Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The Qin was one of seven (yes, seven) "warring states" in China several hundred years B.C. During its rise to power, it often followed a policy of "ally with the three far states against the three near states."
Has anyone won (or lost) a game of Diplomacy using such a strategy? Does it work better using some countries than others (e.g. England, allied with Turkey, Austria-Hungary, and Italy against France, Germany, and Russia)? Or are there any good articles on such a strategy?
I have a hard time seeing this being successful. The problem is that it doesn't mean much in the early game for England to be allied with Austria or Turkey. So effectively you'd be playing EI versus FG, while Austria and Turkey teamed up on Russia. The likely scenario is that the 2 v 2 battle doesn't go very far, and the 2 v 1 battle goes well, resulting in a stronger Austria and Turkey. At that point, Turkey pretty much has to attack Austria or Italy, and either way doesn't seem to bode well for England.
In general, having an ally across the board is nice, but it isn't a replacement for having an ally that you can coordinate with directly, especially in the early game. You'd need to look at it as more of a long-term alliance. Perhaps as England you coordinate with Austria, Turkey, and Italy, but you start by getting Germany to help you take apart France quickly (with Italy's help), then activate your cross-board alliance to take out Germany. It's debatable whether that really meets the criteria of a "Qin strategy" though.
There are certain context for this strategy. Qin's strategy was only used for the major powers, any of which could crush others and were ready to do so. In general, there is great distrust among great powers, who cannot be permanent allies due to conflicts of major interests.
In that case, allying with your neighboring powers against farther powers is not a good strategy. Because first of all, maintaining interests faraway is costly; Even if you can afford it, neighboring powers would be threatened by the encirclement so that they alliance could not be genuine. Their betrayal could be deadly. Instead, working with farther powers is much easier. They have "common interests" (containing your neighboring powers who are more likely to threat their interests than you are) with you. Combined you are also in an advantageous strategic position. They can also be lured into an alliance by greed. The infamous example is the short alliance between Hitler and Stalin.
In Diplomacy you are not playing countries; you are playing your opponents. There are tremendous advantages to allying with nearby countries; as there are tremendous advantages to allying with non-adjacent countries. Which is better in any particular game has more to do with the players, than the countries. That is why the difference between countries diminishes as the player quality increases.
In a really strong game I don't see any particular disadvantage to playing Italy or Germany, but in a weak game it is important to be Britain or Turkey.
Update:
Every country starts with three neighbors, except Italy and Russia who start with four. Anyone who starts by quickly making enemies of all neighbours is on he fast track to finish seventh. A strategy like the Qin strategy (which of course was also popularized by Machiavelli) only works for someone who is actually stronger than his collective neighbours, or can at least withstand them singlehanded. In Diplomacy, as in Survivor, you win by having more allies than our enemy does.
