The Lepanto: A problem for Germany?

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

The classic counter to the Juggernaut is of course the Lepanto (and definitely not the Key Lepanto which relies on a nonallied R/T). I was thinking about who might benefit from this succeeding just like France seems to benefit from the Juggernaut succeeding.

England? Affected more by however it affects F and G than by R being weak

France? Probably less likely to do good with a strong Juggernaut not happening, but not much and also I don't want to write another post about that

Germany? Actually, this looks pretty bad for Germany.
Why?
Well, let's say Turkey is dead, and Russia is either dead or holed up in Moscow or St Petersburg (or both). If Italy and Austria don't immediately betray each other, they will want to go after either Germany or France.

If France and England killed Germany, Germany is dead by mid-game regardless of the Lepanto, unless they run away to Moscow or St Petersburg (which I am mentioning because those are the most salvageable 1-center holdouts to hide in until a draw, and also because I have done exactly that in several games).

If Germany and England killed France, it's much easier for Italy and Austria to kill Germany than to try to somehow kill England, especially because Austria will get impatient if Italy tries to go for England. A good Austria will just suggest killing Germany. England, meanwhile, is locked on the other side of someone trying to fight a stalemate line with half the units to do so. The easiest path out? Just stab Germany and draw 3-ways. Meanwhile, neither Italy nor Austria has an incentive to stab the other as the most support the could get is a mediocre level from a Germany who's going to get stabbed by England sooner or later anyways.

If Germany and France killed England, Germany might be able to convince Italy to help kill Austria or France, but Austria will want to kill Germany for a quicker win and Italy might be reluctant to stab their ally. The most likely result is killing Germany and thereafter either Austria winning or a I/F/A.

To put this into clear terms, I think that Italy and Austria both surviving will have a significant negative correlation with Germany surviving.

[miminena]

I disagree with this assessment, I think the benefit of a Lepanto in weakening Russia outweighs the negatives that come from a future attack on Germany, since with the Russian centers, Germany has time and resources to prepare

Germany? Actually, this looks pretty bad for Germany.
Why?
Well, let's say Turkey is dead, and Russia is either dead or holed up in Moscow or St Petersburg (or both). If Italy and Austria don't immediately betray each other, they will want to go after either Germany or France.

The bolded section is doing a lot of the work in this sentence imo. An A-I alliance requires a lot of trust, since not only do Venice and Trieste border each other, so do a lot of centers from a split that a Lepanto might have, for example the Turkish home centers. At the beginning this trust is procured by mutually assured destruction, but later on, when Russia and Turkey are out, or sidelined, Austria has the choice to go after whichever power holds the Russian home centers that they don't (usually Germany), which can be very hard to crack, especially STP, or to go after Italy, who is on the same side of the stalemate line. Generally I think an Austrian player in this situation has more incentive to go after Italy than Germany. Admittedly, Italy, who might already be under attack from France, would prefer to keep the alliance, but since Austria has few better places to expand, I would argue that an Italian player should pivot into a R-I once Turkey is out to prevent this situation

If Germany and England killed France, it's much easier for Italy and Austria to kill Germany than to try to somehow kill England, especially because Austria will get impatient if Italy tries to go for England. A good Austria will just suggest killing Germany. England, meanwhile, is locked on the other side of someone trying to fight a stalemate line with half the units to do so. The easiest path out? Just stab Germany and draw 3-ways. Meanwhile, neither Italy nor Austria has an incentive to stab the other as the most support the could get is a mediocre level from a Germany who's going to get stabbed by England sooner or later anyways.

This is a very good point, since an Italy has to worry about the western front much less when a fleet being build in Marseilles isn't a threat. I think this points more to the fact that England benefits heavily from a Lepanto, though. A successful Lepanto almost guarantees a strong Austria, which, looking at statistics from Josh Burton (Table 4, source at the bottom of the post) is generally a good thing for England (Neither of the two overlap much when attempting a solo except in Munich, Berlin, and the Russian centers sans Sevastopol; England is a primarily naval power with a harder time than most at mobilizing armies, and Austria is a primarily land power with a harder time than most at mobilizing fleets). In fact, according to the data, Austria and England want the other to survive more than any other two powers. And, arguably, an Italy that doesn't need to worry about the western front has more incentive to stab Austria, especially if England decides to stab Germany.

