IntroductionMuch already has been written on how Munich is pivotal to all solo efforts or how Munich is the second-most important province. Still, I have yet to see an article detailing what I feel is Munich's most important advantage: flexibility. In this article, I introduce a metric for quantifying Munich's immense influence, and then explain how this influence gives those who control it flexibility and with it, tactical and diplomatic strength. InfluenceAn army in Munich has seven potential avenues of movement: Kiel, Berlin, Silesia, Bohemia, Tyrolia, Burgundy, and the Ruhr. No other land province gives more options, and only Burgundy, Galicia, and Serbia (all critical provinces in themselves) give as many. Taking this analysis one step further, we can also evaluate how many provinces can be reached (without convoys) in two moves. This metric is not merely a theoretical construct. It has great practical significance, because every unit can only make two moves before adjustments are made (and situations change). I call this number the "influence" and flexibility a unit has for the given year. Here is how Munich's influence compares to its closest (land province) competitors:
It is striking how Munich is significantly more influential than even its closest land competitors. True, all this influence is not without cost. With great influence also comes great vulnerability. Munich is the only center in the game that is within a year's movement of five countries' home centers! Thus, Munich frequently changes ownership. On the other hand, it is hard to keep, as taking Munich always comes with new neighbors, some of whom will take exception to your growth. Unless playing Italy, I do not recommend sneaking into Munich early for a quick gain, because it is difficult to hold onto Munich with one unit alone due to the many provinces surrounding it. Now, when we extend our analysis of influence to sea provinces, we find that provinces such as the North Sea have more "influence" than an army in Munich. However, it is also important to weigh influence according to location as well as amount. Winning a game of Diplomacy requires 18 centers, making it necessary to secure a center on the other side of the major stalemate line that runs from St. Petersburg through Munich to Iberia. A unit's ability to influence centers on both sides of the line is most powerful when in Munich -- all other provinces either influence only one area of the board (North Sea, Ionian Sea) or are significantly weaker in their amount of influence (West Med, St. Petersburg). How the Great Powers View MunichIn this section I will describe how Munich figures into the plans of each of the Great Powers, with particular emphasis on the opening. Germany:Germany begins the game owning Munich, and with it gains Munich's great vulnerability -- much of the time, there will be an foreign army adjacent to Munich. The Kaiser should strive to compensate for this vulnerability by using the great flexibility given by Army Munich to shape board events to his interest. It is true that many strategy guides place Germany firmly in the Western Triangle with France and England, and thus the most common opening for Germany is a variation of:
This is a reasonable opening, because Germany's natural expansion path involves the Lowlands, and thus places Germany squarely in conflict with France and England. But with Army Munich, Germany has the flexibility to explore a different path of expansion if the diplomatic situation warrants (e.g. an EF alliance appears unlikely). If that situation prevails, then actions such as bouncing with Austria or Italy in Tyrolia in S1901 can significantly help Austria's survival chances. An article that explains why this is a good thing for Germany is Richard Sharp's, "Anschluss" article. Indeed, whether one goes with a full Anschluss or not, one can make a excellent case for holding or agreeing upon a bounce with Army Munich in S1901, especially if the threat of a bounce in Sweden is used as leverage to diplome a Northern opening for Russia, so that England's attention is kept away from your Lowland centers in F1901. Tactically, staying in Munich discourages a potential attack on Munich in F1901, as Army Munich will have nothing better to do but guard Munich in the Fall. Why is this important? Despite its proximity to other home centers, Munich cannot be bordered by two armies of the same power in 1901. While it can be bordered by multiple powers (i.e. France moves to Burgundy and Italy moves to Tyrolia), most 1901 alliances do not have a solid foundation of trust, and given a defensive Munich army and capable German diplomacy, most powers will be inclined to go after their neutrals instead of risking a joint attack against Munich in 1901. Leaving the army in Munich not only serves a valuable role in defense, but in diplomacy as well. By maintaining an army in Munich, Germany can keep its finger in all the diplomatic pies. Germany is now an active participant over Tyrolia, instead of being at the mercy of whatever AI decide, can sell to England the idea of an EG against France (move to BUR), can sell to Austria the idea of an AG against Russia (move to SIL), and can even sell to Russia the idea of an RG against Austria (move to BOH) -- although this last possibility tends to be more of a midgame option than an opening option. The diplomatic flexibility that is a natural outcome of the immense influence of the Munich army greatly increases the Kaiser's chances of coming out on the winning side in whatever alliance he eventually decides to participate in, and most importantly, can help shape the entire board's diplomatic structure into one favorable to Germany. Thus, as Germany, I suggest that one should not automatically order MUN - RUH in S1901, committing German influence to the West. Instead, consider the benefits of keeping that army in Munich, where its influence is at its peak. The board-wide diplomatic and tactical influence of staying in Munich may outweigh the extra influence on the Lowland centers that a move to RUH gains. Indeed, with good diplomacy, Germany may still end up with Belgium in 1902 as its lack of early influence over Belgium may lead to heated French and English arguments in 1901. A broadcast-only game I participated in, 'bkseat4' on NZMB, illustrates such an approach in action: after EF started off