Alex, a fan of this blog, sent me the following message:

Hi
I read your articles and blogs and I have learnt a lot from them. You are doing a great work. I hope that you keep writing in the future.
The one question I wanted to ask you is : “Is it good for Germany to give Sweden to Russia and what consequences will it have on Germany’s game?”

Alex, thank you for your question. This is a great question, one my students often ask me.

My answer is the answer I give to many good questions…

It Depends!

In Autumn 1901, Germany is typically faced with the choice of whether to let Russia have Sweden.

Most German players use the first turn (Spring 1901) to move the fleet at Kiel to Denmark.^[1]I highly recommend this opening move. In my own matches as Germany, I open by moving Kiel to Denmark without exception. Just as often, Russia begins by moving the fleet at St. Petersburg (South Coast) to Gulf of Bothnia. Russia’s desire is clear: capture Sweden in Autumn 1901. This creates a situation in Autumn 1901 where Germany can either let Russia move into Sweden (typically by holding with Denmark, or by unnecessarily supporting Russia’s fleet into Sweden) or block Russia from taking Sweden (by moving Denmark to Sweden, causing a “bounce”).

What is the better move for Germany?

If you think that blocking Russia from taking Sweden is generally the better move for Germany, you need to think again. In the first game pictured above, I was Germany and I let Russia into Sweden. Many years into the match, I eventually attacked and destroyed Russia, nearly reaching a solo win. In the second game pictured above, I was England and I bargained with Germany to block Russia out of Sweden. Just a few years into the match, I backstabbed and destroyed Germany, nearly reaching a solo win. However, don’t take these examples as some kind of proof that Germany should always let Russia into Sweden; that’s not wise either.

There is no automatic answer. A wise German player will consider everything that the other players have said^[2]In Press matches, obviously. Nobody says anything in Gunboat! as well as the opening moves the players made in Spring 1901.^[3]In a Gunboat match, this is all you have to go on.

“Alright Brotherbored, but what exactly should I consider? What weighs in favor of blocking Russia at Sweden and what weighs in favor of letting Russia in?”

Oh so very much. Almost everything that is happening in the match matters. I can’t list it all. But don’t worry! I’m going to give you some pointers.

It depends on what, exactly?

0. Did Russia dare to move Warsaw into Prussia or Silesia?

If Russia moves the army at Warsaw into Prussia or Silesia in Spring 1901, consider that a Declaration of War. Retaliate by blocking Russia from taking Sweden.^[4]A Spring 1901 Russian attack on Germany happens so rarely in matches with experienced players that I have labeled this factor “0”.

1. Who is the English player trying to ally?

As Germany in 1901, the foremost question on your mind should be “Is England is cooperating with France or cooperating with me?”

If you believe the English player is trying to ally France, then you should probably let Russia have Sweden.^[5]If your spider-sense warns you that England and/or France are not to be trusted, observe their opening moves. If England moves the fleet at London to North Sea, the fleet at Edinburgh to Norwegian Sea, and the army at Liverpool to Edinburgh/Yorkshire, that is consistent with an Anglo-French … Continue reading England and France, working together, will almost certainly crush you (Germany) unless you have Russia fighting England in Scandinavia in 1902. The immediate presence of the Russian fleet in Sweden, coupled with Russia’s additional build from capturing Sweden, will likely permit Russia to commit two or three units to fighting England. If you retard Russia’s ability to fight England or try to get Scandinavia for yourself while fighting an Anglo-French alliance, you (Germany) will likely be swiftly destroyed.

Thus, even if you do not want an alliance with the Russian player, you should consider allowing Russia into Sweden if you believe England and France are allied. Give England someone to fight besides you.

Conversely, if you believe that the English player is trying to ally you against France, then you should probably block Russia from taking Sweden. An Anglo-German alliance usually involves simultaneously attacking France and Russia, or at least quickly attacking one and then the other. As Germany, you stand a good chance of profiting immensely from Russia’s destruction. Strategically speaking, you should usually prioritize Russia’s destruction over France’s (because you will have an easier time taking Russian centers vs. French centers, and because England will be tempted to backstab you after France is destroyed).

Pro Tip: Use Sweden as a bargaining chip to gain England’s alliance

In my Press matches, I often send a message like this to England in Spring 1901: “If you open by moving London to English Channel, I will block Russia from taking Sweden. If you open by moving both fleets eastward, I will probably let Russia have Sweden.” In my opinion, this is a fair bargain; England doesn’t want Russia to have Sweden, but Germany wants to see some evidence that England is not working with France (before Germany will shut Russia out of the North). It is possible that England and France could be allied at the same time that England opens to English Channel, but in my experience that is quite rare.

