Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Post Reply
Message
Author
President Eden
Posts: 6907
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: possibly Britain
Karma: 9609
Contact:

Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#1 Post by President Eden » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:34 pm

Prompt in title.

I know that when I played full press, and for a while in playing gunboat, I didn't tend to think of the countries as being intrinsically very different from each other. I find universal principles of strategy, philosophy, etc. very psychologically satisfying and tend in games like Diplomacy to look for universal principles that enhance my ability to play any particular position.
Beyond very obvious areas of discussion, like gunboat openings or alliance priorities for each country, I didn't really tend to think that I might need to change my playstyle to fit the country I picked.

I think I was probably very wrong. Different starting circumstances and incentives should lend themselves to different negotiating styles and offensive/defensive tactical approaches. England, Germany and Austria aren't all just different in how you apply universal principles of Diplomacy strategy to their specific starting circumstances: I think different principles may be needed.

In the past, I don't recall much conversation about changing playstyles to suit your country. Generally when people discuss "playstyle" in Diplomacy, they think of it as an intrinsically personal evaluation. "I like to play aggressively" or "I like to negotiate in a very amicable and understanding way" or "I never backstab or lie" are typically statements about a player's disposition or personality and thought about that way. Should we instead be considering these approaches from the angle of a country's disposition?
I think the best players probably do this automatically, either without even being consciously aware of their doing so, or just haven't felt the desire or opportunity to discuss it on a forum or write a strategy article about it. I'm curious how many people do.

`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo`
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: North Dakota
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#2 Post by `ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:28 am

Austria - Play the victim and hope someone shows mercy
Italy - How can I get a 5th SC without lying?
Turkey - Russia, BFF?
England - Alliance change, again
France - Speak softly and carry a big stick
Germany - Stick to your word and watch your back
Russia - Long-winded speeches and lofty campaign promises

chluke
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:10 am
Karma: 89
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#3 Post by chluke » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:33 am

In gunboat games, I do adapt my strategy to the country drawn.

In press games, I adapt my strategy more to the other players in the game, with less regard for country drawn.

User avatar
ghug
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 17581
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Seattle
Karma: 11399
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#4 Post by ghug » Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:06 am

I think that even in press there are a lot of country-specific factors to consider. Obviously you have to be adaptive, and opportunities to do things in different ways that might be more successful will arise, but you should be actively trying to shape the game to your benefit, and that means different things for different powers.

Past the openings, there's not much of a difference in the way I play tactically or the way I talk to people, but my strategic thinking is very heavily influenced by where I am on the board:
  • Tempo - Obviously everyone wants to be growing, but some powers are primed to grow quickly early (Russia, Germany, Austria) and some can do to be patient and let the board develop around them (Italy, England, Turkey). Eden already touched on this to an extent with the openings, but there''s more to it than that. As Russia, I'm looking for explosive growth in the first few years. I might care less if someone else is growing quickly across the board at the same time, especially given that I'm already straddling the major stalemate line. As a slower country, I'm working harder to make friends and give myself options,
    while looking to ensure that nobody else is growing too quickly themselves.
    I'm also trying to think about openings in France or Germany, which leads into the next point.
  • Stalemate lines - There's a big one that runs from Iberia or Tunis to St. Petersburg. There's another that runs north to south that gets used sometimes.
    There are a bunch of smaller ones in various places, but those are the really important ones when you're thinking about soloing and stopping solos, which you should be doing the whole game. Everyone needs to be thinking about how they're going to get and hold centers across the stalemate lines, but that's easier for some than others. Russia has centers on both sides of the big one to start,
    and France only needs to take Tunis to be across (which isn't trivial, but can be accomplished with careful planning). Both need to worry about being stalemated in Scandinavia, but they can largely focus simply on growing anywhere they can and maintaining what they have. Germany starts right in the middle of the map,
    within easy striking distance of both Austrian and Russian home centers. Austria and Italy have similar proximity advantages. That means you can either try to take something in the early to mid game and then hold it or snipe for something when you're close to soloing, though the latter is more difficult. England and especially Turkey have a more difficult time crossing the line early, meaning that the center(s) across the line come close to the end when everyone is more alert to your threat, which means you have to spend a lot of time engineering the board so that units are moving away from wherever it is you want to target before you make your big solo move.
  • Alliances - You can realistically work with anyone else on the board in some capacity at some point. Some may work better or worse, and many have time limits (like the nearly-automatic early A/G that realistically has to break down in the midgame if either player wants to solo), but they all can work. What's a little less open is what you're trying to achieve out of alliances. The big thing is, again,
    crossing the stalemate line(s), which you likely can't do alone. Central powers are generally more exposed to their allies early, but have more to gain the longer something lasts. Corner powers have huge stabbing potential early, but an England allying with a Germany or a Turkey with an Austria, to give a few examples, is going to have trouble coming out on top of the eventual breakdown of that alliance if both powers are growing equally and you reach the point where the alliance controls the majority of the board. Thus I'm more inclined to form an alliance where both players are completely bought in—to the detriment of their relationships with others—if I''m a central power, and more likely to stab and move on more quickly if I'm a corner power. This is probably the point with the most room for making exceptions on the press, though, as there's rarely that simple of a dichotomy.

