I said any, not all. I don't have time for that many games.

LOL kaner is in the mood to fight :DDD

I really enjoy the 1v1 games as a quick and fun alternative to the normal games. It gives you a chance to work on tactical skills and is usually done in a matter of hours as opposed to the months that many games take.

As per the other thread, I invite anybody to defeat my Russia as Germany.

Russia is pretty much unstoppable in 1v1 maps for obvious reasons. I don't really see the point.

But, interestingly, Frankland does better on the whole over the Juggernaut in that scenario.

The incorporation of France is superior to that of Turkey. While technically Juggernaut has 1 more unit than Frankland, one must also remember that one of those units is inherently useless in the initial scramble. There are too many units in the south with 2 fleets, 2 (possibly 3) armies, and only 1 sea space to move into. The end up getting in each other's way, making deployment less than smooth.

This immediately gives the advantage to Frankland in terms of momentum.

The numerical advantage is also dulled pretty quickly. from the first set of builds, under maximized build circumstances (not accounting for taking enemy centers of course, just a neutral rush), they end up even. Frankland can get 6 builds, Juggernaut only 5. The only unit in position to attack (Warsaw), can be blocked by Berlin-Silesia. If Warsaw moves to Prussia, Silesia, can cover Berlin. If there is a bounce, both are unable to build. If War-Glc is played, Sil threatens Wrs, forcing a bounce or risk losing a home center early on.

Position wise, advantage also lies with Frankland. It has been noted before that when any of the center powers grow to sufficiently large size (G/I/A reaching around 11-13 centers), they have a higher probability of solo than the corner powers having the same amount of builds. This is typically because their central location allows them to bring troops to any point of the map much quicker than their counterparts, and forming stalemate lines against these powers are harder.

An analysis derive of this statistic still reveals Frankland is better. The center is already theirs, and it will be difficult to take. In the south, they have a faster land access to Italy, and are tied with the race for Tunis. In the north, they have a fleet potential that easily outstrips Russia 3 to 1. The only chance Russia really has in the north is taking Frankland off guard and rushing the german home centers, hoping that the defense makes mistakes. Frankland can afford to sit back and engage in a war of attrition they will win in most cases.

I see absolutely zero "merits" to a 2 player game. It's a total bastardization of the game, the game is freaking named "DIPLOMACY" and negotiations are a huge part of the game, working with/against several opponents at the same time. Playing against ONE person? Why not discuss the merits of playing with yourself? (pun intended)

@ Tomahaha : +1 for the pun :)

there are merits to it, Tom. It's called FOR FUN. Maybe you should try it out sometime.
Besides, it can be very good for practice in tactics.

@ Raro : +1.

My +1 to Tomahaha was only for his pun. I fully understand that players may have great fun in 2-player games, even though I am personally not at all interested by those games.

I enjoy both the tactical and strategic practice two player games give. No issue of NMR even out of a faithful ally. It's all on you.

What is the bug up Tomahaha? I have never read a piece from Tom that is uplifting and positive, or even a haha?
I get he's done all this stuff elsewhere with Diplomacy world wide but this is fun right... Armies can be very political in them selves, Junta & coup de' etat.

War can be only 2 parties then friends join in right :)

Challenge accepted, I'll play GvI, FvA or EvT. Pick your preferred game and country.

BTW why unrated? I'm fine w/either but curious as to why you prefer unrated for this.

The 1v1 games are good for exactly that, fun, and not much else. If you're attempting to use them as a measuring stick for Diplomacy skill in general, or for tactical acumen specifically, then you're off base.

One of the great things about Diplomacy is that no game ever plays the same way twice. In the 1v1 games there are ceetain formulas for optimal movements, and if you stick with them you will win. It's almost like Mario Bros. in that there is a scripted path to success. Some players have mastered these variants and are nigh impossible to beat, but that does not make them great tacticians. However, these maps can be used by newer players to practice the mechanics of the game and to experiment with maneuvers that they might not attempt is a regular game. So as a fun factor, they are helpful. They are also great for playing quickly, and when you only have two (or three) people.

Once thing I would say is that the GvI map is completely rigged for Germany. The other maps may have inherent advantages for one nation or the other, but the GvI map makes it impossible for Italy to win unless Germany is completely clueless, NMRs, or abandons the game. There are certain formulas that if followed in this map assure that Italy cannot win. There may be such flaws in other maps as well, but this one is the most pronounced.

