For instance I have found lately that playing gunboat is essentially gambling. There is no way to account for the others players actions and to influence them therefore whatever power you are assigned your doing well depends on the stupidity of others and doing badly on your random misfortune. Good tactics and not misordering only goes so far

Also I find that Germany is by far the most vulnerable country on the board and that it is the hardest nation to play despite its 1901 advantages, where it can more easily that any otehr country secure two or three builds. However I find it is the most demanding country to play diplomatically. walking a fine line with France and England and Russia from the begging, hoping simply to garner some good will. Then in the end game inevitably falling prey to Any southern Power (austria, Italy, Turkey) that displays ambitions due to the central position on the board.

"Be diplomatic".

There, all the overwrought paradigms saying the same thing can be ignored.

*Paragraphs

I disagree with evening denis says and claim that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Jesus not trying to get into a fight.

@Partysane the comment about gunboat is due to my recent frustration with it. I see you are quite successful at gunboat. How do you disagree? I'm interested in wht you have to say

Diplomacy is interesting in that there are a limited number of pieces on the board (fewer available to any player than, say, chess), the capabilities of every piece is known to everyone, and the outcome of any given scenario is known (there is no chance element). This means that you can look at your opponent's pieces, what he can do with those, make a guess as to what he will do, and plan your moves accordingly... while he is doing the exact same thing. So ultimately you have to outguess your opponent (or generate enough strength that you will win no matter what he does, which is difficult to say the least). Not to mention the aspect of diplomacy. You have to know when the person that's promising not to attack you is lying or not.

At the end of it, it's about reading your opponents and staying one step ahead of them. Which is much more difficult with random strangers on the internet rather than people you know in the same room :)

"Diplomacy is a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept and promises broken... Knowing whom to trust, when to trust them, what to promise, and when to promise it is the heart of the game."

Your assessment of Germany reads like someone who is just bad at Germany trying to blame it on the game. Germany is a consistently good country, rewarding skill.

Hasn't changed since the leagues, has it...

I have to disagree with assertion on Germany, Germany is in a position that allows her the most leverage at 1901. With 2-3 build capabilities, and a central location most players try to ally with Germany out the gate. Germany has the luxury to gain it's 3 SC and then focus power on a 1901 ally. For example France and England commonly will offer Germany alliance against each other. Russia and Austria will do the same. From this position Germany can take his 3 builds and then focus in whichever direction he likes.

Germany is extremely versatile because of the high chance of three builds, and the central location does let it move in different directions, as well as ally with many countries. As for gunboat, it is hard to play Germany, but that goes for any country. As was said before, gunboat makes it a guessing game, and involves a lot of skill, rather than sweet talking. Even in a regular press game, sweet talking only gets you so far. The board never lies, and if you are able to imagine what moves other countries are likely to make, you can counter them, or use it to your advantage. Forming alliances in gunboat are no easy task, but it is doable as well with support holds and moves to help them out or show nonaggression.

RE: "With all these How to Play X (insert country) threads going around why not just get down to the simpler question how to play and thoughts about the game."

Generalizing from "How to Play X (insert country)" to the broader question of "How to Play" does NOT make for a simpler question. Of course, the common goal is to improve our general play through discussing strategy and sharing thoughts, but answering the seemingly basic question of "How to Play" is far from easy.

The strategy of this board game is a very broad topic. So, naturally, people will want to focus on specific aspects, both to keep the discussion narrowed down to a particular topic and perhaps to target improvement on a weakness in their game that they have identified.

Analogously, I would not expect people in chess strategy forums to ask "how to play chess?" (if asking about strategy rather than just the basic rules), but instead ask more specific questions like "how to play against the sicilian defense?", "how to decline the queen's gambit?" etc.

Basically, I think it's far more productive to have various discussions focusing on more specific topics. That allows for more in-depth analysis and focus. Breadth can be provided across the various discussions, and if there isn't already a thread on a particular strategic topic, one can start it.

If you ask for people to provide very general advice, you may end up with a meandering discussion (like in this thread where people have had little tangents on Germany and gunboats), or are left with just overly general proverbs like those offered Putin33 and MadMarx that don't really provide any specific ideas or knowledge to help improve your game.

Be consistent

I agree that discussion of specific topics is more interesting. The thing that I like about the "how to play X" threads is the discussion of goals. It's interesting to hear what goals other players like to go for, and what goals they think aren't important.

"Be diplomatic" isn't enough - you need to know what you're trying to achieve with your diplomacy. The question I guess I should have asked (and fortunately the one that was answered) with the Russia thread is "What are some good goals for Russia in 1901?"