Early doesn't nec mean first round, but what if you get up to 7 or 8 SC and all countries are still alive for example (I don't consider it midgame until a country or two goes out). Anyway, just general thoughts on deferring builds, if you have ever done it, etc would be interesting!

Better players than I should answer this. MM? You out there? I need every build I get. But the big boys may have a different view on this.

Ive suicided a unit for positioning. For example, in Ancient Med. I convoyed a greek army to apulia for no reason at all. it caused rome to build armies instead of fleets and move them to the bottom of his peninsula. Thereby screwing him when i convoyed that army back out of apulia and dropped it in Epirus. I usually lose a unit, but that time i didnt.

Its similar to deferring.

@thavok - that's not what he's asking

I have seen it, yes, but never in the early stage of the game. I've seen it several times though when players were 8-12 SC's and not ready to launch a solo bid yet.

I find it to be a useful diplomatic tactic. So, never in gunboat, but yes in full diplomacy. Doing it with less than 7 SC's might be difficult to do.

But, I don't do it to make my allies happy. I do it as a threat to my neighbors. For example: "If you make even the slightest move my direction, I will build a fleet in St. Petersburg" The thing that makes this powerful, is you can make a similar threat to everyone at the same time: "if you make even the slightest move my direction, I will build a army in Warsaw, a fleet in Sevastapol..." You get the picture.

I rarely defer builds on this site, but on vdiplomacy if a map is build anywhere I will defer builds in most games.

I find its a lot more effective to waive a build and build it closer to the front line the following year then to put it on the map earlier then need be.

Briefly put, you should defer a build when all of the following are true:

- The value of the immediate build is considerably lower than the value of the future build (if it's a close call, there's a time value to doing things because the rest of the board is also evolving)
- You can protect that build easily for another year.
- You do not expect to grow enough in the next year that you'll be able to make the build you really want to without having to waive.

Because most units travel quite far in two seasons, this is really not such a common situation, so in most cases, the diplomatic advantage would have to be both specific and immense (for example, a specific agreement you really want to have happen which is conditioned on your waiving). Sadly, the threat of an imaginary A War isn't nearly as much of a deterrent as an actual A War, so this isn't all that common...

The most common scenario when these all apply is when Austria or Russia need fleets, since they each only have one port (in the relevant theatre) and when it comes time for either to want fleets, they usually want several.

The most common reason I've seen is when you're trying to combine the board you aren't trying to solo.

The most frequent country deferring builds is Russia. I know that, if I'm between around 8 and 12-14 centers, I'll be building only two armies at a time max (assuming I'm not under attack from anyone nearby) to save up in case I need a fleet to face England or to simply keep from jumbling everything up and looking too threatening.

"Do you ever defer a build to make your allies happy?"

Generally speaking no. It is better to feared than to be loved. An ally is much likely to turn on you if he senses that you are weak than if you are strong. Be diplomatic of course. Send your ally reassuring messages that you are no threat, but don't actually be "no threat". Your ally will tend to follow the path of least resistance, which means ideally he should find it harder to attack you than your mutual enemies. As a concession you might build the unit away from your ally's borders or move it shortly after the build, but try and get your ally to agree to concessions too.

I can't imagine ever deferring a build. Ever.

I would consider a deferment in 1901. One example might be if I'm playing Russia and I get 3 builds. I would definitely defer one because the whole board would panic. To defer in 1901 has to be an extreme case. I wouldn't defer with a 3 build France, but might with a 3 build Turkey.

MadMarx has spoken! So it is written, so it shall be!

I agree. I thought that I was some kind of freak for never deferring.

If I'm Russia and its late in the game, I definitely WON'T defer. Russia wins by being a beast and assaulting quickly. You lose that benefit if you try to defer. Russia's biggest issue is getting past 1904. If you get to 7-8 center, you really shouldn't have to worry about a defeat and you need to work for the gold.

Damnit jimgov!!

What works for me is just that, what works for me. I'm not suggesting others do that, you have to do what works for you.

For me, I'd take those builds and make sure the people I want to be my allies feel safe and are happy, and I'd also make sure the people I don't want to be my allies are dead. But that's just me! ;-)

Tru Ninja, I got to 15 centers with Russia and was defeated... Not that I'm still bitter!!

