Skip to main content

The Black Sea Theatre (part 2): The Super Fleet

When thinking about the Diplomacy board you may think of dividing it into zones. A traditional division is to split the board into two parts: the Northern (or Western) Triangle, featuring England, France and Germany, and the Southern (Eastern) Triangle of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

Personally, though, I prefer to narrow down the areas of the board and consider the possibilities there. I therefore have a number of 'theatres' that I consider, and the Black Sea Theatre is one of them.

The Super Fleet
You'll never see this image in Diplomacy... or you shouldn't! One of the keys to the game is that only one unit may occupy a space. I'm simply using it to demonstrate the power of a fleet in the Black Sea, regardless of which power occupies it.

Let's look at Italy's fleet first, because if Italy occupies the Black Sea, chances are she's on her way to winning the game. To get there, she has to overcome so many obstacles and occupy so many spaces that she has to be doing phenomenally well. And not only in the east; France could well be pushing her hard in the west.

There is a very good chance that Italy has to have conquered the majority, if not all, of Austria-Hungary, as well as Smyrna and Constantinople. Ankara will fall and Sevastopol will then be in reach. She'll have control of the Balkans (although Rumania may remain not-Italian at this point, it will also fall). Sevastopol will be her's. Which makes 15 SCs (Italy's 3, Tunis, the 4 Balkan SCs, all of Turkey's SCs, and Sevastopol).

At that point she is three short of victory with Moscow, Warsaw, Munich, Marseilles, Spain and - potentially - Portugal all possibilities.

So, if you see Italy in the Black Sea, she's doing well.

The same could be said of Austria. We'll look at Austria-Hungary's route to the Black Sea in a later post in this series, but it's enough to say for now that she's had to go the long way around; the only way to the Black Sea for Austria is through Constantinople.

It is, of course, much easier for Turkey or Russia to get into the Black Sea. Turkey starts with a fleet in Ankara, Russia with a fleet in Sevastopol, both one move away.

Russia is less formidable in the theatre, fleet-wise, as she can only build fleets in Sevastopol; Turkey could build in Ankara or Constantinople. Russia is also more likely to build armies in the south, since she can get SCs by flooding the area with armies. Turkey, though, can often build a number of fleets because she has to progress through the Mediterranean spaces.

However, it just takes one fleet in the Black Sea to threaten the whole theatre with defeat. The Black Sea isn't quite the North Sea, but certainly nobody wants an aggressive power to occupy it. But do you want to move there?

For Austria and Italy it is perhaps a sign of dominance. If they get the chance to move into the Black Sea the flexibility such a fleet provides, in terms of convoys, is great. Assuming Italy wants to take Sevastopol, she can look at convoying from Bulgaria, Constantinople, Ankara or Armenia. For Austria, the chances are similar but she may also have the likely option of convoying from Sevastopol.

For Russia and Turkey the choice needs to be dealt with from the very start of the game, and we'll look at this in more detail in their posts. The question is, though, is F(Ank)-BLA or F(Sev)-BLA the best thing for either power to do?

For either power if you can do it, then you should probably do it. The choice for Russia is usually F(Sev)-BLA or -Rum. The latter usually gives Russia Rumania from the start, whereas the former gives Austria the chance to occupy Rumania from the very start with A(Bud)-Rum (which makes it more difficult for Russia to take Rumania in 1901), or it allows Austria and Turkey to cooperate to keep Russia out of Rumania.

Turkey's choice is usually F(Ank)-BLA or -Con. A fleet in Constantinople allows it to access the Mediterranean via F(Con)-AEG; this can be important if Turkey is planning to build at least one more fleet in Smyrna in Winter 1901 (the 1901 Adjustment phase). Actually, Turkey is likely to build a second fleet anyway if she is looking to achieve this.

If either power is going to be aggressive towards the other, a fleet in Black Sea is the key. We're back to the flexibility: it can attack the other's SC(s), allow a two-pronged attack via an occupation of Armenia (slower for Russia than for Turkey), or allow a convoy, as mentioned above.

There is only one thing certain, though, if Russia or Turkey attempt to occupy the Black Sea: nobody but Russia or Turkey knows what is going on. The Russo-Turkish alliance, the Juggernaut, is so threatening for the rest of the board that a stand off in the Black Sea, or an outcry from one power at the Sea's occupation by the other, is no real indication of anything.

We'll now move on to look at the importance of the Black Sea Theatre for Russia, Turkey and Austria-Hungary.
Heathley Baines (Nibbler)
Editor

The Series "The Black Sea Theatre"
Part 1: "Introduction"
Part 2: "The Super Fleet"
Part 3: "Turkey"
Part 4: "Russia"
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Powers: England (part 1): Introduction

England is one of the powers that doesn't often raise a lot of enthusiasm among players if they draw her in the game.  This is mainly because, while it is a power that can do well enough, being in an highly defensible position and therefore a power that is likely to keep a decent player in the game until the end, it is one of the more difficult powers to win a game with. In short, she's seen as 'boring'. Well, no power in Diplomacy should be boring to play; you're doing something wrong if this is the case. And England is just as good a prospect to win the game as any other power. Just think outside the box. In this series of posts, I'll be looking at England's position on the board, her opening strategies, her potential alliances, and a strategy that can lead to victory for the English player. https://assets2.hrc.org/ But first, let's look at how the history of Britain may well give some clues to playing England in Diplomacy. Wait - that...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Play Diplomacy (part 1): Introduction

Diplomacy is a complicated game. Now, there's an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer. Allan B Calhamer (7 Dec 1931 - 25 Feb 2013) https://haroonriaz.files.wordpress.com/ Having had a break from the blog for a while, thinking about what I wanted to write next and recovering properly from a broken femur, I have decided to come back with a series of articles on playing Diplomacy , but playing it properly. Rather than tips, hints, strategy discussions, etc (there're plenty of those elsewhere on the blog), this is about playing the game the way it was meant to be played. Now, I'll readily admit that this is my opinion. There is always going to be discussion about the way the game ought to be played. I don't claim there's a definitive answer to every aspect of the game, and the way you play is - or should be - somewhat defined by the context in which a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Play Diplomacy (part 2): Origins

Diplomacy  is a complicated game.  Now,  there's  an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer. http://hybridsrising.com/ In the Diplomacy Archive , there are two articles which deal with how Diplomacy came into being: A Dozen Years of Diplomacy  (1966; First published in Diplomania, issue 12, Aug 1966.) The Invention of Diplomacy  (1974; First published in Games ad Puzzles, issue 21, Jan 1974.) Both articles explain the forces that led to Calhamer creating  Diplomacy and they are, pretty much, repetitive of each other. Although they explain how the game was formed, they also have implications on how Calhamer intended the game to be played. The Influences From A Dozen Years of Diplomacy : At the end of World War II, I came across an article on "post-war planning" which reviewed the European diplomacy of the period 1815-1914 and...
Post a Comment
Read more