VillageIdiot
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:55 am
Karma: 654
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#5 Post by VillageIdiot » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:20 am

Kinda yes/kinda no.

My core mentality in the game doesn’t change regardless of what country I am. Talk to everybody, play the players, adapt to what’s around me. The difference I guess would be in the nuances of the sales pitches I make to those around me. If I’m a central country I may play a little more vulnerable and unthreatening while if I’m a corner country I’ll appeal to others of equal power or find ways to downplay myself as a threat as much as possible.

I think that’s probably about the extent to which i adjust my gameplay based on country rolled. I try to be as open minded as practical in approaching other countries and if i find a player I connect well with I’ll try to find a way to make it work regardless of how traditionally impractical the geography impacts the alliance. Doesn’t always work out, but I’ll try.

A_Tin_Can
Lifetime Site Contributor
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:18 pm
Karma: 451
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#6 Post by A_Tin_Can » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:29 am

Can confirm, VI writes the same frustrating press no matter what country he rolls.

But he's fun to play with.

VillageIdiot
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:55 am
Karma: 654
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#7 Post by VillageIdiot » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:56 am

A_Tin_Can wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:29 am
Can confirm, VI writes the same frustrating press no matter what country he rolls.

But he's fun to play with.
Love me for who I am.

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#8 Post by swordsman3003 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:19 pm

I strongly agree that a different style of play is needed for each power, especially in gunboat. I suppose I sparked your thinking on this President Eden, from our previous conversations.

Here are important strategic considerations and how they can give rise to different playstyles:

England:
  • Gaining even 1 center in 1901 is not guaranteed; Russia and France can coordinate to block England from getting even 1 build.
  • Getting to 5 centers is very difficult without acquiring a good friend or a bitter enemy.
  • It is likely for you to be eliminated early. All your neighbors (France, Germany and Russia) can play a decent game when you're blown off the map early.
  • If you ever get below 3 centers, you will probably be eliminated because your home centers aren't near common stalemate positions.
  • If you use your fleets in English Channel or North Sea to take supply centers, you risk being unable to hold them the next turn and also likely will not be able to convoy any army you might build the next turn.
  • To solo win, you almost certainly need a big pile of armies in the center of the map that can take and hold Munich. These armies have to be built and convoyed well in advance, which means your plan is telegraphed early by your moves.
In my opinion, these factors push England towards a defensive playstyle. England has a difficult time making a friend, a difficult time growing, and is relatively easy to eliminate in the endgame if at a low center count. Furthermore, explosive growth is unrealistic for England because of the logistical limitation of needing to convoy armies, which forces England to keep some fleets in reserve whether on offense or defense.

If attacked on all fronts, England can linger for quite a while by outguessing other powers who might be reluctant to build enough fleets to guarantee England's demise (because they're afraid that once they overbuild on fleets they'll be attacked on land). If the other Northern powers keep building fleets, you've blown it and will probably get eliminated. Maybe try to cling to life in Portugal or St. Pete (which are on the main stalemate lines) if possible.

