Diplomacy Dojo Episode 2: Russia and England, Russia and Turkey24 min read

Intro 0:00  

The Diplomacy Dojo is a weekly discussion, led by Your Bored Brother, about Diplomacy tactics and strategies. Let’s listen in on what our players are discussing this week…

BrotherBored 0:15  

Tips for the Toby Harris England-Russia opening; alternative openings for an English-Russia Alliance. Okay. Other topics we can take inventory of at the outset? 

Hunter 00:34 

So if I am in a juggernaut is it better for me to help Russia make progress against Germany, to more likely solo?

BrotherBored 0:39  

Okay, that’s a fascinating talking point. I think taking these in order is pretty good.

Tips for the Toby Harris English-Russia opening. So these come from two different perspectives. To talk about at the outset, the Toby Harris opening is an opening that’s been published online that describes England and Russia baiting Germany into moving into Sweden in 1801. Meanwhile, England moves into Denmark, and Russia and England otherwise get into a position to crush Germany in 1902. And if you can pull it off, most people think that—at least in our group—that this is a pretty effective opening, but this question has to do with actually making it happen. When you’re asking for tips, we’re assuming that England and Russia are trying to actually make this opening happen, right? And this is more tips about how England and Russia should act externally?

Hunter 1:38  

I guess tips to make it go as planned. So for example, one question I was asking, what does Russia says to make Austria agree to the DMZ? 

BrotherBored 1:51  

Okay, so that’s a generally useful situation. You’re talking about neither Austria nor Russia open to Galicia in Spring 1901, right?

Hunter 2:03  

Yeah, I feel like the Austrian player was pretty hostile. Actually, I actually suspect that they actually trusted Russia, not to move into Galicia, because they have Serbia support Galicia into Rumania after that. So Russia got… So Turkey had Bulgaria support— So the thing is, I mean, I think Turkey… I mean, Turkey told me that Austria is offering to support to them in Romania, but I think Turkey realized Austria was just trying to trick him. 

BrotherBored 2:29  

Talking about the situation generally, I consider the opening to Galicia to be a prisoner’s dilemma situation because both players serve to be advantaged tactically if they can get into Galicia in 1901. That’s why in a gunboat Diplomacy game, almost—I’m not saying invariably, but like, more than 70% of the time, maybe verging into 80 or 90% of the time—you’re going to see both Austria and Russia open to Galician and bounce on their openings. 

In a press game, it is possible to create a sense of trust. I think that there are a couple of things that have to go right from the Russian perspective. One is, if Austria believes that Russia will be an ally, a lot of strategic options are open for Austria. That makes it possible for Austria to attack Italy early on, maybe build another fleet early on, and possibly go after German home centers early on. Those are all immensely valuable strategic prospects for Austria who otherwise could maybe progress in the Balkans or even get progress against Russia and not necessarily accomplish anything after that or even get blown away. From my point of view, as the Austrian, let’s just say that I’m the Austrian, if I believe that the Russian is really interested in alliance with me, that’s maybe worth taking a risk on leaving Galicia open in spring 1901. But in terms of the immediate advantage, there’s not that much; because what Austria is probably going to do is move Vienna to Budapest in spring 1901 if they’re not moving that way and that doesn’t really help Austria that much.

So in my opinion, if you’re the Russian and you want to persuade the Austrian that you should both neither of you open to Galicia, then you probably want to focus on the long-term prospects that you both serve to gain if you can work together in an alliance.

Hunter 4:33  

So should Russia just come out and tell Austria, “Hey Austria, I want to do a northern opening. I’m gonna leave you alone to do what you want. Maybe I can help you with Turkey”.

BrotherBored 4:43  

I am suggesting advice to the contrary, to begin with creating in the Austrians mind an idea that you are open to a serious and long-term Austria-Russia alliance in which you help Austria take on every foe, Germany, Italy, and Turkey together. And if you start from that possibility and say, like, “Is this gonna work? Are you open to this?” And the Austrian says, “Yes, you know that I think I want to do that,” then say, “Okay, well let’s start off that with as powerful a tactical opening as we can. Let’s leave Galicia open; what do you say?” That player may want to do it. They may think, “Hmm, this is the Alliance for me.” And if they say, “No,” at least they probably are being honest with you and still want your alliance. If they say, “No, let’s just bounce,” then that’s fine too. 

