. The only difference is how are RUS and ENG moving, and it's always better to have RUS being able to attack ENG (NOR), than not. Unless you want him to only be able to fight you that is :)"

It seems so logical that Germany should let Russia into sweden...but I see this so rarely, excepting perhaps gunboats.

People seem to see bounces much more often than myself. I would assume Russia gets into Sweden in about 70% of my games. When I'm Russia or Germany, Russia gets into Sweden 95% of the time

In most of the games I've played R does get Sweden. If I'm playing Ger I generally ask for a StP (nc) fleet build in return. It is hard for E and R to be bosom buddies when that piece appears, and that is a good thing.

Yes I agree with the sentiments of the last 3 posts. Before I read Ivo's analysis, I was in the "stand Germany out of Sweden whatever" school, but this was so well argued, that I have changed my view and now need a reason.

Ivo's piece is great. Thanks for resurrecting it, martinck.