The stats say GvR is the most imbalanced. As far as balanced and a true test of tactics and strategy, Duo is the scenario to play.

Ruffhaus,
I disagree with you regarding G v. I. I would like to know what "special moves" guarantee German victory. There are none such moves. I've played the variant many times and find it close to balanced and, in fact, Italy has the advantage if you know what your doing. Many people just play Italy wrong. I would challenge anyone to try to beat me as I play Italy.

I also think that 1 on 1's DO help your tactical skills immensely. Although the scenario is often the same due to the format, you can gain tactical skills by analyzing tactical patterns of your enemy, and from trying new strategies in similar scenarios. When you play on a full size map with other players, you might have a couple extra ideas, and you may be able to analyze your opponents movements better. Playing 1 on 1's often gives you many opportunities to try out strategies like drawing in your enemy and flanking them, suffocating enemies' building capabilities, and maximizing your mobility. In addition to the benefits of fun, I think the practice can give you a better arsenol for reflexive, tactical play.

Yeah, I would say Russia has the biggest advantage over Germany. Next is Germany's advantage over Italy. Austria has a slight advantage over France and England has a slighy advantage over Turkey.

The problem Italy has is that it cannot get armies to the front as quickly as Germany can. If it gets bottled up early, it is very difficult to catch up.

that's where you're going wrong, my friend

It can get them there FASTER, by the use of sea routes!

Possible but it is still harder. I will give it a shot if you want to play.

Well, Raro, you may disagree all you like, and it will not be the first time that you will be wrong in doing so. Brettj72'as description is in essence the problem with the GvI. map. Germany can afford to jam Italy with armies right from the start, while Italy does not dare allow that response to ignore it. The problem is that Germany wins all scenarios as a result of that jam and can then easily out pace Italy to 18. Germany does not need Spain to win, and Italy cannot build fleets fast enough to get past the Mid Atlantic Ocean. Germany can get to Brest in four moves, picking up Belgium along the way. Italy can get to Mid Atlantic in three moves if you pass up a stop in Tunis, which carries a whole new set of implications.

The tactical benefits of 1v1 games are minimal, because the game occurs in a vaccum absent the interaction of other players. If you're tactically inept, then it's good practice. But if you have basics down it's really not all that helpful. The real value of the 1v1 in terms of tactics is that you can often attempt maneuvers in real time, using fast paced turns, rather than waiting days and days for the orders to process. And that's where it's "fun", but that "fun" doesn't translate to useful tactical prowess in a 7 player game, and certainly does nothing for you in terms of a larger game.

Nope, I stand by mt opinion... two players is a bastardization of the game. That being said, I am no purist and think highly of many many variants. The game is awesome for newer and newer variants and some are possibly even better than the standard game. But these all involve multiple players and none are 1v1. To claim they sharpen your tactical skills is a bunch of baloney as well. Tactical skills involve moves as well as your diplomatic acumen working together. If you have the best "tactical" skills but can not work with others (and the BEST tactical skills in the base game require a lot of give and take not simple military advantage all the time) then you will fail, plain and simple.

You like playing with yourself, then do so! But don't claim to be some master tactician because of it, anything "learned" in 1v1 is nothing more than delusions of self grandeur.
I can be plenty of fun, but when I see people talking about these supposed "merits" hahahahaha, I speak up about them fooling only themselves. I hate to agree with Ruffhaus (ever) but he's 100% correct here.

If you are so sure, then put your money where your mouth is.

^ @Ruffhaus

@Tom - Diplomatic skills are not tactical skills. Sorry, but you are wrong by every definition of tactical and wrong.

There's not a lot of tactical variety in 1v1 games. Between two experienced players in more-or-less equivalent positions, tactics boils down to a guessing game. The tactics in Diplomacy are kept simple specifically to highlight the real focus: the shifting alliances and balance of power. Even a gunboat game, with no direct communication other than your orders, has these aspects. But a 1v1 game? Nope. But for non-experts, there may be some value, for practice. And becoming an expert at Diplomacy tactics takes nowhere near as much time as, say, chess tactics. Basically, learn how to take advantage of momentum, stalemate lines, and the various quirks in the Diplomacy rules.