But I think if you start off by just flat out telling the Austrian early on that you’re not moving to Galicia, or you don’t want to move there, then that gives them a lot of flexibility to be like, “Okay, well, I know for a fact that Russia is not moving there. Maybe I want to honor that DMZ, but maybe not. Maybe I want to take advantage of it.” In my personal experience, directly stating what all your opening moves will be early in spring 1901 is disadvantageous, because the other players can start planning and making deals based around that. For example, in one of my semi-final matches in the ODC 2019, I was Germany; I ended up doing really well that game. And one of the things that I think the English player made a mistake was by declaring immediately that he was going to make the northern opening, including to Edinburgh, moving the army to Edinburgh. And that meant that, okay, I know that’s a fact. Great, well, I know that I’m gonna let Russia into Sweden then. So I turned around and said, my opening message to Russia, “You get Sweden, it’s yours, I just love Russia, I just love you, man.” I ended up getting a good relationship with that player. I talked the French player into the opening to English Channel to do a sea lion. And by the way, we did that sea lion and blew England out of the water. Whereas, even if England’s mind had been made up from the beginning, if England had toyed with me, and toyed with me about making different openings, I wouldn’t have had so much leverage in my conversations with France and Russia, because I wouldn’t have certainty about what England was going to do. 

So I have a lesson that I think applies to this situation, which is that directly stating early on in spring 1901, as Russia, what your moves will be to your neighbors, allows them to scheme and plot on ways to take advantage of it. Whereas, if you just talk about strategically, “Hey, Austria, I think we can make an alliance,” and then towards the end of the turn, say, “Well, if we’re going to be allies, what do you say about a DMZ in Galicia?” And then maybe they say, “Okay that makes sense to me. That seems like a good way to begin our alliance.” I think that there’s a much higher chance that the Austrian honors the DMZ that was agreed to late in the term than one that you just informed them about immediately. Does that make sense?

Hunter 7:59  

Maybe that’s what I’ve been doing wrong.

BrotherBored 8:00  

Oh, talking about it too early?

Hunter 08:04 

Talking about it too early.

BrotherBored 8:05  

It could be true. 

Hunter 8:08  

I honestly, don’t really entirely blame Austria because whenever I play Austria, I usually just say, “No, I want to bounce.”

BrotherBored 8:16  

From Austria’s perspective, I think the danger is a little bit bigger if Russia violates the DMZ, because if Russia goes to Galicia in combination with an Italian attack, you’re probably dead. And that is not a fun way to begin the game. So that’s my tip on how to negotiate that DMZ as Russia. 

As far as England, and trying to find a way to encourage Austria to focus against another opponent, I don’t think there’s much England can do in this regard. Honestly, you’d have to play by ear or something really like game-specific. Most Austrian players are not going to give away their openings unless they really have to, and they’re probably not likely to tell England what opening they’re going to make.

You could indirectly influence the match this way: England does have some ability to influence Italy to come west, that’s not out of the question. If you use that influence, and Austria becomes aware of it, Austria feels like “Yeah, I think Italy is gonna go west,” That can potentially mean that Austria will feel that maybe, “Okay, I don’t have to fight Russia. I could go after Italy when Italy’s got his defenses down.” But that can also backfire because if Austria is convinced that Italy’s going west, that may make Austria think that, “Italy is a decent ally for me.” So even with that small amount of influence, it would still be really game-specific, how you think it’s going to affect that particular Austrian player.

Another thing that you probably want to talk about, for getting this opening to happen, is Germany, England, and Russia want Germany to move to open Kiel to Denmark, and then Denmark to Sweden, probably anticipating a bounce with Russia. 

For England, I think that there is a negotiating chip that I find tried and true, which is to say, “Germany, if I open to English Channel, will you promise to bounce Russia in Sweden?” Many German players will agree to this. That’s a reasonable bargaining chip, I think, especially since Germany doesn’t have to deliver until after they’ve seen that you really do mean business. And I believe that’s consistent with the Toby Harris opening, right? In that opening doesn’t England open to the English Channel? 

Hunter 10:57 

Yes. 

BrotherBored 10:58 

Okay, so I think that’s a way to make that happen. So now, it’s not so much up to the Russian as the German saying, “Okay, the English player really wants me to bounce in Sweden,” and the Russian player can make Germany feel okay about this. By saying, “Well, yeah, no, that’s not really what I want to hear, but it’s better than nothing, and so, yeah, that’s fine. At least you’re telling me in advance, I appreciate it. I will bounce you in Sweden.” And then move to Baltic Sea. That’s how I would play that situation, generically. Anybody else has thoughts on that?

Guest 2 11:34  

Well, one thing going through the Channel accomplishes for England, too, is to get a shot at Belgium; because the convoy to Denmark’s not guaranteed. When I was playing Germany and Russia open to Silesia, I knew all about the Toby Harris. So I painfully just held in Denmark. 