Something I love about this offer is that England can only accept the deal by first moving into English Channel. You (Germany) don’t have to take England’s word as fact; you get to wait to see some evidence of England’s intentions. Many English players take this deal — and if your English rival does not, that’s evidence that the player isn’t interested in alliance with you.

By the way, I usually keep my promise when I am Germany. If England’s fleet is in English Channel, I will block Russia from taking Sweden. If England’s fleet is not in English Channel, I consider letting Russia into Sweden. In my experience, it does not burn any bridges with England (so to speak) to let Russia into Sweden after England rejected a reasonable offer.

In Gunboat Diplomacy, this bargain has to be unspoken. So the analysis is simpler: if England opens to English Channel, I interpret that move as a gesture towards alliance with me (Germany) and block Russia from moving into Sweden. If England opens east (i.e. to Norwegian Sea and North Sea), I interpret that as potentially hostile and consider letting Russia have Sweden.

2. Did France make a surprise attack on England?

I keep saying that Germany should “consider” letting Russia into Sweden because there are other factors to take into account. Even if England has opened eastward, I do not think Germany should automatically allow Russia into Sweden. In my thinking, a huge contingency is whether France has gotten away with a surprise Spring 1901 attack on England.

If France has successfully made a surprise attack on England (e.g., Brest moved to English Channel and Paris moved to Picardy), then Germany might want to block Russia from taking Sweden.

Simply put, France is more powerful than England at the start of the match — a lot more powerful. If France gets the jump on England (e.g., by conquering London in Autumn 1901 or by convoying an army into Wales in Autumn 1901), France can conquer all of Great Britain quite rapidly. A swift English death usually spells doom for Germany. Not only that, but France and Russia will find it very easy indeed to carve up Germany once England is dead or nearly so. With this in mind, Germany should not assist Russia in immediately kicking an endangered England out of Scandinavia.

To be sure, Germany can profit from England’s destruction. But if all the spoils go to France and Russia, Germany is unlikely to survive in the long run. Germany can successfully ally France or Russia with ease, but cooperating with both can be dangerous.^[6]A France-Germany-Russia alliance is not out of the question, but I advise you to think of it as a precarious and temporary situation. You have to trust one of your allies to let you turn against the other after England falls (which is risky, because France and Russia are natural allies and may … Continue reading

Protip: Use France’s betrayal of England to convert England into a German ally

Not only is England a reasonable ally for Germany in most circumstances (and in my opinion, preferable to France), but a betrayed England is likely to be a loyal and (so much the better) weak German ally. This situation is so incredibly advantageous to Germany that I try to manufacture it if I can (typically, I encourage France to all-out attack England on Spring 1901; no matter what the tactical result, Germany can profit diplomatically).

3. Do you trust the Russian player?

Russia can be a good ally to Germany. Not only can both powers grow quite large before running out of room, but Germany can often backstab and conquer Russia rather easily later in the match.^[7]For an example, read my journal for The Biggest Game of All Time. I have also written about Russia’s weaknesses in Gunboat Diplomacy. Because Russia is a decent potential ally, as Germany you should consider letting Russia into Sweden solely on the grounds that you might want that player as your long-term ally.

I find it difficult to provide detailed advice on this factor because your decision of which player you want to ally is necessarily subjective. Who do you like? Who are you afraid of? Who do you want to be exchanging messages with for many turns? Who seems gullible and easy to backstab later? And so on. Perhaps one day I’ll write an article on “choosing allies.” If I do, I’ll come back here and post a link to it.

As Germany, you will commonly encounter both England and Russia making an effort to become your ally. England and Russia are almost always at odds over Scandinavia during the first few years, and German intervention can decide the outcome. Knowing nothing about the players involved, I think England is the best neighbor-ally for Germany for many reasons. But Russia is a close second, so I would let my assessment  of the players’ personalities tip the scale almost any time.

You can usually take for granted that England and Russia are not working together in 1901, but that doesn’t guarantee that both of them genuinely want to be your ally. If you think one of them is sincere in seeking your alliance and the other is not, you should almost always go with the player who seems sincere. It is possible that neither is sincere (e.g., England hopes to ally France against you and Russia hopes to ally Austria against you), but if that is truly the case and you can’t talk your way out of it, then you are probably not going to last long.