Lol. Nope. Too late. You are one of, if not THE best player on this site. Your word is law. No one shall ever defer a build again. :-)

I can't think of a better answer to this question than CSteinhardt's. I also can't ever imagine being in that situation, but I suppose anything's possible.

I think I've only ever deferred once as France in the mid-game when I wanted to hold off on deciding whether to build an army or fleet based on how the next turn played out.

"I can't imagine ever deferring a build. Ever. "

The only time I could possibly imagine deferring a build is if I want to build two fleets in quick succession from St Petersburg, and I felt secure enough in my position to pull it off. Even that seems unlikely.

In reality the only time I have deferred a build is when I have had no other choice.

I highly recommend always deferring all your builds. You should try it in your next game with me....

I wouldn't defer early as any power. I might defer in the late game if I need a fleet and I do not have a qualifying open home center. There are times when you really need a fleet and another army isn't going to make a difference. If I am not expecting a build the following year, I might save the build for when I can use it for a fleet.

I know I have deferred in that situation--when I needed a fleet but the right center wasn't open.

Though, I also used it as a diplomatic tool. I was germany, and I wanted to convince England of my nice intentions as well as give him a year to move away before my fleet appeared.

"I can't imagine ever deferring a build. Ever. "

Austria need 2 or 3 fleets and has 2 or 3 builds. He defers as he can only ever build one fleet a turn.

A nation accidentally takes an SC (attempted block of an enemy who decides to play tricky) so doesn't build to prove his loyalty.

Just two good examples of why one would defer a build.

If I'm Austria and need two or three fleets with two or three builds, I use all my builds and go get another SC each of the next two years, at least that's my mindset.

I don't prove my loyalty by not building, I prove my loyalty by being a team player and being an asset to the team, and a build will always allow me to be a better ally.

The only time I've ever deferred a build or even considered the option was when I wanted to build fleets in a particular place, and I was willing to forego an army elsewhere for an entire year to do it. I think I've only had that happen as Austria and Russia, after I already had a bunch of armies and needed fleets to switch targets.

I think most people here are in agreement that this happens most often with Austria and Russia.

MM - you can't always guarantee that you're going to take another SC to get that extra fleet. What if you don't get it? Then you're potentially screwed.

Another reason I've seen used is when Russia "allies" with England, waits for him to push fleets south, and then builds in St. Petersburg

A game of diplomacy isn't about guarantees. Also, I'm a reactionary player, so if I can't build another fleet, I come up with a new plan. It's a similar mentality as the Oregon Ducks football team under Chip Kelley, the "Next Play" approach. You attack, each and every play, get everything you can get, then focus on the next play. If I can get a build, I take it, and figure out what to do after that, always confident that I can come up with something, never looking back, always pressing forward.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...

@MM: concerning your 15 center Russia defeat, sorry you're still bitter :)
At any rate, you can always find an example that doesn't fit the general mold. It seems like you're splitting hairs merely to argue.

I'm not actually bitter about that defeat, just poking a little fun at myself...

Isn't the entire point of this forum to "argue"?

I done it a few times in mostly f2f tournament games
3 builds as austria allied with italy to not scare him and create tension with A/F tri

France/german alliance A par no need better off with à new fleet for sure in 02

The beuty of the game, everything can be good sometime)

I would say that I essentially agree with MM. You definitely should never defer a build to make your allies more comfortable or to seem less threatening. That makes no sense. And if you need to build a fleet, plan ahead and make sure that your home SC that can build a fleet is open. If you are thinking about deferring a build it is only because you already made a mistake.

"If you are thinking about deferring a build it is only because you already made a mistake."

Brilliant.

I agree with MM to a large extent, but rare though it might be, occasionally one is beset by a spate of unexpected, catastrophic success, and waiving a build might be the best way to adapt if the right ports aren't open. Sadly, this doesn't come up as often as I'd like it to.

MadMarx, my specific Austria example.comes into play when Austria and her allies have atopped a solo but need more fleet to shore up the stalemate line. If the would be winner is sayEngland and the Northeast side of the stalemate is set, those extra armies are useless but the extra fleets may be quite useful especially if the enemy isn't willing to draw but has a weal spot in the SW part of the line.