We really need to talk about English projection of naval power into the Black Sea region. After forcing their way through the Dardanelles, an English offer of Constantinople to Russia should be a very strong incentive for Russia to attack Germany.

@stupidfighter
Sure, I guess. But I don't think that would work in practice. England is too far away from Turkey to be offering Russia Constantinople. I see what you mean, though.

If Germany and France fight right away then a stalemate will occur. The designers of the game perhaps did this on purpose to mimic WWI. Russia moves to Galicia most openings, so I guess you could interpret that as protecting Serbia. Italy didn't join until 1915, but a delayed stab against Austria is pretty popular and effective.

@BigBlarg
These are the kinds of plays I'm looking for. For example, Germany never seen attacks Austria-Hungary at the start because it weakens him, which is accurate to WWI. Historically, Austria-Hungary wants the Balkans, and invades Serbia first, which happens in the game, too. And Russia, historically, tries to defend Serbia, so a move to Galicia also makes sense, as you pointed out. Italy is a toss-up, because, historically, it goes for Trieste. But, in practice, that doesn't always happen.

My point being, Diplomacy does little to represent the capabilities of the nations involved. But I'll entertain a fun one- can Germany, for example,open up a two-front war in the early stages of the game? Say Germany sent only 1 unit east, relying on his allies to bear the bulk of the Russian front, with strong diplomacy he could potentially take Warsaw and 2 neutrals in 01.

However, if the situation is similar to ww1, England might let Germany waltz around, but France isn't. France is still sore about the Franco-Prussian war and believes it can win a glorious victory for honor. France will certainly open to Burgundy, where it historically raised fortresses on the German border. Thus, Germany will need to cover Munich, and will have potentially 2 builds(Warsaw+one of den/hol/bel), to Frances also potentially 2 builds(spain and portugal if he supported Par>Bur and opened to MAO)

England meanwhile should have supported himself into Norway. Russia should be in a bad way, Austria and Turkey should be doing well. If the central alliance is to continue Germany will probably get support into Moscow to bolster him against France.

Bolstering he will need, because without an ally to France's East, Germany has decided to attack France through Belgium. At this point, an optimistic center count would be Germany with home+Den+Warsaw+Moscow+Bel. France has Home+Iberia, England Home+Norway. Sweden and Holland could be occupied by either side.

Thus, with an incredibly enthusiastic Austrian ally, a quiet turkish ally, neutral Italy, and timid England, I'd say Germany has a chance of winning the war in the East and turning to successfully fight France and England, with limited support trickling in through the Med, possibly even the Alps and Scandanavia. The timing of the Italian entrance to the war could be decisive. If he waits until Russia is knocked out of Sev, its probably too late.

@stupidfighter
All interesting. I'm not sure if Germany went after Warsaw in WWI. Assuming there is an alliance between France and England, Germany will be too occupied in the west to worry about Russia, not to mention the historical stalemate position along the Western Front.

France will definitely go after Germany. Historically, France had a very strong defence along the Western Front, hence the inevitable log-jam between Germany and France. This is where Belgium comes into play. Germany wants to break into France through Belgium, but England passes by (via convoy from England) and thwarts the advance. So Beligum becomes the hot-potato of the west. Iberia was neutral in WWI, I think, so France would not go there for any gains, forcing him to move on Germany. (In practice, of course, this would never happen.)

England will have to take Norway with a fleet to prevent Germany from getting into Belgium. Support should not be needed, as Russia should be friendly with England. Austria-Hungary and Turkey might be allied, but the Balkans will still be a mess between them. (In game, Austria-Hungary and Turkey never ally, though, so this might not work.)

Austria-Hungary will be Germany's only defence in the east, as Russia will be going south for Austria-Hungary to presumably defend Serbia. Galicia will be covered, and Silesia and Prussia might covered by additional German armies or fleets. (A German fleet in Denmark might cover the Baltic Sea.)

Germany would have to go west first to at least counter France and England, hopefully with a stalemate position. Austria-Hungary, meanwhile, will repel Russia in the south long enough to build up German forces in the east. Turkey will have to go after Russia, seeing as he is in the Triple Alliance/Axis Powers. This could lead to a move to Armenia, with a bounce in the Black Sea. Then there's Italy, who sits on the fence that divides the east from the west. His decision is the most important. Historically, he wil go for Trieste--an early back-stab on Austria-Hungary. (In game this works, too.)

And you could introduce mustard gas to the game, uniting this topic with one of brainbomb's inane threads: http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1452065#1452065

Defender's advantage was much greater in WWI, at least on land. The tactics may be applicable, but their results will be quite different.

@Lethologica
By "defender's" do you mean the Triple Entente? as in England, Russia, France, and Italy (post 1915)? If so, I agree. In game, it works out pretty interestingly, though. England gets shut out from the rest of board, since he cannot go after France or Russia, a natural target of his in-game. Germany gets surrounded by English, Russian, and French forces, which makes it very difficult for him to progress. Russia has big threats in the south, having to deal with both Austria-Hungary and Turkey, which makes it very difficult for him to get any builds at the start. Turkey is pretty safe, since his only immediate enemy is Russia, who cannot harm him much at all. (Turkey is a little bit overpowered in these circumstances.) Austria-Hungary, like Germany, gets utterly surrounded, having to deal with Italy and Russia, who press on him from both sides. And Italy, like Turkey, does not have much to worry about. He tries to capture Trieste and make gains in Austria-Hungary.

You also cannot simulate how terrible some nations preformed militarily, without assigning properly incompetent players accordingly. The strongest players tactically, at least initially, would have to be Germany. France probably comes in second on the ground. They lost ground early, but learned quickly from their mistakes as the war progressed. England had a skilled navy, but a shit army until much later in the war. Italy, AH, Russia, and Turkey were all pretty meh.

@Matticus13
Your comment about the incompetency of various nations made me laugh very hard, especially with the add-on about assigning players "accordingly."

Germany would have to be a very skilled player, I agree. As a side note, if you wanted to make the game even more realistic, you could make it so that Italy cannot make any moves until Spring, 1915. He can still negotiate and make deals, but nobody can enter his territory and he cannot move until 1915. (The game would start 1914, by the way.) To replicate the early neutrality of Iberia, you can make it so that nobody can enter those two territories until 1915. This would prevent France from making easy gains, and it would force him to go north after Germany and Belgium. Also, it gives him more incentive to work with England, since Belgium is difficult to get without support.

My threads are not inane. They are *asinine*

England didn't have a shit army, they had a small one. The only fully professional army in Europe, and it performed immensely well in the early weeks of the war, pushing Germany back and helping to establish the trench line at the Aines and beyond.

I did not say they were not useful. Any additional manpower that could be supplied to the front lines in France were quite useful. To have a truly effect army in WWI, infantry assaults had to be coordinated with properly executed artillery bombardments. GB's lack of execution in the latter cost them dearly for quite awhile. I suppose I could have been more specific.

They were as clueless in the face of the horrors of modern war as their compatriots. Their soldiers were nevertheless an effective fighting force.

The French and German ground forces were more effect early on as a result. GB eventually caught up. It just took them longer.

Anyway,Diplomacy is set more than a decade BEFORE the first World War.

I always make sure to include some Downton Abby home front intrigue and romance whenever I play diplomacy. Usually fire up season 2 whenever I sit down to write press. Really keeps me focused thinking about poor Matthew in the trenches.