I'd hazard a guess that its difficult to do because a successful England will have many fleets, and be in a position to cut apart any Russian gains, but conversely, Russia is unable to develop much in the way of fleets because it would antagonize and threaten England.

Not saying that its impossible, but I'd be surprised to see it often.

Fortunately, StP has a southern coast.

I typically try to avoid this conflict like crazy, and usually succeed. If I'm England and i'm forced into a conflict with Russia, I'll actually offer him an olive branch one I take St. Pete because he can't hurt me anymore. As for being Russia and going straight after England... not worth it. I've got too much to do elsewhere and England is too far away.

Incidentally, when I'm Italy, I REALLY want England and Russia to get along.

"I've heard the idea put forth that England and Russia swap Sweden for Norway to ensure that the danger of having an English fleet parked in Norway is removed and also gives England better support into Denmark. Never seen it in a real game, but it's worth considering."

Me neither. It seems that it's often discussed and even planned but then one of the parties just launches a surprise attack and tries to pretend circumstance forced their hand.

@AWB - I also always always always try to avoid this conflict, but I posted this thread because I'm starting to think that may be foolhardy. Perhaps I should accept it as a fact of playing R/E.

I think I've avoided it in almost any game where I've succeeded as England or Russia using exactly that tactic.

What tactic.

No seriously I want to know because I hate Anglo-Russian wars.

Almost inevitable. There has to be something extraordinary, like a Germany who gets himself despised early, for there not to be Anglo-Russian war in the Arctic Circle. BTW, doesn't circumstance, that being the desire to win, always force one's hand?

England takes nor with a fleet in fall 1901. If Germany bounced Russia out of swe, then in 1902 either England takes swe with Russian support and then supports a convoy into den, or England helps Russia take it in the spring and Russia supports the convoy to den in the fall. If Germany let Russia into swe in Fall 1901, then swe-bal, nor-swe, stp-nor in Spring 1901 usually means England can take den in the fall and Russia has a shot at kie/ber.

welcome back peterwiggin!

Thanks. I played a ftf game yesterday and decided to see how things were going here.

As England or Russia I've almost always tried to have peace between the two. And almost always have been stabbed in return. Finally I convinced someone to actually partner up and we kicked ass.

Germany supported Crazyter (England) into Sweden in Spring 1902, and I (Russia) retreated to GoB and then supported her from Sweden into Denmark while also getting France to help her against Germany. Everyone kept expecting us to stab each other rather than them. Worked great.

Then for League point reasons I supported Austria against Italy rather than just working with Italy (sorry orathaic). I gave up some size to do so.

In any case, I think a good E/R/I alliance could work great if it holds up into the mid-game. Just wish others would see it that way rather than going for a quick one or two center stab and ruining of a great potential.

And either side can sell it to the other as settling Scandinavia with a minimum commitment of force.

If Turkey does the smart thing in 1901 and immediately attack Russia in alliance with Austria, then England will have no issue taking St. Pete and possibly Moscow depending on how quickly the southern advance takes place. Essentially what I'm saying is once Russia is attacked by someone, England will always join in.

To me, I see no way to simply go your separate ways as England and Russia. A fleet in Edinburgh is offensive to Russia as is any army; a fleet in north St. Pete is offensive to England. Thus, Russia can't develop a navy. England seizes that opportunity to convoy and beat Russia. If England plays it right in coalition with a southern power, he can't lose.

Alderian, post game ID? I'd like to see that.

I submit that you are what is wrong with the E/R relationship. As E, you see that you can take the centers so you feel you must take the centers. What you don't see is the freedom and power given to England but not having to fight over the centers.

You can benefit from not fighting someone you can easily beat. Especially over centers that you can easily take late in the game as easy as early in the game.

gameID=57609

That was a though league to play in.

I submit that E and R can be great allies, the northern fleet will always be a problem and stp is a target. An option is to give England stp and give den/kiel/berlin to russia.

England can't reasonable advance from stp and russia can't easily take it back. However in early game russia needs to worry more about the south and can't afford to lose centers up north. So i'd suggest waiting until the south has shaken itself out a bit... 1903/4

I'm actually surprised that E/R don't ally more often, especially since they have a pretty obvious common enemy in the beginning of the game, and even more so if Germany decides to bounce in Sweden. England uses a northern opening, grabs Norway and bounces Germany in Holland/Belgium, and then next turn supports GoB into Sweden. The alliance is limited in scope, and the only real sticking point is the St. Pete/Norway border, but it makes a DMZ easy in the north since there is no danger of any other country moving into Scandinavia.

@orathaic, from the start I told Crazyter (E) that long term StPete was hers, basically because I (R) couldn't stop her from taking it. As Russia you have to assume you will eventually lose StPete. So in deciding who gets which centers long term, you factor that in. Short term you need StPete and Norway.

@aldy, agreed and this is something which most players of russian may be very reluctant to offer.

That said i find it very hard for russia to effectively wage a northern war. It depends heavily on what is going on down south, but i think russia is better off chieving peace in the north; even if stp is the cost. (and this kind of thinking makes me want to play russian and win a northern war...)

I've always thought that Russia's fortunes in the north are heavily dependent on France. A French fleet in the Channel in 1901 provides the opportunity to build a fleet NC StP and quickly grab Norway, likely with German help, hitting the North from Denmark.

It's a pretty fucking great alliance and it is a pity that people don't consider to be such. Many lost opportunities.