If Germany and France killed England, Germany might be able to convince Italy to help kill Austria or France, but Austria will want to kill Germany for a quicker win and Italy might be reluctant to stab their ally. The most likely result is killing Germany and thereafter either Austria winning or a I/F/A.

Why would Austria have a quicker win attacking Germany than Italy? I'd think that with Germany and Austria having the main stalemate line between them, Germany can somewhat easily hold the Russian centers, whereas Italy is a much easier stab target, since an Austria in Tyrolia, Trieste, and Adriatic Sea can generally take Venice with pressure from the west (which is likely with France alive). This is a genuine question btw; you have more experience than I do so I'm probably wrong in many places

To put this into clear terms, I think that Italy and Austria both surviving will have a significant negative correlation with Germany surviving.

I think in a world where Italy and Austria do not stab each other, yes, this is true, but I also think that they have a huge incentive to stab each other, especially Austria. But like I said, I'm very new to diplomacy so I'm likely very wrong here

Statistics source: http://ukdp.diplomatic-pouch.com/pouch/Zine/F2007R/Burton/statistician3.htm

[Trigfea63]

Great thread, and great discussion! I'm inclined to agree with mimi that an A/I alliance tends to be good for Germany overall. I have seen a lot of games end in a 3-way draw A/G/I. There is even a name for it, the "Central Triple."

It's true, the Josh Burton statistics show that Germany profits when Turkey survives. (The table 4 correlation between Turkey dying and Germany soloing is negative 48%, i.e., Germany's solo chance decreases by 48% in games where Turkey dies.) But the statistics also show that Germany profits almost as much when Austria survives. (The Austria dying / Germany soloing correlation is negative 36%.) Taking these two pieces of information together, it seems to me the correct conclusion is that Germany does well when Russia is under serious pressure on its southern front. We just saw in the France-Juggernaut discussion that France profits from a juggernaut. Why? Because Russia puts pressure on England and Germany while Turkey puts pressure on Italy. All of France's neighbors are under pressure when the Jugg is strong! Conversely, a strong A/I (or a strong Turkey that moves north against Russia) puts pressure on Russia, which removes pressure on E/G.

All of that correlates with my experience playing Germany. As Germany, I love to see a weak Russia. It tends to insulate me from an eastern attack, and it gives me an extra potential outlet for expansion. Sure, a strong Austria could also attack me, and sometimes they do. But it's a lot more common for Austria to take out most of the Russian, Italian, and Turkish centers before trying to cross the stalemate line. Once the East is consolidated, Austria need only capture two out of Tunis, Munich, Berlin, and StP to get to 18. That gives Germany (or England, or some combination of western powers) some time to marshal defenses. It's more dangerous for Austria to attempt to cross the stalemate line before I/R/T are seriously weakened or eliminated. It risks a German reaction and then Austria may face a 2-front war.

It's also a good observation that a strong A/I can strengthen England as well, especially when Austria is the more powerful member of the A/I alliance. OTOH, when Italy is the senior partner in the A/I, once he has his 2 or 3 Turkish centers, his next move is usually to attack Austria or move a whole bunch of units west. Either way, Italy is likely to sooner or later put a lot of pressure on the French southern flank, which again helps Germany. It might also help England. But, if Italy overruns Marseilles/Iberia, while that cripples France, removing England's most dangerous enemy, it also turns Italy into a kind of replacement France: England's new sea-faring nemesis with fleets in Portugal, Spain SC, and Western Med, and likely no fleet pressure on him from the East.

[miminena]

I wonder how alliances could be determined to collect statistics for this

Like what counts as a Lepanto? (note that here I'm assuming Lepanto means any A-I, not just with a convoy from Tunis) Does a Lepanto have to continue all the way until Russia and Turkey are out? Or does it just have to start Friendly? Or something else entirely?