BrotherBored 11:54 

And it was the right move? 

Guest 1 11:56 

No, Russia went to Sweden.

BrotherBored 11:58 

Ah, shoot. 

Hunter 12:00  

Did they take Munich or Berlin?

Guess 1 12:02  

No, no, I think I guessed right on that 50/50. I eventually defeated Russia in that game with Germany. Yeah, I had all three of them after me for a while, but eventually won someone over and survived, and did fairly well. It just goes to show though that, I think you have to go to the Channel, you’re going to try because you don’t know you’re getting Denmark, depending on who’s playing Germany.

BrotherBored 12:32  

That’s a fair point. So I’m going to say that we covered this topic, and let’s move on to the next one, which is an alternative opening for an England-Russia Alliance. Based on the question, it sounds like this is an England-Russia alliance that has been agreed to in spring 1901.

Hunter 12:53  

I assume so. I mean, how about we discussed ones that are agreed in 1901, or maybe later?

BrotherBored 12:59  

Okay, so alright, let’s yeah, let’s bifurcate that topic. I’ll call that one, or the first one alternative openings for an England-Russia Alliance, and then let’s talk about separately, forming an England-Russia Alliance after a few turns. Okay, so the alternative openings. Anybody have one they want to bring up?

Hunter 13:27  

So maybe Russia just goes south to Austria and then attacks Germany later, but is that, I don’t know if that’s much of an opening, though, for an England-Russia Alliance. So what if Russia sends, so what if Russia moves to Silesia, but sends Moscow south to Ukraine?

BrotherBored 13:43  

Alright, so this would be in an arrangement where England and Russia have agreed to attack Germany early?

Hunter 13:51  

Yeah.

BrotherBored 13:57  

I can’t see myself ever agreeing to that as Russia, to be honest.

Hunter 14:05 

I see, so it’s not a good opening?

BrotherBored 14:05  

From the Russian perspective, Germany is not an immediate danger; because Germany has to contend with France and England over the Low Countries, or possibly in Scandinavia. It might fight England, I mean Germany, for Scandinavia. But it’s not going to be until, usually, it’s 1903 or later, that Germany would actually start coming across the middle and attack Russia. With that in mind, it’s usually; it’s just not a priority for Russia to be fighting Germany early. And let me add this in as well, even if you get a German center, it’s not necessarily keep-able. You’ve massacred Germany, but now England and France are going to get, like, two to three centers each and maybe you’ll get to keep your one. That’s not a great strategic outcome and most high-level games—15:00 [cross talking]. Pardon?

Hunter 15:01  

I mean, maybe getting, maybe being able to get an army in Norway is kind of worth some kind of risk though.

BrotherBored 15:07  

One of the openings that I play as Russia on occasion is Warsaw to Ukraine, and Moscow to St. Petersburg, with the idea of using Ukraine and the fleet at—probably I bounced in the Black sea—at Sevastopol to make a supported move on Rumania, and then usually hoping to get my fleet into Sweden, and most likely not necessarily moving the army at St. Petersburg to Norway—because most English players are not tolerating that, they’re going to stop it somehow—to move it to Finland, with the idea of building a fleet in St. Petersburg North Coast subsequently and making a big support attack on Norway. If I’m opening north, that’s usually my plan as Russia.

Hunter 15:53 

That doesn’t sound like an English-Russian Alliance, though.

BrotherBored 15:55  

No, it doesn’t. And that… I should clarify something: the main reason why attacking Germany in spring 1901 is a hazard for Russia is, there is no way in hell Germany is letting you have Sweden. It’s a lot easier to get Germany to let you have Sweden than to take one of Germany’s home centers. So, sorry, yeah, that opening I’m describing is not a Russia-England Alliance. The main thing that makes an England-Russia Alliance possible is for Russia to halt any advance past Scandinavia, and for England to tolerate Russian control of Scandinavia. So if you’ve got an English player who thinks, “The way I play England is I get control of Scandinavia first, and then I pivot from there,” That is not going to be a good English—that’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to be a good English-Russia alliance in the beginning. Maybe later, but not in the beginning. 

And similarly, if you’ve got a Russian player who views their way of playing in Scandinavia as like, trying to get fleets set up, it’s not going to happen. It’s not going to be an English-Russian Alliance. So usually what you’re trying to create is a situation where Russia captures Norway with an army and then perhaps subsequently moves on elsewhere. That’s where the Toby Harris opening is trying to construct this scenario in a way that maximizes the likelihood that that will come true. But you don’t necessarily have to, say, attack Germany at Silesia right off the bat in order to create the scenario that I’m talking about. 

