Turkish attacks on Russia: How and why?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Hi, I am fairly new to Diplomacy. In the few games I've played, Turkey
has always been clobbered by an Austro-Russian alliance. I know that
Russo-Turkish alliances are also reasonably successful, though I've
not seen one up close. I have not seen much interest in an
Austro-Turkish alliance and, as Russia, have had no trouble convincing
both the Turk and the Austrian to work with me. ATs are generally seen
as unworkable because Austria is right in the line of Turkey's
expansion. So my question is: what are the circumstances when Turkey
would open directly against Russia? To my mind, this strategy would
only work if it was part of an Austro-Turkish alliance but surely a
competent Russia should in most cases be able to choose between an AR
or an RT, and an AT would only emerge if both Austria and Turkey were
feeling experimental, with a pre-conceived plan to try out something
new.

I feel I am missing something. Could some of the more experienced
Turks out there please tell me what is on their minds when they move
on Russia in Spring 01?

Thanks,

Craig.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

You bring up two separate but equally important points.

(1) Why should Turkey attack Russia from the get-go?
(2) How do you do it?

The first is harder to answer, as it plays into the same question that
arises no matter who you're playing. Once you pick up your one or two
neutral dots, you have to attack SOMEONE to expand, so you've got to decide
who that is. As Turkey, you really have three options for a primary target,
though you're often forced into fighting more than one at a time. Of
course, I'm referring to Austria, Russia, and Italy. Let's look at some of
the advantages and disadvantages of allying with each.

Austria. Forces you to be predominately a sea power, which is okay as
Turkey, but often you're unable to get too far into Russia, and Austria ends
up picking up a lot of the spoils. On the other hand, you can get into such
a position that you're really hard to stab and may have the edge in the
endgame.

Italy. Really tough to work with as Turkey. Forces you to be primarily a
land power, which means you're probably contending with both Austria or
Russia, unless you have one of them as a secondary ally. I've seen IT
alliances work really well, but they are pretty rare.

Russia. Gives you some flexibility to balance between land and sea. Often
will create great paranoia on the rest of the board and form large
anti-juggernaut alliances, particularly strong AIs.

Okay, so let's say you're playing Turkey and you want to pick Russia as your
first target. First thing to do is make sure you're talking a lot with all
your neighbors. See if Austria is on board. See if Italy will move west
and stay out of your hair. Find out if Russia is going to cover the Black
Sea or not.

Second, talk to people on the other side of the board. Encourage England to
send an army to Norway "just to be safe." Remind Germany that he probably
wants to bounce Russia from Sweden to stop him from growing too fast.

Then go back to Austria and tell him that England is aboard for attacking
Russia in the north. Tell him Germany is going to bounce Sweden. It doesnt
matter if its true or not, if they move differently you can blame it on them
giving you bad information.

So how do you move? Well, the killer is if you can get into the Black Sea.
Ank-Bla, Smy-Arm, Con-Bul. Now you've got influence on Rum or Sev, and
often Russia has to guess which to defend. If you can get Austria to help
you into Rum, or move into Gal, even better. The key is to coordinate your
moves with Austria while keeping Italy occupied elsewhere, probably with
France.

AT alliances are often very successful, and with a flexible player in
Austria and some luck around the board, you should be able to organize one
early in a game.

-Adam


"cmgoogle" <craigmccoll@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a14e80c9.0407290457.6044ee1c@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I am fairly new to Diplomacy. In the few games I've played, Turkey
> has always been clobbered by an Austro-Russian alliance. I know that
> Russo-Turkish alliances are also reasonably successful, though I've
> not seen one up close. I have not seen much interest in an
> Austro-Turkish alliance and, as Russia, have had no trouble convincing
> both the Turk and the Austrian to work with me. ATs are generally seen
> as unworkable because Austria is right in the line of Turkey's
> expansion. So my question is: what are the circumstances when Turkey
> would open directly against Russia? To my mind, this strategy would
> only work if it was part of an Austro-Turkish alliance but surely a
> competent Russia should in most cases be able to choose between an AR
> or an RT, and an AT would only emerge if both Austria and Turkey were
> feeling experimental, with a pre-conceived plan to try out something
> new.
>
> I feel I am missing something. Could some of the more experienced
> Turks out there please tell me what is on their minds when they move
> on Russia in Spring 01?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

cmgoogle wrote:
> So my question is: what are the circumstances when Turkey
> would open directly against Russia?