Assuming you haven't blown it, then once England is confident about who might be a friend (as the board develops, neighbors may have their attention put elsewhere, e.g., Italy attacks France, Russia gets knocked out of Rumania, etc.), England can make wise attacks that result in some growth. If England can reach 5 or 6 centers while the fleet count of all other powers in the North remains low, England almost certainly will not be eliminated. At that point, if a Southern power is dominating, perhaps all England has to do to get into a draw is leave well enough alone and make sure St. Pete is denied to that power. If there is chaos, maybe England can continue to creep up in centers and eventually take over the North and go down a solo win path.

This style of play, in my opinion, encourages circumspection, keeping your defensive positions early on (North Sea, English Channel), and paying attention to (and manipulating, if possible) the distant powers in the South.

You also cannot treat the other powers as equally-likely and equally-useful as your ally. France's home center is 2 moves away from yours, but Russia's and Germany's are 3. This difference is huge and makes it far more likely that France will attack or backstab you than the other 2 powers. That 1 turn makes a huge difference.

SuperMario0727
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:24 am
Karma: 1
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#9 Post by SuperMario0727 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:31 am

This is a good topic.

I try to find universal strategies when I play, too. I wrote a thread a while ago discussing the idea of spheres of influence. The idea itself is not mine, but I found it too interesting to not share.

The premise of this idea is that the game board can be divided into two realms. The first realm consists of England, Germany, and France; the other, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Russia. And Italy is the swing power that decides which sphere to influence. The winner is the power that controls its sphere.

I don't have much experience playing as each power, so I will only comment on the ones I am most familiar with. As Austria-Hungary, I try to find ways to be constructive to each neighbour, so as to avoid being an immediate target. As Italy, I try to be relevant at all times. And as France, I try to keep England and Italy focused on anyone but myself. Haha!

President Eden
Posts: 6907
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Location: possibly Britain
Karma: 9609
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#10 Post by President Eden » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:40 am

Great responses y'all. Lot of awesome insights in here.

I tend to think, rather than explicitly reducing the board into two triangles and an outsider, each country has a role to play in the "ecosystem" of the game. Each country is at once predator and prey of multiple others, and the success or failure of one has direct implications for how the others need to react and adjust course.


Turkey, if left out of its corner and allowed to get a grip on the Balkan Peninsula, is almost impossible to root out and usually manages to push continually outward to the stalemate line, if it hasn't been beaten to the punch by a Western power trying to solo. Italy has trouble turning the Turkish position back once Turkey has made it to Serbia and Greece, and really requires excellent deduction from Russia (either by cunningly slipping into the Black Sea when Turkey isn't ready and pressuring them through Armenia and Romania, or making good reads on Italy's expected attacks and cutting supports appropriately) to make progress. If left alone to fight a Turkey in this position, Italy will almost always fail and Turkey will usually have an uneventful march to Marseilles and Iberia, followed by an exciting race to 18 at Russia's expense.

This means Italy really wants to ensure that Turkey doesn't get out of the corner. This is one of the big reasons why so many Italian players run the Lepanto, despite the clear understanding that it leaves you vulnerable to Austria, is slow, and doesn't really guarantee growth. It's also why Italian players very rarely attack Austria first in gunboat anymore: Austria is the buffer against Turkish expansion.

Of course, if Austria is successful and gets to Bulgaria and secures all the Balkan provinces for itself, Italy is in just as much of mortal danger from Austria as they would be from a strong Turkish start. This requires Italy to be crafty and alert to the windows in which there can be profitable attacks on Austria -- once Turkey has been hobbled in the opening, many Italian players will end up "stabbing" Austria before even actually taking a Turkish center, because they've done their job of slowing down Turkey and can try to navigate a war with Austria that gives them a chance against Turkey afterward (and, frankly, they're often forced to pick it now; the A-I war cannot be prevented, only delayed to Italy's disadvantage). You might conversely say that Turkey is the buffer against Austrian expansion from Italy's standpoint: Turkey's resistance of Austria in Greece and Bulgaria is the best defense Italy has against an Austrian attack.