What Russia wants to see from England is that England doesn’t convoy into Norway. Beginning by convoying into Norway really puts a lot of pressure on England, like tactically, to fight for Scandinavia. An army in Norway can move into Finland, and having an army in Finland is huge for conquering that whole area, because only an army in Finland can make attacks or supported attacks on Sweden, Norway and St. Petersburg; and that’s usually the beginning of an English conquest of that whole area. So if England doesn’t convoy to Norway—I don’t care what else that army did, just somehow did something else—the ability of England to press an attack on Scandinavia is a lot more limited, and so it keeps it perhaps more realistic that there can be an alliance between the two powers. For example, England could take Norway. And let’s say somehow Russia gets into Sweden. The follow up moves could be for England to move from Norway to Skagerrak, perhaps with Russian support or perhaps Russia moving elsewhere, and you can start setting up for attacks on Germany subsequently.

Hunter 18:44  

I say see, so maybe England takes Norway with a fleet, Russia takes Sweden with a fleet, and then they attack Germany from the north?

BrotherBored 18:50  

That’s right, and there’s going to have to be a turn of a little trust where Russia trusts England not to move Norway to St. Petersburg, and England trusts Russia not to just go for Norway. And that’s an opening you can sort of ease your way into to, to subsequently, you know, “Okay, we’ve shown a little bit of trust, let’s see if we can be better allies.” You can pivot from England having convoyed into Norway, but England really needs to convoy that army somewhere else in 1902, or it’s just not credible; like even if England means business, as Russia I would just find it impossible to trust an England who insists on keeping an army presence in Scandinavia.

Hunter 19:32  

Alright, so maybe England should get Norway, maybe one build could work also. I mean, one build could be fine. So England takes Norway and then just attacks Germany from the south with Russia

BrotherBored 19:42  

Usually as long as Russia agrees not to build any northern fleet and honors that agreement, I think as England, you really should—It’s a big advantage to leave Russia well enough alone. Because Russia is not a big menace to you in general, and if Russia doesn’t build another fleet, who cares? France and Germany are a way bigger threat than a Russia who’s not building a fleet. That’s why I think a typical way for this to play out is for Russia to have gained Norway, because if Russia has gained Norway, and Russia only has the one starting fleet or no fleets at all, maybe it disbanded somehow, then that gives England and Russia a stable border area where they don’t have much ability to stab each other. That’s what the Toby Harris opening is trying to engineer as fast as possible.

Maybe another way of thinking about it is, trying to create a stable situation in Scandinavia, where you can both walk away, is what you want to achieve with an England-Russia Alliance. 

Going into the next question of forming the England Russia alliance after a few turns; I want to throw this out there. If Russia’s northern presence has been diminished, or obliterated, maybe Russia has lost all northern units and St. Petersburg, that kind of converts England and Russia into natural allies at that point. Because Russia no longer has prospects for gaining really any of the centers that England hopes to gain. And you’ll see that sometimes in matches, where England wipes out St. Petersburg in 1902, and then subsequently, Russia and England are kind of working together. So if you’re in that situation, where you’re on the back foot as Russia, find any way to get England to capture St. Petersburg with a fleet so that England cannot subsequently make more attacks on your home centers. Find a way to make peace there. Maybe an even better scenario would be to take your starting fleet and park it in St. Petersburg. Just bring it back to St. Petersburg and say, “Okay, I’m done. I’m not doing anything. Leave me alone. Look, I’ll even help you if you can just leave Norway.” If you park your fleet at St. Petersburg, South Coast, and England leaves Norway, you can no longer attack each other. Maybe you could start working together at that point. If you can keep St Petersburg alive as long as possible, and you eventually, somehow, someway, get a build, then you can build something in St. Petersburg and maybe fight England another day. 

In press Diplomacy, I think it’s a lot more common to see an England who goes all out in trying to take out St Petersburg in 1902. There are players in gunboat Diplomacy who, having seen this opening be successful in press think it’s a good idea in gunboat. But there’s a big difference, which is that in press diplomacy, you can use negotiation and a lot of other things to keep your flank secure while you concentrate on the one thing. In gunboat, France is just going to attack you if you do that.

But in press, that can be a pretty effective opening. And so the press metagame also elevates the power of Russia relative to gunboat. That sounds weird. I’m starting by using the variant as my starting point. All the powers are equally balanced, roughly, in regular Diplomacy, and so Russia is fairly seen by England as an equal threat to France and Germany. And so, overcoming that perception somehow is usually the critical thing to getting that alliance going. 

