Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (
More info?)
In article <dgeta0peedhv5fhf48t64q0ms7hgn4djql@4ax.com>,
<rmacy@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>How tenable would a England / Russia / Turkey alliance be for a PBEM
>game? There seems to be a fair amount written on other triples, but I
>can't seem to find out anything about the pros and cons of this one.
It sounds like a great deal for Russia and Turkey. The Russia/Turkey
alliance is already very strong, and if England works with them the
early death of Germany is assured. Russia won't get as much of
Scandinavia as usual, but killing Germany should compensate. With
allies on both sides of the major stalemate line the alliance will
be very hard to stop. Its weakest point is the Med, but English
pressure from behind should get you in there eventually.
Turkey will need to be careful, as always, that Russia doesn't
outgrow him; but English help against France will go a long way
to assure that.
I'd be much more cautious as England. I suppose the eventual goal
is a three-way where England holds the west, Turkey the south and
Russia the north and center. This would require England to do quite
well against France and Germany, I think, or he'll eventually find
himself unable to keep out his previous allies. The last game
I saw with roughly this alliance structure ended up a five-way
as England had to prop up the remains of the Western powers to keep
from losing to R/T. England had the fewest winning chances of the
three and might have lost had FG not been willing to play ball with
their previous enemy.
I'd jump on it as R or T, but as E only if the player dynamic
didn't give me a better choice. It looks like a hard alliance for
E to back out of gracefully and the endgame prospects seem to
favor RT.
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram