Austria has Serbia, England has Norway, France has Spain, Germany has Denmark, Italy has Tunis, and Turkey has Bulgaria. Therefore a beginner expects to be able to have a free territory, and as Russia, it superficially appears to be Romania. The Crimean Crusher proves otherwise.
Ruthless opening for a ruthful opening. Also, any reason why you would put a fleet in Rumania can more effectively be done in fall, because it gives your neighbors less time to take advantage of you
There is one reason you might want to consider sevastopol to Romania. If you're pretty sure a lepanto is coming and Turkey's condition to move Ank to Con is that you don't move into black sea. And both of you trust eachother. Still not good but it's not awfully suboptimal.
Thank you for the comments, gentlemen. I agree with Cappy, I'm not opposed to taking Rum with a fleet if it's done in Fall! To Solsystem: the reason for that possible opening is plausible, but that doesn't make this opening better than simply holding in Sev and then using the Sev fleet to support Ukraine-Rumania.
True. Russia is still my favorite country to play as, because the negotiating possibilities seem almost endless, but the starting position is not nearly as strong as it looks.
@@floridamandiplomacy It's the range of possibilities that makes the interest, isn't it? As someone who played against flawed AI and whose natural disposition is more suited to gunboat, I found Italy the most fun to play. Strong defensive position, but numerous angles to attack. Weird question: to your knowledge, does gunboat influence the relative strength of the different powers very much?
Yes, no game is totally predictable. My experience in the Liberty Cup this past weekend really demonstrates that. I think that if you play gunboat regularly (as your preferred version of the game), you'd probably be able to answer better than me. I don't tend to try gunboat often. If I recall correctly, Brother Bored says that Italy is significantly stronger in gunboat than elsewhere. Similarly, France is a good deal weaker. I'd refer to him for the relative power rankings, but the impression I have is that there are quite significant differences.
Im wondering as to why the Caucasus region is not separated from this supersized Sevastopol region. I can understand the reasoning, that supply centers represent economic and military capacity and thus regions with a lack thereof would not be considered valuable as such. Yet, the possibility of regions without supply centers remains. I'd like to see something new there.
I often hear people commenting on the map and how it can be improved (at this most recent Liberty Cup tournament, they were saying Ukraine should be bigger, for example). I don't think realism is the point, though. Playability is the top priority.
@@floridamandiplomacy I'd agree with that; it's a game, after all. Would you then not consider there to be a benefit to such a change, in terms of playability? Or is there a necessity for this region to remain unchanged?
That's a good question. I don't see any reason why it would be beneficial in terms of playability, though. And the current map was set up through rigorous play testing by the creator to try and create as close to balance as he could between the various powers.
There is an effective variation on this assuming you have a dmz of Galicia with Austria which isn't too hard in this situation. Moving Warsaw to Ukraine and then either moving Moscow to Sev or Stp depending on how much you trust the Turk. The explanation is that you can essentially make dmz offers to both Austria and Turkey to where in theory they should both be happy and then play defensive for the first year. Essentially play the wait and see if anyone attacks strategy. The reason this is so effective is that Austria should be happy with you and if Turkey has sent their fleets into the med you have a great position and choice of ally which is great as any nation but really good for Russia. Oh and if Turkey sees the opportunity to go for Bla and Arm, offer Austria Bulgaria in 01 since your fleet is there 😂
im pretty sure if turkey goes for armenia, nato wont look at it nicely, you need to remember how turkey has already been a pain in the ass, but tbh they cant be kicked too, too important for the gulf control..
@@tiii4017 haha, it's not an opening I'd play often but it's one that people should always have in their back pocket. Saying things like "it's always bad to do x" isn't optimal in a social game. Apart from things like not doing Con-Bul as Turkey in 01, nothing should be off the table
I think there is a very specific circumstance where this opening can work (where you're best buddies with Austria and also trust Austria completely), but it's almost always one of the worst openings possible. And even in this scenario where you trust Austria, it's not clear to me why it's better to take Rumania in the Spring 1901 with a fleet rather than in the Fall after bouncing in Black Sea in the Spring. You can make DMZ proposals to both Austria and Turkey, but if you do that, I would expect at least one to violate them because that's the most typical choice made. That's part of why I say this is always a bad opening. If an opening requires that both of your neighbors behave well to be effective, it's not good.
@@floridamandiplomacy I would again disagree, the tactics I laid out were ones I saw first hand as Austria with a world class player in Russia and we didn't immediately start as best buddies. Typically when playing with good players they won't just lie in spring 1901 so if you can get these agreements then it is fine, it's rare to get those agreements which is why it's a low percentage play. The game ended in a Russia board top. Austria doesn't have any incentive to break the dmz given a fleet in Rum is good for them so all it comes down to is your read on Turkey which dictates the Moscow move and in that scenario you just offer Austria Bulgaria. Might just be my perspective but there are a lot of people who have a good strategic mind for the game that almost get tunnel vision on certain ideas which can restrict them from reaching that next level. I completely understand the debate and can see both sides, the purpose behind the comment and explanation is this idea that creativity and diplomacy is very limited by assuming ideas are bad strategically. I think the reason as you point out in the video that a lot of bad results come from this opening is simply most people who do this aren't as strong, that's a player issue not a strategy issue.
Austria has Serbia, England has Norway, France has Spain, Germany has Denmark, Italy has Tunis, and Turkey has Bulgaria. Therefore a beginner expects to be able to have a free territory, and as Russia, it superficially appears to be Romania. The Crimean Crusher proves otherwise.
Yes, unfortunately for Russia, Rumania can be equally as difficult to be sure of as Sweden is.
Ruthless opening for a ruthful opening.
Also, any reason why you would put a fleet in Rumania can more effectively be done in fall, because it gives your neighbors less time to take advantage of you
There is one reason you might want to consider sevastopol to Romania. If you're pretty sure a lepanto is coming and Turkey's condition to move Ank to Con is that you don't move into black sea. And both of you trust eachother. Still not good but it's not awfully suboptimal.
Thank you for the comments, gentlemen. I agree with Cappy, I'm not opposed to taking Rum with a fleet if it's done in Fall!
To Solsystem: the reason for that possible opening is plausible, but that doesn't make this opening better than simply holding in Sev and then using the Sev fleet to support Ukraine-Rumania.
Finally a channel from the Florida man for the Florida man
A channel of the Florida man, for the Florida man, and by the Florida man!
This opening demonstrates why Russia's extra supply center matters little: you're already almost overextended as it is.
True. Russia is still my favorite country to play as, because the negotiating possibilities seem almost endless, but the starting position is not nearly as strong as it looks.
@@floridamandiplomacy It's the range of possibilities that makes the interest, isn't it? As someone who played against flawed AI and whose natural disposition is more suited to gunboat, I found Italy the most fun to play. Strong defensive position, but numerous angles to attack.
Weird question: to your knowledge, does gunboat influence the relative strength of the different powers very much?
Yes, no game is totally predictable. My experience in the Liberty Cup this past weekend really demonstrates that.
I think that if you play gunboat regularly (as your preferred version of the game), you'd probably be able to answer better than me. I don't tend to try gunboat often. If I recall correctly, Brother Bored says that Italy is significantly stronger in gunboat than elsewhere. Similarly, France is a good deal weaker. I'd refer to him for the relative power rankings, but the impression I have is that there are quite significant differences.
Im wondering as to why the Caucasus region is not separated from this supersized Sevastopol region. I can understand the reasoning, that supply centers represent economic and military capacity and thus regions with a lack thereof would not be considered valuable as such. Yet, the possibility of regions without supply centers remains. I'd like to see something new there.
I often hear people commenting on the map and how it can be improved (at this most recent Liberty Cup tournament, they were saying Ukraine should be bigger, for example). I don't think realism is the point, though. Playability is the top priority.
@@floridamandiplomacy I'd agree with that; it's a game, after all. Would you then not consider there to be a benefit to such a change, in terms of playability? Or is there a necessity for this region to remain unchanged?
That's a good question. I don't see any reason why it would be beneficial in terms of playability, though. And the current map was set up through rigorous play testing by the creator to try and create as close to balance as he could between the various powers.
There is an effective variation on this assuming you have a dmz of Galicia with Austria which isn't too hard in this situation.
Moving Warsaw to Ukraine and then either moving Moscow to Sev or Stp depending on how much you trust the Turk. The explanation is that you can essentially make dmz offers to both Austria and Turkey to where in theory they should both be happy and then play defensive for the first year. Essentially play the wait and see if anyone attacks strategy.
The reason this is so effective is that Austria should be happy with you and if Turkey has sent their fleets into the med you have a great position and choice of ally which is great as any nation but really good for Russia.
Oh and if Turkey sees the opportunity to go for Bla and Arm, offer Austria Bulgaria in 01 since your fleet is there 😂
Only commented this to point out that not every opening is bad if you are creative enough.
im pretty sure if turkey goes for armenia, nato wont look at it nicely, you need to remember how turkey has already been a pain in the ass, but tbh they cant be kicked too, too important for the gulf control..
@@tiii4017 haha, it's not an opening I'd play often but it's one that people should always have in their back pocket. Saying things like "it's always bad to do x" isn't optimal in a social game. Apart from things like not doing Con-Bul as Turkey in 01, nothing should be off the table
I think there is a very specific circumstance where this opening can work (where you're best buddies with Austria and also trust Austria completely), but it's almost always one of the worst openings possible.
And even in this scenario where you trust Austria, it's not clear to me why it's better to take Rumania in the Spring 1901 with a fleet rather than in the Fall after bouncing in Black Sea in the Spring. You can make DMZ proposals to both Austria and Turkey, but if you do that, I would expect at least one to violate them because that's the most typical choice made. That's part of why I say this is always a bad opening.
If an opening requires that both of your neighbors behave well to be effective, it's not good.
@@floridamandiplomacy I would again disagree, the tactics I laid out were ones I saw first hand as Austria with a world class player in Russia and we didn't immediately start as best buddies. Typically when playing with good players they won't just lie in spring 1901 so if you can get these agreements then it is fine, it's rare to get those agreements which is why it's a low percentage play. The game ended in a Russia board top.
Austria doesn't have any incentive to break the dmz given a fleet in Rum is good for them so all it comes down to is your read on Turkey which dictates the Moscow move and in that scenario you just offer Austria Bulgaria.
Might just be my perspective but there are a lot of people who have a good strategic mind for the game that almost get tunnel vision on certain ideas which can restrict them from reaching that next level.
I completely understand the debate and can see both sides, the purpose behind the comment and explanation is this idea that creativity and diplomacy is very limited by assuming ideas are bad strategically. I think the reason as you point out in the video that a lot of bad results come from this opening is simply most people who do this aren't as strong, that's a player issue not a strategy issue.
Romanian opening, also known as the Bessarabian gap
Hadn't heard that name, but it sounds good.
ROMANIA ROMANIANS
Comment for the algorithm.
Reply for similar self-promotion effects!
first comment and like
Well played, bearded Canadian!