Importantly, both of these considerations are the most paramount to Italy's survival. France is capable of trashing Italy in some games, certainly, but France would generally prefer to focus on England, then push through Germany and Scandinavia, and snipe Tunisia when the opportunity arises; Italy can be difficult to fight over, while Scandinavia is usually France's to lose in a long enough game where France is successful (i.e. dead England, not-powerful Germany), and both require fleets, of which France can only build so many. Italy treating the "Western sphere" of E/F/G with the same reverence as the A/R/T "Eastern sphere" is a big mistake, because Italy's fate is tied much more heavily to Austria and Turkey than to any other powers, at least in gunboat. (Russia is much more prominent in full-press, but in gunboat, it's difficult for Italy and Russia to coordinate directly too well)


England: Primary check of France; France is most vulnerable by sea and England has the best capacity to exploit this, plus France often wants to attack England first to secure the northern seas en route to its desired solo victory plan.
England is also the alpha predator of Scandinavia and, by extension, a major threat to Germany; England's strong naval capacities place it in a great position to dominate Scandinavia, which sets up very easily for a destructive assault on Germany itself.

France: Primary check of England; see above basically. France is the alpha predator of damn near the entire Western half of the board, requiring a dedicated effort from 2+ neighbors to bring down and having favorable position to attack any of its neighbors. France's neighbors' strategies tend to warp around France's potential.

Germany: Secondary check of England and France. Germany's location right in the middle of the map forces them toward army-heavy builds, and neither France nor England are very vulnerable by land, so Germany isn't the primary check of either England or France. But Germany has a key role to play in the mutual checking done by England and France, because it's decidedly not to Germany's benefit if either England or France dominate the other one. The tension is very similar to that which Italy feels when watching an A/T conflict unfold as described above.
Germany's army-centric focus and proximity to Austria and Russia also make it an important secondary check on those two countries.
Essentially, Germany is a check on the entire board except Turkey. Germany is too vulnerable from all sides to afford any one neighbor to get too big (Germany faces a lot of midgame crises where early success against one neighbor turns into a perilous two-front war, caught between an opportunistic other neighbor that enjoyed early success and the remnants of the first target), and moreso than any other country has to consider the ramifications of every action it takes on every other country in order to be utilized properly.

Austria: As discussed before, the biggest check on Turkey. The gatekeeper of the Balkans. Ironically, Austria is closer to what one would consider an "alpha predator" of the Balkans, since it's well-positioned to annex most of them for itself, than Turkey is, but Austria still serves as a gatekeeper against Turkey because it's the only power which can directly check Turkey in this respect. Austria is also an important "check" on Russia in that it's typically a magnet for Russian aggression; a strong Austria merely surviving prevents Russia from snowballing into a huge threat, whereas a weak Austria that collapses quickly is the primary culprit for Russian snowballing.

Turkey: The alpha predator of the entire southern half of the board, if we're honest. Austria's and Italy's gameplan is warped around Turkey's near-impregnability; even though Austria and Italy both have a lot of tension with their own borders, the existential peril of the Ottomans forces them into early cooperation anyway. I think the only reason Turkey isn't considered the strongest country in the webDip gunboat meta (instead of France) is that Turkey is so obviously a danger that Austria and Italy recognize they have to cooperate early to avoid being run over.

Italy: I went over Italy in detail earlier, but Italy has to check the game's two biggest alpha predators and has a direct HSC-HSC border with Austria, which generally turns into a formidable regional threat in the Balkans already. Italy must be very careful and plays a lot of "wait-and-see" games where it probes opportunistically toward all of its neighbors, costing them key tempo by threatening attack and slowing them down. Its role is to slow down the game by ensuring France and Turkey don't get to expand too quickly too early, and to make sure that it doesn't let Austria go on a rampage either.