the game hostile towards each other and bounced each other out of Belgium in 1901, Germany was invited into Belgium in 1902 and had its choice of Western ally. Later in the game, it is inevitable that there will be forces of dubious allegiance adjacent to Munich. Many Kaisers go into turtle mode at this point, and always leave an army stationed in or covering Munich. My advice here is: be willing to leave Munich open unless the neighboring unit is clearly hostile. Losing Munich temporarily is not so bad, because Germany is the power that has the easiest time in recapturing Munich (as it is the only power that can build armies in Kiel and Berlin.), and most powers are reluctant to try for a one-center stab of a home center if it can be defended against. Germany is not a power made for sitting and defending; like Austria, it is meant to be an attacking power. The best defense for Germany is a good offense, and frequently leaving Munich open and undefended allows for ferocious attacks that can fortify the homeland with builds gained from those attacks. Italy:It may seem odd that I am going to talk about Italy next and not France, England, or Russia. After all, Italy can only reach Munich through Tyrolia, and that province is more frequently used to attack Austria rather than Germany. Still, although I don't have the hard data to prove it, I suspect Munich ends up under Italian influence in 1901 than under any other foreign power. The reason is that given the constricted nature of its geography and paucity of neutrals around it, Italy has poor expansion prospects. Getting into Munich greatly opens up the game for Italy by providing it avenues to influence provinces that are difficult for Italy to reach otherwise. Indeed, I believe a strong Italian strategy starts with a move to Tyrolia in S1901, and a move into Munich in F1901 (whether through clearing it with Germany first, sneaking in, or through French or Russian support). This gives Italy the critical fifth build it needs to launch an significant offensive campaign against either France, Austria, Germany (with EF help), or Russia (with two of EAT), and turns Italy from an offensive lightweight into a respectable Great Power. While such an opening is not terribly conventional, I submit that given past performance, Italy has the least to lose from deviating from conventional wisdom. If Italy does manage to gain Munich early, I do not recommend attempting to hold onto it unless in a strong alliance or control of the Austrian home centers, because the narrow Tyrolean corridor severely limits Italy's ability to defend Munich. The best tactical followup after taking Munich probably involves moving to Burgundy and Piedmont to give Italy a serious attack against France (whose capacity for western fleets menaces Italy as much as Turkey's eastern fleets). But a canny Italian diplomat could also argue for wheeling into Bohemia to attack Austria, Silesia to attack Russia (most frequently in an EAI defending against an RT), or even move against Germany if the diplomatic situation is right. Once again, Munich's great influence leads to great flexibility, which is never a bad thing to have in Diplomacy. How to achieve the capture of Munich? Diplomacy. It is easy to sell a proposal for support into Munich to France, who is far more concerned about Germany than Italy, perhaps after FG begin a Sea Lion against England. Maybe Russia will be interested in supporting Italy in, if (some might say when) Russia and Germany come to blows. Or, the Italian may even get German approval to borrow Munich for a year as part of an IG alliance! While I admit such approval is unlikely (most powers are reluctant to lend a home center), a good German player will recognize the benefits a strong Italy has for his nation. A strong Italy weakens France and Austria, two neighbors that Germany is much more vulnerable to, and such approval might even lead to a surprise Italian stab of France or Austria a year after taking Munich, while they are convinced that Italy and Germany are fighting each other to the death -- indeed, the stab can come from the "retreat" after Germany kicks Italy out of Munich. Although Italy has a great opportunity to take Munich early, it usually does not hold onto Munich for long because its attentions must be concentrated on fronts where it can bring significant force to bear (i.e., France, Austria or Turkey). But in the endgame, Munich again becomes an Italian priority, as it is but two moves away from Venice. While Italy's potential winning supply centers are quite flexible (second only to Russia), Munich is far easier for Italy to reach than, say, Moscow or London, and I believe that most Italian victories contain Munich as part of their collection, usually as the 18th center. France:Most French leaders enter Burgundy in S1901 to protect against a German move from Munich. While most of the time the Burgundian army will be busy with Belgium or Marseilles (if Italy has moved to Piedmont), sometimes France will try a quick stab for Munich. As I said earlier, I do not generally approve of such tactics, as it guarantees you a certain enemy early and it will be difficult to hold onto Munich unless the second French army is sent to Burgundy in the Fall (and thus forfeiting an Iberian center). Only when in a strong alliance with England or Russia should such a slashing opening be considered. France already has great flexibility from its uncontested Iberian builds and snug corner position straddling the major stalemate line, so taking Munich is not necessary for French expansion in 1901. Indeed, the greatest beneficiary of an early French Munich is England, who now has his pick of allies in the West. However, in the midgame, unless in an FG alliance, Munich should be one of France's strategic targets. Due to Switzerland, and the small number of Western landlocked spaces, French armies have a difficult time manuevering until Munich is taken. The capture of Munich allows French armies to spill past the gridlock of the Lowlands, and this increased mobility gives France many more tactical and diplomatic options. In particular, the capture of Munich allows France to flank Italy from two directions, and Italy should recognize that a French Munich tends not to be in its best interests until Austria and/or Turkey is eliminated (so as to prevent a two-front war). Russia:Russia