well the key for this game is to get others helping you with your enemies ;)

The very fact that the US has more solos then the UK would answer your question.

Alright, so basically USA has to get luckier than Britain in having compatible strategies in mind among fellow players?

Oh jeez, here we go again! Everyone, save your breath! Does everyone remember the last thread like this that Argo made?

Eh... do you see a strategic focus in Zeus 5 that encourages other players to favor USA before UK in negotiations?

Troll-la-la-la...

We established in your last thread that diplomacy is not luck.

Regarding why players favour the US over UK in negotiations, proximity makes an alliance with US very profitable:

China's closest sc to the UK is 3 territories, closest to America is also 3 sc
Japan and USSR closest sc to the UK is 2 territories, closest to America is 3 sc
For Italy, closest to UK is 2 territories, closest to America is 4 territories
For Germany, closest sc to the UK is 3 territories, for America its 5 territories

With exception to China, all other countries share a border with the UK and not with the US, making it far easier to convince someone to attack the UK.

US being so far away from everyone makes him easy to ally with, you know he's not going to stab you cause you don't share a border.

patronizing the troll?
You know what I see when I look a the map (on DipWiki and elsewhere) is a little name in the corner, hey that's ME! (I redesigned the map for these guys several years ago)

fasces, that's one way of thinking about it.

On the other hand, people sometimes ally back to back with people who are close. Germany and Austria is a classic example of this in the Classic map. I was actually thinking of USA and UK allying back to back since it doesn't help either country's long term development if they fight each other right away. America won't be able to deal with Japan and will take forever to secure Midway and Panama, and Britain won't be able to contest Norway or Paris from Germany or Russia. Egypt could also be used to contest Japan while USA pressures Africa.

The strategic focuses I was referring to were things like stalemate lines or difficulties in deploying inland or across the board.

what does it matter? It boils down to nothing but luck so why discuss strategy and such when all that matters is luck?

^sarcasm guys.

@Steephie: Actually I think Tomahaha was pointing out that argotitan has in the past made two different threads complaining about how diplomacy always comes down to luck in the end.

So if it always comes down to luck, why discuss strategy?

exactly