Russia: Russia is the odd man out more than any other country in gunboat. Russia is a very boom-or-bust country: either it manages to expand in 1901 with neutrals, build on one or both of its fronts and press that initial advantage into more centers and units, and tries to snowball into a relatively quick win; or it gets mired down on one or both fronts, gradually pushed back and threatened with elimination even after very good starts.
Russia is an important check on England in Scandinavia; as German players have come to realize the importance of this power balancing in Scandinavia, they've become a lot more lenient toward Russia getting Sweden. I might even say that Germany should always let Russia have Sweden; as Russia is ultimately not too difficult to evict from Scandinavia later, but needs to get Sweden in 1901 to be able to contest English dominion over Scandinavia, Germany therefore would have to know they won't need Russia to keep England preoccupied in Scandinavia as early as the second turn of the game to be confident in bouncing Sweden, and that seems very hard to know.
Russia is a "check" on Austria and Turkey in the sense that Russian units arranged on the southern border make it more difficult for the winner of that fight to run Russia over than if they weren't there, but Russia is flatly disadvantaged in a fight against either country without Italy's assistance. Usually this is where Russia would make promises to DMZ the Black Sea or Galicia or otherwise try to scheme its way into a key province with a silver tongue, but in gunboat you don't get to do that, and Russia has a lot of trouble actually getting anything done with direct military action.
Russia tends to ally with Turkey and be more of a check on Austrian expansion than the reverse, due to Austria's preoccupation with army builds and the bottlenecks facing any country trying to attack Turkey. Russia's main problem in the south is that whoever wins the A/T fight over the Balkans, it won't be Russia... Russia has no real capacity to force military action against Turkey without Turkey inviting it by vacating Black Sea and not garrisoning the region with a fleet, and Russia has a lot of trouble reliably breaking into Galicia after 1901, meaning that even if an R/T is successful against Austria, it will usually involve Turkey making headway first and Russia getting the last gains (if it gets any at all before Turkey stabs).



The tl;dr:
- France and Turkey are the game's biggest predators because they have amazing land-based defenses and enough fleet-building capacity to hang with any naval threats in the area
- England and Austria, respectively, are the best checks against those predators; England has the navy to challenge France, Austria has a strong enough Balkan game to keep Turkey bottled up
- The E/F and A/T tensions/conflicts warp the game's relations around them: Germany is vulnerable in the middle-game to either possible victor of an E/F fight, Italy and Russia likewise with an A/T fight
- Germany, Italy, and Russia all have to play both sides of these conflicts to ensure that the resolution of those conflicts does not involve a dominant winner

If you want to think of triangles, I would think of them as a "Northwest" triangle of E/F/G (dominated by E/F conflict and Germany's need to come out on top of it) and a "Southeast" triangle of A/T/I (dominated by A/T conflict and Italy's need to come out on top of it), with Russia being split in half and able to chip in on part of both fights, but no real path to victory unless a lot of things break right. But there's more going on than that, because Italy, despite obviously being most worried about A/T, has to meddle a bit to prevent French ascension; and Germany, despite worrying about E/F, constantly has to watch for Austrian or Russian aggression after the first couple of years.
1

swordsman3003
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 607
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#11 Post by swordsman3003 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:48 pm

President Eden, your previous post's analysis is excellent and I endorse it entirely.

I especially agree with how to have emphatically dropped the traditional press-diplomacy understanding of the roles of the powers and the strategies available to them. I think some gunboat players are held back by the traditional wisdom learned from press games, but I rarely think to point out how the two variants are distinct to help illuminate such misunderstandings.

Among other points, I like that you emphasized the precise tactical way that Russia is disadvantaged relative to press games (can't coordinate with Italy, can't easily trick Austria or Turkey). You seem wise and experienced in noting that in a gunboat game, Russia can appear to greatly expand only to be cut out of the draw in the endgame.

On Turkey: I think Turkey is slightly weaker than France in gunboat in terms of going for solo wins because Turkey usually needs Munich or Marseilles across the stalemate line, which is a much tougher goal than France taking Tunis (which can be ground down in the endgame if multiple powers' fleets are needed to coordinate a stalemate line). Turkey probably has a slightly higher capability of getting into a draw than France.

Let me add on to your analysis in terms of the topic: how to play the powers differently, but do the mirror-sphere analysis style you did in your post.

No ally needed: France / Turkey
France and Turkey are so strong defensively that in many games, no power will even bother making a serious attack upon them. With strong defensive guesses and clever probing, France and Turkey can eventually "break out" beyond their defensive area. Once that happens, they can keep building momentum as their defensive capabilities continue to RISE as they move forward across the board.

For this reason, I say that France and Turkey do not really specifically need any ally. By "ally" I mean a power who is somehow helping you by support-holding your defenses or support-moving your attacks -- this type of ally is not needed.

For both of these powers, a 1901 attack on Austria by Italy is an extremely good development. Without Italy as any threat or nuisance, France can usually smash headlong into England and Turkey can all-out attack Austria. Often enough, if England and Germany have not allied, France can attack England and Germany simultaneously and make great progress. Similarly, Turkey can attack Austria, Russia and/or Italy (all 3 even) during the scenario where Italy begins by attacking Austria, and stand a good chance of making progress and essentially facing no consequences.