rarely aims for Munich in 1901 because of German influence over Sweden and because of its need to grab and defend its share of the center-rich Balkans against Austria and Turkey. Also, the flexibility of owning Munich is not as important for Russia as it is for Italy or France, because Russia can already build on both sides of the major stalemate line and does not need the expansion opportunities that taking Munich usually gives. This is not to say that Munich is unimportant to Russia: since Munich (and Berlin) is so close to Warsaw, neutralizing Munich and Berlin (whether through conquest, or by encouraging other powers to take them) is a good midgame goal for Russia, as that frees up the Russian armies to concentrate on a single front in the South. And even though Russia has the most options for its 18 centers than any other power, Munich is frequently part of the Russian collection, because Russia's armies have few places to go once Austria and Turkey are conquered. Austria:Austria is the final power with the ability to reach Munich in 1901. However, Austria almost never attacks Germany in 1901, because it has far more pressing concerns than attacking the one neighbor that is almost certain to be friendly. In the midgame, once Austria grows strong (10-12 centers), he should think about lunging for Munich. The reason is that if Austria does not take Munich in the midgame, he will have a poor position from which to cross the major stalemate line for a solo victory: St. Petersburg is at least 2 years away from his armies and cannot be held forever, and Iberia cannot be taken without significant naval strength (which is Austria's biggest weakness). It is difficult to win as Austria without Munich, and so Austria should always try to retain the option of stabbing for Munich whenever possible, preferably with a surprise move to BOH, TYR, and SIL all in the same season. England:England is one of the two powers that is not able to reach Munich within a year. As such, England is usually not concerned with Munich until the endgame. Despite the English propensity for fleets and Munich's landlocked nature, Munich is usually part of the English 18 because it is closer than the Italian home centers/Sevastopol. Yet, if England's first conquest is Germany and he gains significant control of Munich in the midgame (with France distracted by Italy), he is in excellent position to solo as the armies used to secure Munich can also be used to launch a successful two-pronged campaign against Warsaw/Moscow (with armies from St. Petersburg), thus giving England the centers it needs across the major stalemate line to win. Turkey:Turkey is the other power that only tends to care about Munich in the endgame. Early, Turkey is the least likely to reach Munich; England only has to deal with one neighbor (Germany), but Turkey has to deal with both Austria and Russia. Once Turkey has routed his northern neighbors, Munich is probably the easiest 18th center to take, compared to the Iberian centers (which have few avenues of approach from the East and are easily garrisoned), St. Petersburg (which can be forced from the West), or Berlin (which is easily defended from the East with a fleet in the Baltic and units in Kiel and Berlin). Since a victorious Turkey's supply centers almost always include the southeastern 15 (Tunis to Venice to Vienna to Sevastopol), from there, it is but a small step to Munich. Munich in the EndgameMunich is a critical part of the major stalemate line because it, like Berlin and Tunis, is unbiased: whoever reaches that center first with enough force can hold it against powers from the other side indefinitely. This is in contrast to centers such as St. Petersburg, which is biased towards the West: i.e. it can never be held by the East against concerted effort by the West. Also, unlike the other unbiased stalemate line centers, Munich is within two years' movement of every power, so it is well within the capacity of any power to plan a campaign to take it. Thus, in any endgame where one has solo chances, it is important to assess one's chances of taking Munich, before it is locked down by another power. For France or England, taking Munich early can be the key step to taking Berlin. An endgame position analyzed by Dreier and Minshall shows the importance of taking Munich for a Western power (England or France) that also holds Tunis (or some other center across the major stalemate line that is similarly unbiased). The startling conclusion is that with just Munich and the necessary units nearby to support it, it is possible to force Berlin as well even against a normal, intelligent defense. Then, with Berlin, Munich, and (say) Tunis locked down, it is easy to execute a forced victory with a minimal defense of these centers, and using the remaining units to force St. Petersburg and the Scandanavian centers. ConclusionIf controlling the middle is the key to strategic dominance at chess, controlling Munich is the key to strategic dominance at Diplomacy. In the opening, the owner of Munich wields great influence over a vast amount of centers on both sides of the major stalemate line and is in an excellent position to shape the board and diplomatic situation to his liking. In the midgame, capture of Munich can bring about a position that leads to an dominating endgame position, either through virtual force or getting units "through the doorway" of Munich. In the endgame, it is extremely difficult for any power to win without it. It is not much of an exaggeration then to say that control of Munich should be at the heart of any winning strategy. . . . . . . . . .I would be remiss if I did not note the parallels between Munich and the Diplomatic Pouch. One is the center of the Diplomacy board, the other is the center of the online Diplomacy hobby. Both wield an incredible amount of influence in their respective spheres. Indeed, without the Pouch, this article would never have been written, for two years ago, I stumbled upon the Pouch while web-surfing and used its articles and game showcase to learn how to play. Manus, thank you for teaching me how to play Diplomacy through the work of you and your assistants, and I hope this article repays you somewhat for all the pleasure and enjoyment I have gained as a result.
If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking
on the mail address above |