I'm in a PBEM game right now where Russia, a new player to us, was not
communicating much with the other players early in the game.
Unsurprisingly, a Germany/Austria/Turkey alliance immediately blitzed him.

But among seasoned veterans, it could be reasonable for Turkey to open
against Russia I suppose. Austria often gets a serious bout of
"Juggernaut fear" and tries to team up with Italy to eliminate Turkey
early. Sometimes it might look early on like A/I/G versus R/T, and
unless England is willing to pitch in, Turkey might decide his only
chance to survive is to attack Russia early in an effort to court
Italy's favor.

--
Will Berry
Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
http://www.techwoodcon.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Thanks, both of those answers are helpful. But, as Russia, I would
always bounce or move to the Black Sea in Spring O1. I usually tell
the Turk I am doing so as part of a Juggernaut-hiding exercise, and I
tell the Austrian that I am moving to Bla just because I am wary. So,
assuming there is a bounce in Bla, the Turkish attack on Russia would
be weak, and would kill all chance of an RT (by virtue of the move to
Arm, which is unambiguous). So isn't it a fairly rash move from the
Turk?
Also, the Austrian is usually keen for an AR, and will usually take
one if the Russian offers it. So far, I have not seen much enthusiasm
for an AT from Austria or Turkey, so isn't an AT, and hence a Turkish
attack, a sign of a poor Russian player? Or have I just been lucky as
Russia so far? I hasten to admit I'm a newbie so my views are
distorted by the few games I've seen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Adam's points are excellent, I would add only one larger point.
You have probably heard of the "Witches", England and Turkey?
England and Turkey cross-board cooperation AND conflict often
work very well, and either one avoids taking clear positions
regarding the other at deep peril.

So what's the point on Turkey attacking Russia? Well, England
ALSO frequently can attack Russia, and the point of an AT
alliance ALWAYS should be to get a Turkish fleet into the Mid-Atlantic
as quickly as possible, well, even to get one there at all is a feat.
And this thwarts England, who doesn't want that. This yin/yang
about Turkey attacking Russia, since you aren't actually going
to take a lot of centers ther, just neutralize Russia, is a key
to understanding why Juggernauts are not all they are cracked up to be.

Lastly, you mistakenly take too much of a tactical view. The real
answer about whether you attack Russia or not depends on WHO is
playing all the other countries on the board.

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

cmgoogle wrote:

> ATs are generally seen
> as unworkable because Austria is right in the line of Turkey's
> expansion.

Just because you don't expect an AT to last doesn't mean it's not the
best choice for the opening.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

First of all, as long as you are thinking of the game in terms of
alliances "e.g. playing an AT" it limits your play. It works at first,
but it becomes very limited. Better to always think of yourself at
playing TURKEY, and seeing what is best for you in the short run and
then long run.

> So,
> assuming there is a bounce in Bla, the Turkish attack on Russia would
> be weak, and would kill all chance of an RT (by virtue of the move to
> Arm, which is unambiguous).

A S'01 attck on Russia is doomed if you aren't pretty darn sure you
are going to get into BLA. Doesn't mean you can't attack him later.

> Also, the Austrian is usually keen for an AR, and will usually take
> one if the Russian offers it.

What any Austria wants is a weak Russia. Unfortunately, Austria also
wants a weak Turkey.

> So far, I have not seen much enthusiasm
> for an AT from Austria or Turkey, so isn't an AT, and hence a Turkish
> attack, a sign of a poor Russian player?

It's tough to get Austria to buy into the idea of a death-do-us-part
AT alliance. It can work with some long range planning, Turkey only
builds fleets, Austria only armies kind of thing. But that doesn't
mean Austria and Turkey can't work together in the early stages. Many
Austria's would love nothing more than to have Turkey and Russia bash
heads at the beginning and leave Austria alonge.

> Or have I just been lucky as
> Russia so far? I hasten to admit I'm a newbie so my views are
> distorted by the few games I've seen.

As a newbie, you get the impression that Russia is entitled to Rumania
and possibly even Sweden. It games with better players, it's not
uncommon to see Russia with no builds for '01.