Choose your target wisely: Germany / Italy
Several years will likely pass before either of these powers are attacked in earnest. This gives these powers time to assess what is happening and engage in some political analysis before taking action, but not unlimited time. Germany and Italy have modest defensive positions, but if lingering at 4 or 5 centers, will likely break down against a sustained attack from 2 neighbors or 1 very strong neighbor (by comparison, France and Turkey can linger for many, many years despite being relentlessly attacked by multiple neighbors or a strong neighbor).

Germany and Italy face a similar strategic and political challenge: their build choices telegraph their intentions often a full year in advance of actually using the units. Other powers have obvious build choices that don't say much about their intentions. Furthermore, the units which are good for defense and good for offense aren't the same (but inverted between the powers): Germany cannot solo win the game without fleets to conquer Scandinavia and England, but these fleets have very little defensive value and take many turns to get into proper offensive positions; Italy cannot solo win the game without a massive number of armies to dominate the Balkans, but these armies do almost nothing if Italy can't get them away from the home centers into distant combat areas.

If Germany goes to war with England improperly, Germany may end up being wiped out by France in the long run or squeezed between France and Russia. Similarly, Italy risks being bulldozed by Turkey in the end if Italy attacks Austria improperly. However, powers do NEED to make such an attack at some point if they are to solo win. Italy has the advantage here in that Austria is easy to backstab for Italy and England is difficult for Germany to backstab.

However, this doesn't mean Germany should automatically attack France or Italy should automatically attack Turkey: both attack plans are almost ludicrous because of how easy it is for the victim to defend from that attack while some other power profits (Austria will profit from a Lepanto; France can hold off Germany with ease, especially if France ever gets control of Belgium). Indeed, the best strategy for Austria might be to backstab Italy at the earliest possible opportunity, and perhaps the same for England vs. Germany.

In this analysis, the special advantage for Germany is that Germany can bring Russia into Scandinavia to give England something to fight over that isn't Germany. Italy's special advantage is that, unlike most powers' neighbors, France can often be completely ignored with little consequence.

Germany has a much better ability to get a solo win than Italy, but Italy probably has a much stronger ability to get into a draw than Germany.

Germany and Italy do well to let the board develop slightly, try to see who might be a reliable ally based on which neighbors had a strong or weak beginning, and which appear to be under attack (it can be a great idea to be the SECOND power to attack someone).

Pray for God's mercy: England / Austria / Russia

These powers have a difficult time making allies in Gunboat and can be wiped out despite careful and defensive play early on, and despite even some early expansion.

England is the strongest of these 3 powers, but is still in bad shape to start: other powers are counting on all the neutrals England might go for, and even the innocuous Norway is a threat to Russia and feels like one to Germany. English players so often want so badly to throw everything east, shut down Russia's port, and expand into Scandinavia and possibly Germany/the low countries. It's undeniable how tempting this is, and if England pulls this off England has a strong solo win chance. But England faces the horrible problem that France will almost automatically attack England and will very likely "backdoor" an invasion of England if England sends even 1 too many units to the east. If France ever convoys an army onto the island, England will likely never recover. The A-plan for France is to do exactly that, and England throwing everything east is usually perceived by France as a giveaway. Germany, and sometimes Russia, will fight like HELL against England knowing that France can bail them out. If Italy has not attacked France, France will almost certainly make this attack.

But if England doesn't put enough weight into the east, Russia and Germany can carve up Scandinavia and seize control; they have no reason really to want to see English units in these places. There's nothing England can quickly take when attacking France at the beginning, and it's almost trivial for France to defend against an solely English attack. If Germany first takes control of Scandinavia before France takes any English center, then Germany might be able to play out to a draw with France or make a play for a solo win by landing an army before France does.

So this is why England has to pray: pray that Italy attacks France, pray that Germany keeps Russia out of Sweden, pray that Germany and Russia don't build fleets. There's very little England can do to deter these things, because some players will react to a powerful English posture by doing what England fears, and some players will react to a deferential England by taking it as an opportunity to do England no favors -- in gunboat, especially at the start, you have only a slight idea how the other players will think.

