From: an7844@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: English and French Alliance
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: rec.games.diplomacy
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:31:31 GMT


In article <1993Jan21.074935.9414@midway.uchicago.edu>, bitn@quads.uchicago.edu 
(nathan elery bitner) writes:
>I have recently noticed something while playing a few judge games that
>seems to be very different from FTF diplomacy with regards to the English
>and French.  In nearly every single game I've seen/played in FTF, the
>French and English simply cannot maintain a peace.  They usually start
>out in a fragile alliance that quickly degenerates to war.  This seems to
>precipitate from the French defensive (almost) necessity of continuing to
>build fleets at Brest due to the always large English navy.  However, in
>several judge games, I've seen the French-English alliance last MUCH
>longer and seem to be much stronger.  In an 1898 game I'm currently in
>as France, England and I have 14 centers between us and are allied.
>
>
>Can a French-English alliance really survive until the endgame?  It seems
>much more likely that one would backstab the other and, namely, that
>France is especially vulnerable because of needing more defense for her
>other fronts.  Or is the French-English alliance inherently weak?
>

All alliances are possible in diplomacy as diplomacy is a game of 7 players
rather than 7 nations.  However, some alliances are more natural and stable
than others!

   The popularity of alliances comes and goes with the passing seasons.
In postal play in the 1960's the Anglo-French alliance was considered 
to be strongest on the board and Germany had very poor results.  In the 
early 1970's the Austro-Italian alliance was very popular as a result
of the Lepanto Opening developed by Edi Birsan and the Key Opening 
(developed by Jeff Key) (see version <3.0> of the DIPLOMACY AZ, stored at
the EFF JUDGE, for definitions of these terms) and the Juggernaut between 
Russia and Turkey has always been popular.  

   The Anglo-French alliance is not one which will readily result in a 
17-17 draw because many opportunities exist for either power to stab the 
other one.

jek@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (James E. Kittock) writes:

> However, I have recently come to the conclusion that a
> F-E alliance is much more favorable to E than F, for
> the following reason:

> Once F and E have beat up on G, there is little for F
> left to do but either 1. Turn on E (so much for the
> alliance) or 2. move down into the Med.

> Now, for F to effectively operate in the Med, they will
> almost certainly have to move fleets down there.  In
> fact, to get anywhere, they will have to concentrate
> most of their resources AWAY from their vulnerable
> northern coast and territories (usu Bre, Bel, maybe
> Hol).  Of course, E is always churning stuff out up
> there, and when it comes time to backstab, E has a huge
> advantage.

> I have just seen (played in, whatever) too many games
> where F and E went along happily until stab time, and F
> was really screwed hard.

   Unless the players want it to last I believe that the standard EF
alliance favours England.  This is because once England has 5/6 units 
(and normally they're mainly fleets) there is virtually no-way in which
England can be overpowered by an assault.  On the other hand it is 
relatively simple for England to stick the knife into France because
any French fleets have long since trundled into the Med.  If as France
you go for the standard EF alliance then you need to realize that this
is likely to be a game-long alliance... or you need to be particularly
cunning in disarming England's offensive line-up.

   An interesting idea of Richard Sharp's which was first mentioned in
the 1970's was an England-France alliance which sees F(Lon)-MAO in
Spring 1901 followed either by F(ENC)-Bre or F(ENC)-MAO.  If the 
Bre option is gone for then France supports into Bre in Spring 1902
(or Autumn 1902) and England retreats to MAO.  The idea behind the Bre option
is twofold: (1) It prevents France building a Northern fleet until 
Winter 1903 and makes a French stab of England very difficult and (2) 
it disguises the alliance.

  The Fleet then moves into NAf and combines with French units in the 
Med to attack Tun.  Again the idea is two-fold: (1) By mixing units
up it's more unlikely that a stab will occur (Nicky Palmer's 
concept of Scatter Theory in another guise) and (2) It gives France an 
extra unit in the south to speed up the attack on Italy (England doesn't
really need the fleet unit for its northern attack) 

   One final point.  If you use the Bre option then it is common to agree
that England builds no more fleets without France's express approval.

Mark Nelson (there's no egoboo in being anon!)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy,bit.listserv.dipl-l