Diplomacy Academy 1: Unintended Antagonism

[@gkrotkov]

This is an excellent series, I really encourage you to keep it up. I can't wait to hear more from you!

[@IamTheRune]

Can't decide if the creator is 27 or 54... Thank you for the video! I found it helpful :)

[@EjvindGEMDark]

A well scripted and well stated video. Good for beginning players, and interesting to hear viewpoints for more experienced ones. My only comment might be, to use the black space under the facecam for possible information? In this video, a written version of the orders may be beneficial, or a center count in other videos.

[@DanceScholar]

Great idea, thank you - I put the orders in the black space for the second video, and I'll work to fill that negative space with value!

[@EjvindGEMDark]

I noticed in the new video, and enjoyed it too, cheers!

[@prathamyadav3105]

@@DanceScholar when will you make new videos?

[@DanceScholar]

@@prathamyadav3105 I'm back from a year's hiatus, and should have a new video up this week!

[@prathamyadav3105]

@@DanceScholar cool

[@Minedodge]

What was Germany thinking? I am new and even I wouldn't antagonise both France and England in 1901

[@travismctighe9801]

I like the intent of the video (the focus on Germany's bad moves), but I think there is a more interesting move on the board: A Bur-s-Tyr-Mun. Pretend you are France for a minute. Germany is openly hostile and/or a bad player you shouldn't work with. England moved in a favorable way to you, and makes himself a valuable ally. The entire east situation is unpredictable with fairly standard moves by A/R/T (and to an extent I). Presumably France knows of England's intent on Belguim, so by doing this set of orders he's ensured that he has no progression without taking allied centers (either by stab, or the ally giving them over). While this gives him two potential allies, it leaves him in somewhat shaky long-term position. It does gain him tempo in taking out Germany faster... but that might not have even been necessary given the English army in Belguim already. It has the added effect of aiding Italy with an extra build - who can possibly mount a better defense should France try to move in that direction later on. Of course, that build can also add contention to the east which might eventually be necessary. I guess I'm questioning the strategic decision for doing that move.

[@HighlyCruciferous]

I agree. Another argument against the support is that France should want Germany to be able to build a second fleet at the end of the first year, which is definitely not going to happen in this position.

[@igloo.550]

Isnt the french move into burgundy equally if not even more so agressive (due to the support) than the german one? Wouldnt that rule out or at least damper the prospects of a german alliance with France as france borders munich? I'm new so I'm interested to hear peoples perspectives. I would see france as the bigger aggressor (not including the den to NTH sea, that was not clever).

[@jasonmastbaum4000]

I'm guessing the reason you glossed over this point is because of what you said about assuming that the people watching this know how to play, but I think part of understanding why the move to North was so bad requires being able to read that board situation and knowing to be worried about France and Italy cooperating to take Munich. If you're completely oblivious to that concern, then the move to North may not look *quite* as awful given that it would have been impossible for Germany to both make it to North and fail to make it to Holland (only Nth-Hol or Nth C Edi-Hol were available to bounce Kie-Hol).

[@aanon4019]

thanks for the vid, eagerly waiting for more

[@evmi231]

This made me consider a game I'm currently on as Germany with friends. Russia moved Warsaw to Silesia turn 1 when I said I'd bounce Sweden if he moved to Galicia. I got him to turn around and we're talking ok, but maybe he's being a bit like Germany in the video: not a good future ally.

[@DanceScholar]

That might be the case - but now I'm curious - why did you feel so strongly that keeping Russia from going to Galicia in S01 was in Germany's best interest?

[@evmi231]

Well I read some articles from diplomacy archive saying that a strong austria was correlated with a strong germany. I think it was something like, a german solo happened 30% more often when austria lasted past 1903. I'll try and find the source if you like. I'm assuming it will have the effect to keep the eastern hoardes at bay in the mid-game. So I made austrian survival and non-aggression a priority. I made the ultimatum with russia (even saying he could arrange a bounce), and I policed tyrolia a bit. I told I and AH if anyone moved to stab the other, my army in munich would aid and support the victim of the stab. Italy backed down (I think he wanted to stab), I pulled some strings to get a lepanto going and it lead to a healthy central alliance. I lied a bit in the first comment, russia actually moved to Prussia. It got back to me that he meant for it to go to Silesia but misordered. I laughed out loud at that, since I had been over-analyzing the move WAY too much.

[@HighlyCruciferous]

Evan Miller, you are referring to the strategy coined by Richard Sharp as the "Anshluss". By far Germany's best policy in my opinion. Russia's move to Prussia or Silesia in 1901 is foolish on the other hand.

[@HighlyCruciferous]

6:52 Actually Nth-Ska coupled with Nwg C Edi-Nwy or Nwg-Nwy is quite a decent option in that position as it affords England immediate influence over Sweden in spring 1902. So Germany could have conceivably expected the move Den-Nth to succeed. Why on earth he would actually want that move to succeed is another matter, since as you point out it deprives him of the build from Denmark.

[@edwardjosh2784]

If Germany cut support from Burgundy how did Burgundy still support?

[@hornyonmain7085]

Edward Josh - a unit (lets call it unit A) can’t cut support from a unit (unit B) supporting another unit (unit C) into their space unless unit A actually dislodges unit B (in which case unit C can just move into where unit A started now that its moved out)

[@photontorpedotube]

That was a good 1901 for the Russian-Italian alliance.

[@sylvainpradalier3203]

Good vidéo. Lets do some more!

[@martinmartin6300]

If I would have been France or England I would never play with Germany because his moves are simply very weird. I mean you don't wanna have an ally who is tactically und strategically inferior; unless he is significantly smaller than you and you can use him for your purposes. However, I have to admit that I am not considering myself a beginner. I just tuned in because I find these kind of videos are kind of chill.

[@stephenrichardsonmicro-adv4343]

Surely the move to Burgundy in Spring 1901 was just a result of good play from France? To me it looks clear that France was expecting the German order otherwise he wouldn't supported is own move. This from France also had the benefit of ensuring Italy didn't move to Pie before taking Spain in the Fall. At the end France has gained two SCs and has a safe border with England and Italy - and no threat from Germany. I would say this was excellent French play rather than poor German play.

[@TataMataAkrobata]

You have said nothing constructive.