Similarly, Austria has to pray that Italy doesn't attack. If Italy attacks, it's probably a swift death for Austria. Russia and Turkey are just itching to wipe out Austria and cannot be counted on to help. Even if Italy is fended off, likely Turkey and maybe Russia will take advantage of this, become strong, and wipe out Austria. Even if Austria expands pretty well in the beginning, if Italy attacks, Austria can STILL be wiped out by some combination of those powers. Austria really, really needs Italy to just never attack. And there's very little Austria can do to do prevent this, especially at the start.

I think Russia is the worst power in gunboat, at least in high-level games (in games with inexperienced players, probably Austria is the worst).
* If Italy doesn't attack Austria, Austria will very likely consider Rumania the most logical expansion target. In gunboat, Austria cannot realistically attack Turkish home centers until Austria controls all the Russian home centers. So even if Austria wants to attack Turkey, probably Austria will first try to take Rumania, Warsaw, Moscow, Sevastopol in roughly that order.
* Turkey can decide to attack Russia at almost any point in the game without much consequence. Italy and Austria love it if this happens because it means they aren't being targeted, and likely will not bail Russia out.
* England will very, very often try to swing over and conquer St. Petersburg as early as possible (even though I personally say this often leads to England being invaded by France the following year and is a mistake, English players do it very often anyways). There's basically nothing Russia can do about this, and if Russia ever loses St. Petersburg, Russia will likely be shut out of the North for the rest of the game.
* Germany has a way, way easier time knocking Russia out of Scandinavia or just hauling off to crush the Russian home centers than invading England or France. In order to invade England, Germany needs to either first be in control of Scandinavia or be closely coordinating with Russia. Guess which scenario is easier to pull off in gunboat? Not only that, but Germany can often make this attack in the mid-to-late game suddenly and without much consequence.
* Russia is not really better off if England, Germany, Austria or Turkey are crushed by another power. The gunboat solo win plan for virtually every power involves taking at least 1 Russian home center, and so even if Russia emerges as the 2nd-strongest power on that side (North or South), Russia can often be rolled back all the way up to the stalemate line (e.g., Italy knocking Russia out of the south all the way back up until Italy takes Sevastopol, or France doing the same all way over to St. Pete).

In order to do well, Russia needs a huge number of correct guesses and charitable plays from neighboring powers and reach, I think, MORE than 8 centers to get a seat at the draw (as a consequence of this, a common Russian gunboat strategy is to expand into one side of the map, and then SUICIDE all centers on the other side to the strongest power over there in order to force a draw -- e.g., Russia gets Norway and St. Pete and then suicides everything else to Turkey).
2

Claesar
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1490
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#12 Post by Claesar » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:23 am

Brilliant posts by both of you. I would however like to emphasise that it is critical for Austria to take Greece in 1901. Without it, you will look like an easy target and serve as one. It's vital to look menacing.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#13 Post by Octavious » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:45 am

All you have to do is look menacing whilst not coming across as a threat. To do that grow quickly without taking too many centres, be generous to your allies without giving them too much, and be open and honest without revealing your intentions. Simples.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#14 Post by Octavious » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:32 pm

As for the topic of the thread, my position is pretty similar to VI's. I go into each game with the same set of principles regardless of the nation I'm playing. Speak to everyone, and base my alliances on the people rather than the geography.

In the sense that each nation has its own set of possibilities I guess my actions are inevitably shaped a little differently by starting location, but it's not really a conscious thing. I'd have to go back over my press and look for patterns to do anything but guess at what the differences are.

I imagine that in a gunboat game these differences are magnified out of all proportion by communication limitations. Germany's fantastic ability to offer Russia an alliance in Sweden without simultaneously inviting him to kill him must hugely influence how Germany's played. Fortunately I've never had to bother with such things.

Hamilton Brian
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:21 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Karma: 1316
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#15 Post by Hamilton Brian » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:18 pm

Might need to ensure these get archived somewhere and stickied for School of War participants.