If you aren't playing Russia, it's often a good idea to convince
*everyone* that Russia can't be allowed to grow. Get England, Germany,
Turkey and Austira on board.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <a14e80c9.0407292123.141e62d@posting.google.com>,
cmgoogle <craigmccoll@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Also, the Austrian is usually keen for an AR, and will usually take
>one if the Russian offers it. So far, I have not seen much enthusiasm
>for an AT from Austria or Turkey, so isn't an AT, and hence a Turkish
>attack, a sign of a poor Russian player? Or have I just been lucky as
>Russia so far? I hasten to admit I'm a newbie so my views are
>distorted by the few games I've seen.

I've had a couple of AT games as Austria. The reasons to prefer
this alliance have been:

--Russia isn't communicating
--Russia is a weak player, too weak to make a reliable ally, whereas
Turkey is stronger
--Russia is seen as too threatening and is going to be blitzed off
the board, and I don't want to go down with him
--Russia and Italy are getting along too well. If there is a solid
IR alliance, a proposed AR is just a tool to get rid of Turkey and
then Austria.

Basically, it depends on the players. I would take AR over AT
if I could get it, and if the position elsewhere was supportive,
but often it just isn't. And better to offer AT than suffer RT!

I have been in several draws as Austria from AT, never won a game
despite some nice positions--the Western players can stop you at
the great line, and stabbing Turkey then only gets you 17. But
the opening comes before the endgame, and in the opening Austria
should take whatever she can reasonably get or it's "off the board
in '02" time again.

As Turkey, I would pursue this alliance when:

--Russia isn't communicating
--There is so much anti-RT sentiment that I think RT will cause
an instant Western Triple or worse (the usual reason)
--I expect Italy to turn on Austria moderately early, and I
plan to use Austria to weaken Russia and then turn on Austria
with Italian help

Diplomacy trumps tactics. Sometimes the "strong" tactical
alliance is a lethal strategic mistake.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Thanks everyone. Your remarks have been very helpful. I didn't
actually need to be told that tactics rank second to diplomacy,
though; that much I'd worked out for myself. Still, it is hard to
manipulate people if your adivce is obviously flawed tactically, and
the tactical situation limits one's diplomatic options.

It still sounds as though a competent Russia, pitched against a
competent Turk, is going to have an easier time winning the Austrian's
support, unless there is a general anti-Russian sentiment sweeping the
board.

I'll keep all this in mind when I next play Turkey.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> Lastly, you mistakenly take too much of a tactical view. The real
> answer about whether you attack Russia or not depends on WHO is
> playing all the other countries on the board.
>
> Jim-Bob

Actually, I thought he was claiming that a bad tactical suggestion is
a diplomatic mistake (i.e. if I wanted to ally with you, but my
proposal leaves you wide open for an attack from some other player,
you're not likely to take my proposal seriously, and probably won't
ally with me).

Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:

>> Lastly, you mistakenly take too much of a tactical view. The real
>> answer about whether you attack Russia or not depends on WHO is
>> playing all the other countries on the board.
>>
>> Jim-Bob

>Actually, I thought he was claiming that a bad tactical suggestion is
>a diplomatic mistake (i.e. if I wanted to ally with you, but my
>proposal leaves you wide open for an attack from some other player,
>you're not likely to take my proposal seriously, and probably won't
>ally with me).

>Will

You are correct, Will, and he made that clear in his follow up.

My bad,
Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Rod Spade <rodspade@acm.org> wrote in message news:<2n2aucFsebpvU2@uni-berlin.de>...
> cmgoogle wrote:
>
> > ATs are generally seen
> > as unworkable because Austria is right in the line of Turkey's
> > expansion.
>
> Just because you don't expect an AT to last doesn't mean it's not the
> best choice for the opening.
>
> ;-)

An AT can last quite a while. Also, if it breaks, it can break either
way.

In my latest FTF game, I played T in an AT and never thought of
stabbing because EG were wiping the board. Context always matters.

Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

desper wrote:

> In my latest FTF game, I played T in an AT and never thought of
> stabbing because EG were wiping the board. Context always matters.

How did that game end, anyway? You'll recall that I left after EG(I)
wiped me in 1903....

Rod