I'd love to get actual stats for this (and potentially other countries that benefit from or are hurt by different alliances) but idk how to determine what indicates a specific alliance

[DreamTrawler]

Great analysis from everyone. I agree with Mimi that the I-A alliance is very fragile and that Italy can easily pivot to partnering with Russia, especially since the Lepanto usually eliminates Turkey but not Russia.

Also, in the original post, Dip&War outlines the scenarios for the 3 different Western alliances, pointing out that in an E-G then whoever wins the east will target Germany next.

Because of this I generally like to marshal everyone to kill the corner powers if I am not playing one of the corner powers. IMO if you don't kill England/Turkey early they have a very high chance of surviving even if an R-T or E-F is dominating the other side of the map. Like you said, if I-A has consolidated the east it's way easier for them to dispose of Germany than England, just geographically speaking.

If the 5 surviving players all have at least two neighbors each then the choice of lategame alliances is much more open.

[wintergreen]

For Italy, it's either I-A or death. Look at the top 5 bet games where Italy got eliminated. First two, Italy attacked Austria, third, Italy chose France as his main front and France successfully counterattacked, fourth and fifth, Italy attacked Austria. Meanwhile for Austria, allying with Italy is really the only good way to do anything at all. https://webdiplomacy.net/beta/?gameID=147314 is the only exception I can find, where France and Austria allied in 1902 (!)

[BaneTheImpenetrable]

These are all good points. I think that overall, Germany's southern front is stable: When Russia is weak, Germany has no eastern worries; the western side with France is by this point dealt with*; and it is VERY hard to break into Germany from the southern side when it is safe on the west and east. Until Russia is out, Austria and Italy will have a hard time against Germany when Silesia is the only way to get a wrap around Munich.

*When the Lepanto succeeds, if Germany is a wise player they will have already dealt with the French border. The French border should always be Germany's priority because it is the point at which all games pivot toward or against Germany.

[Bladerunners]

Biggest mistake for Italy in any version - regular, gunboat, and especially bots is to to attack austria. immediate death for italy along with austria

[Bladerunners]

Side - a good 20 questions game maybe - who is the worst diplomacy player(s) in the history of the game ... not just this site, but 'the game'.... hint - two players .... hint .... they invented something ...

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

Biggest mistake for Italy in any version - regular, gunboat, and especially bots is to to attack austria. immediate death for italy along with austria

That's an interesting perspective, because either italy or turkey surviving decreases the chance of the other solo winning, while both players' home centers are common acquisitions for the other in order to win.
see https://diplom.org/Zine/F2007R/Burton/statistician3.htm

[BaneTheImpenetrable]

Biggest mistake for Italy in any version - regular, gunboat, and especially bots is to to attack austria. immediate death for italy along with austria

That is an interesting view. I think that while this is not Italy's best strategy, Italy attacking Austria is alright. When Italy attacks, they usually have an advantage versus Austria in that: 1. Italy is on a peninsula and is therefore impossible to flank without fleets; 2. Correlating to (1.), Austria has very weak options with its fleets, especially since Trieste will be the first area Italy attacks; 3. Austria will be under pressure from Turkey and Russia, and France would be stupid to immediately go after Italy; 4. Italy will have time to destroy Austria before Turkey can build fleets to come at Italy, so no "immediate death". In conclusion, Italy has the advantage in a battle, but the reason this is not Italy's best option is that Russia or Turkey will come in on Austria at the same time and Italy will not want to have to face either head-on.

[Bladerunners]

Oh man - I[ve not seen such an inaccurate post in a long time .. but hey imo. agree to disagree

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

Oh man - I[ve not seen such an inaccurate post in a long time .. but hey imo. agree to disagree

You have not provided any arguments, evidence, or logic to back up your viewpoint, so I do not agree to disagree here, and frankly, I find it a bit rude to join a discussion with a new viewpoint backed up by nothing, then immediately withdraw by claiming agreeing to disagree would be reasonable.