Hyperion
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:28 pm
Karma: 3
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#16 Post by Hyperion » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:15 pm

Strategic theory apply only when the players are able to play with super-rational skill. I am referring to sound tactical play with no easy blunders. In super-rational play, the map slowly begins to take shape much according to strategic theory for each country. The reason is as follows: Among the countries, there is always at least one that falls behind in tactical value (lesser options regarding unit movement) because the total sum of unit movement from all countries does not result in a tactically neutral state. Those tactical weaknesses can be found on the board and it is what the players must look for and exploit in a high-level game.

Casual players won't be playing with super-rational skill. Thus I feel the mentioned strategies in this forum post would not be as meaningful to those players until they learn the tactical side of the game.

I feel many experienced players would agree that those with the better tactics win. Tactics are the same for all countries since it is a matter of how one orders his/her units. Often times, casual players get caught up on negotiations and forget that their units effect only those bordering them. Tactical thought should take precedence before negotiation.

Tactical ability is defined by how well one can read unit movement and what it may imply going forward. There is a message behind unit movement and it does not always match with proposed negotiations from the players.

Recognizing the potential change from neutral or defensive to offensive unit movement from the other players towards oneself is the first step to gain tactical ability. Getting a read is recognizing these tactical nuances based on unit movement. Knowing when to use reactive play against potential offenses and knowing when it is safe to fully utilize one's troops for his/her own purposes is vital for success. The harder it is to read unit movement means that there is a potential threat - and this is a marker of a high level player.
1

GarlMargs
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:32 pm
Karma: 29
Contact:

Re: Do you change your style according to the country you roll?

#17 Post by GarlMargs » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:57 pm

Definitely. Each country demands good diplomacy, but I use some different diplomatic and movement strategies.



Austria (Gladhander) : The first year is huge, you either swim or drown right from the start. I build a rapport with everyone, while trusting no-one. To close neighbors, I'm usually honest about my paranoia, telling people upfront that I'm ready to die fighting but really don't want to come to that. If I don't trust Russia, I try to build a grand alliance with Germany and England.

England (Aggressor): England can afford to take some risks and will need to. I see St. Pete is a dead end and usually seek an immediate fight with France or Germany. I'll straight up abandon Norway if I have to and it usually works. Russia has little incentive to push further and can be a good ally later on.

France (Iron Weenie): I don't really understand how to play France. Maybe it's bad luck, but I always seem to end up getting double-teamed, far more than as Austria, actually. Next time I play, I'll probably try to be a bit more passive, since I think France's good position and opportunities for growth might be the cause of everyone's distrust. If forced to defend, I just try to bleed away the attackers enthusiasm and turn one of them to my side.

Germany (The Mediator): My German strategy revolves around d protecting Austria. I'll hold Sweden hostage to keep Russia out of Galicia. I'll threaten a move into Tyrolia if necessary. I'm a fairly conservative Germany otherwise and will usually won't go for the third build in Belgium. Of course, if I smell an Anglo-French aalliance, this strategy goes out the window. Then, I'll usually abandon my support for Austria, encourage Russian growth in the North and launch a very aggressive attack in year one.

Italy (The Bully): My biggest fear as Italy is being ignored for years, until France or Austria get around to killing me in 1907. Therefore, I play a very diplomatically aggressive game as Italy, using geography to protect me from retaliation. Maybe I'll move into Piedmont, maybe I'll threaten to gut Austria unless he supports me into Greece. If Austria is a scheming prick as well, maybe we can do something cool like a key lepanto or three-fleet opening. Whatever happens, Italy has to get it's fair share of otherwise you'll be a weak six center power, while Austria and France get huge.

Russia (The Weenie): This is another country I have issues with sometimes. it's like there's an instant witchhunt if you say even one wrong thing. Usually I try to play a low-key, diplomatic game as Russia, especially in the north. I reach out to pretty much everyone, stress my peaceful intentions and see what develops. If I can even get one center in 1901, and +keep things secure, I'm happy. My path forward will usually depend on who I consider my best ally.

Turkey (The Tactician): I scale back my diplomacy a bit as Turkey, focusing mostly on direct neighbors. My main goal, regardless of initial ally, is to break out of the eastern Balkans and into the Ionian Sea.

tl;dr: I generally play conservatively as France and Russia, aggressively as Italy and England, desperately (then aggressively) as Austria and with a specific goal in mind as Germany and Turkey.
1

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: [email protected] and 48 guests