Most Russian players would happily ally England, it’s just a question of getting the English player on board in my experience.

Okay, let’s go to this next topic. In a juggernaut, should Turkey help Russia make progress versus Germany? So I have some thoughts on this, but does someone else got anything to say?

Hunter 23:55 

From my point of view, I mean, most of my solos as turkey, either I got Italy and Russia to attack Austria, and then Austria just kind of you know, just became my ally and pretty much did whatever I want because they became hopeless, yeah, so that worked. That’s pretty effective. I mean, that usually worked. I think I soloed every time that happened. But when I win with a juggernaut, usually what happens is you know, there’s an England-German Alliance you know, Russia’s kind of getting hit hard by them, but then after I’ve taken a center like Marseille, I tell England, “Hey, England, yeah, let’s go after Germany now, it’s time.”

The last game, the English player wasn’t foolish enough to do this but twice, in two games, they were willing to do that, so then I was able to solo.

BrotherBored 24:37

That makes sense to me.

Hunter 24:41

The thing is, if English player was smart enough not to do that, should Russia have already made progress towards Germany or something?

BrotherBored 24:44  

So I do think that it is advisable to see how far you can get your Russian ally when you’re Turkey as a juggernaut, and I’ll explain a couple of reasons why. One is, that many allies will insist on some kind of balance of power, so that if you’re making expansions, if you’re making conquests, and your ally is not, they will try to get centers from you. And I think this is a reasonable position. They’ll say, “Hey, you know, maybe I should be the one to have Trieste or something, because I’m not really making gains elsewhere,” and that’s fair. And therefore, if your Russian ally is making gains in the north, then you have the reverse bargaining position, which is, hey, you’re making gains in the north, so really, I should be the one to get Trieste. Maybe you should give me Budapest. That kind of thing, which can get you closer to being able to stab the Russian player later if necessary.

The next is that the further the Russian player extends into the North, especially if they’re sending their new builds there, or they extend really far and get stuck without making a capture, that lowers the Russian player’s defenses for your eventual backstab. You don’t care if Russia has got Munich, Berlin, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, or whatever Edinburgh, if at that time, around that time, you’ve just gutted Russia, you’ve taken Sevastopol, you’re surely going to get Moscow and Warsaw. It doesn’t matter that Russia made it that far. Because the Russian situation is now hopeless, they’re not going to be able to get builds, or defend against your attack, etc. 

Another reason is that, if the situation stabilizes, and the players are trying to form a stalemate line, it could be very difficult for them to do so against you if they’re dealing with a Russian player who got kind of far into the into the west or the north. Because it might mean that they have angered those players, who might not want to cooperate with the Russian; it might mean that the players are really out of position for forming a stalemate line because they’ve been fighting each other. Those are all advantages in helping you get a solo win as Turkey.

Hunter 26:55  

So you think it’s beneficial for Turkey if Russia does make some progress against Germany, moving west and north?

BrotherBored 27:01  

There are advantages to it. It’s not necessarily always the best play, but it can be a good one.

Hunter 27:07  

I mean, I sort of feel that way though. So if the only four powers still alive, are, you know, England, Germany, Russia, and Turkey, I sort of feel like, you know, am I going to take the other centers? I mean, maybe I could just go for them. 

BrotherBored 27:24 

The German centers?

Hunter 27:25

Maybe Germany would help me. I don’t know.

BrotherBored 27:26  

Tell me more about what you’re thinking.

Hunter 27:28  

I don’t know, maybe it’s not necessary. I mean, maybe England and Germany aren’t fighting each other. I can still just grab the centers anyway.

BrotherBored 27:36  

That’s possible. To get the Russian centers, you’re saying?

Hunter 27:40 

Yeah.

BrotherBored 27:1

 You have to play pretty well, I think; because if England and Germany are cooperating, they should have some ability to put either Warsaw or Moscow or both behind a stalemate line, especially if Russia prioritizes that defense.

But if you’re in a match that’s based on draw size scoring, also called Kalhammer points, it could be a good strategy, just to get to a three-way draw.

Okay, I feel like we’ve covered this topic.

Outro 28:24  

If you enjoyed this episode, remember to subscribe and review the podcast. To learn more from your bored brother and to participate in the dojo, visit the blog at brother board com or the Patreon at bit.ly/supportYBB. Thanks to loyalty freak music for the theme music, “It feels good to be alive too.”