A word on Russia’s opening: Generally speaking, if Russia is going to be my ally (as Germany), I expect Russia to open South (typically to Galicia, Ukraine, and Black Sea). A Russian army in the North (e.g., the army at Moscow moves to St. Petersburg in Spring 1901) is of little value fighting against England long-term. However, I would not rule out alliance with Russia just because Russia opened North.

4. Does Russia need the build?

Most powers can easily acquire at least one “natural neutral” supply center by Autumn 1901 and gain a build. For some powers, the metagame so strongly disfavors an immediate attack against them in 1901 that their ability to acquire a natural neutral is nearly guaranteed (e.g., Italy’s ability to acquire Tunis). Russia’s “natural neutral” supply center in the South is Rumania. In most matches, Russia will acquire Rumania in Autumn 1901 and gain a build.

Unfortunately for Russia, however, there is a common-enough Turkish opening that can easily block Russia from gaining this Rumanian build. If Turkey opens by moving Smyrna to Armenia, Constantinople to Bulgaria, and either bounces Russia at Black Sea or (God forbid…) gets into Black Sea with Ankara, then Turkey can simultaneously threaten attacks on Rumania and Sevastopol. Unless Russia gets Austrian assistance or pulls off a quirky opening, a Turkish attack will either conquer Sevastopol or block Russia from taking Rumania.

In addition to a Turkish attack, it is also possible that Austria could start off the match by getting into Galica to threaten Warsaw, but this is rare. Regardless, if the openings go poorly for Russia in the South, Russia may be in very bad shape right at the start.

The prospect of a zero-build Russia counsels in favor of Germany letting Russia into Sweden. In order to solo win, Germany of course needs to eventually destroy Russia. But in most matches, Germany needs to consolidate power elsewhere before coming after Russia. If Turkey and/or Austria rapidly gain control of the Russian home centers, it will be very difficult for Germany to come back later and conquer the east. Thus, Germany’s chances of a solo win are greatly diminished if Russia is quickly destroyed from the South. If you seek a solo win, you need to keep the distant areas of the board divided.

This factor weighs much more heavily in my mind during a Gunboat match. In Gunboat Diplomacy, Turkey is incredibly strong and Russia is incredibly weak. Balancing power in favor of Russia and against Turkey is much more important in Gunboat.

Reminder: You (Germany) can easily take Sweden later on

Don’t worry that letting Russia into Sweden in 1901 will somehow prevent you from taking Sweden later on. Tactically speaking, Sweden is difficult for Russia to defend and easy for Germany to attack.

As early as 1902 (the very next year!) you can set up for a powerful attack upon Sweden. Germany can build a fleet in Kiel or Berlin in Winter 1901, and then support that fleet’s move to Baltic Sea (using the fleet at Denmark) in Spring 1902, setting up for a supported attack on Sweden in Autumn 1902.^[8]If Russia has no unit in Finland or England supports your move with Norway, you chances of conquering Sweden are very high. You could also do a fake-out where you build an army at Kiel, but then (by surprise!) move the fleet at Denmark to Baltic Sea and the army at Kiel to Denmark, setting up for a very similar attack on Sweden.

The tactical situation tends to remain the same for the remainder of the match. Germany will usually have units in place (or can build units) that can attack Sweden, and Russia will face difficulty putting up a defense when that happens.

Go with Your Gut!

There is no automatic answer on what to do about Sweden. There’s no universal “best” or “correct” move. Simply put, you have to evaluate every match on its own.

Despite all the pointers I’ve offered in this article, I nevertheless encourage you to go with your gut. That’s right! High-level Diplomacy play depends greatly on the quality of your intuition, or your instinct, whatever you want to call it. To improve, you need to train that instinct. What I’ve offered (for the most part) is guidance on what you should be considering, not what you need to do.

I find the first year or two of a Diplomacy match to be explosively exciting. When I play as Germany, my choice about whether to let Russia have Sweden is part of that excitement. My choice is exciting because even I don’t know what I’m going to do until I’ve considered everything. It’s hard work. It’s not simple or easy. That’s exactly why I find Diplomacy so much fun to play!

Thank you for your question Alex. I hope this helps you and other readers with your Diplomacy matches. I apologize for taking more than 1 month to respond to your email; I have been transitioning into a new job and got behind on my personal projects. Feel free to write me again any time!