For Draug's defense, I got it's from the other thread.

y2k that is a pretty weak argument. Some people simply do not communicate and make 'random' moves, or they do communicate barely and make irresponsible moves. I'd like to see anyone on this side deal with them profitably on the long run.

Huh? What's my argument? I just said it's hard to get people to do what you want when you can't speak with them...

@ rokakoma
that's an interesting attitude. I got tired of playing against skillful & experienced players as the games became so predictable, players always played the best set of moves for their circumstance & I found it sooooo boring.
So I liked the feature of internet gaming in that in low stakes games you get players of wildly varying abilities & experience (& motivation )
increased uncertainty & less predictability gives more opportunity, surprises and excitement
yes sometimes it seems to always advantage the other players and then they never want to cancel or draw & when it advantages me, or more accurately I derive advantage from the confusion then everyone else wants a sooky la la cancel or draw and I have to go along with that.
But I genuinely like the increased anarchic factor of internet gaming and I am a little puzzled at this "I'll only play with competent/excellent players" philosophy with it's inherent snobbishness.... that's possibly a bit harsh.... each player has the right to choose what sort of games they will play, so perhaps it would be more accurate of me to say that I find snobbish the attitude that " players below a chosen standard shouldn't be playing at WebDip"

I thought to have read some sarcasm, and that you meant to say I was whining because people did not do as I told them to do. But it must have been my rich imagination at work ;)

Playing GB with experienced players might be boring, although I'd imagine you could have a lot more communication trough orders. But I think press certainly wouldn't be. The game could become far more intricate with players able to see further ahead then the next year. Thus you could allow for greater imbalances, weirder combinations, allying with someone who backstabbed you for the third time again, etc. To me that would be playing a REAL game of diplomacy and not a upgraded variant of risk were the dice are replaced with... humans... of sorts

plus I have this other line on that stuff.
the Dip game represents Europe just prior to WW1
If the govts of the day had been competent then we wouldn't have experienced the tragedy of WW1.
so why then do we demand competent govt for all nations in the game ?

When has humanity experienced a world full of competent, honest govts ?
NEVER
So, shouldn't the game, if it is to reflect / represent the real world be a mix of govt's
of varying ability & competence, and have at least two out of seven who are complete basket cases ?

MajorMitchell: your aspect is certainly one I didn't think through and I'm happy you've shared it. My choice of opponents, however, is not fueled by snobishness, rather my inherent personality, which doesn't like surprises at all. I don't like surprise parties, xmas gifts, cancelled meetings, uninvited visitors, and so on, I never did. While I know other these in real life and I can accept that, I was never able to enjoy such situations.

For me the challange to overplay those who I know are very good players is motivating. Also to bring out new solutions where everyone thought there aren't any better ones drives me to play. Like I just invented a new Russia opening which seems working pretty well, as I so others copying it in recent high pot games.

I guess our approach to this game is fundamentally different and roots in real life. That doesn't make any of them better I suppose, I was just explaining why I'm not up to small pot games.

I don't feel like that is a legit point. Sure the game might be inspired by that specific era, but that doesn't mean it has to copy every aspect of it. In the end a game has to be fun, and I don't think dice are that fun, because there is little interaction with them. You can only anticipate there outcome in regards to the statistics and with these irrational players we speak off, even that is not possible!

This game is carried by the diplomatic relations you make and break with your follow players. That is way I don't understand GB, go play chess or Go, which do the same thing much better. And if you cannot have meaningful relationships with your fellow players, the game falls flat of it's promises.

@ LOPT to whom are you responding ?
start thinking 4 to 6, even 7 or 8 moves ahead in a conjectural / possibilities framework
as well as 1,2 & 3 moves ahead

@rokakoma, I'm intrigued by your claim that you struggle at surviving at times. I find that especially in gunboat, I can survive pretty damn long at low center counts, and I pull draws out of my ass on a semi-regular basis as a result. It's when I get big that I usually struggle to push for the 18. I have a few solid solo's under my belt, with the relevant ones being those that won me Lando's recent tourney, but not many.

I was responding to you MM.

Personally I don't think a solo is possible with competent players. You cannot secure a solo before a certain point, and once that point is reach, it is pretty easy to see that a solo is coming and it should be stopped and how to stop it.

Now the Major is trolling...

But, realistically, the only reason I got that solo was because there were some real weak players who made it to the end - him being one of them of course. ;-)

y2k: the stats may say differently, but I feel every defeat as somebody rips a part of my heart out. Especially, since in most cases I screw up with bad moves. You maybe right, I overstated that a little bit, but from my view, I just feel this way. But as I said, and I think you backed me on that basically, winning and drawing are different skills, as you struggle with winning despite your gorgeous draw ratio.

@Lopt, I do play Chess and Go and love them. Personally, the two main academic disciplines that I love and live my life by in many respects are game theory and graph theory. Gunboat is the best blend of them I have ever found in any game I've played.

Lopt: I disagree with you, as I won not 1 game against competent players, for example this one gameID=119347. I'm sure, by viewing at the names, you wouldn't say they are not competent gunboat players. And it gives an enourmus satisfaction to win among them :D

game and graph theory rocks! those are my favorites too :D +1 for y2k ;)

I don't really know enough about either of them to respond to that. But like MM? said. Experienced players will always make the most optimal moves and the most optimal moves are rarely hard to find.

Well played Rok. I can imagine that must be satisfying. I imagine though it happened because at some critical point 2 players were in each others hairs and unwilling to turn around in order to stop you?

There is no such thing as optimal moves. There are situations when you have to choose 50-50%, also define "optimal"! As in chess, the optimal moves differ when you think ahead 2-3-6-10 moves.

Lopt, I beleive you can read the messages in that game, it's pretty much discussed there. Yes, you always need other players to misjudge the situation, but that doesn't define them incompetent I assume. The whole trick behind is to make them beleive they still have time to turn around. As long as you can make them feel secure, even after they are lost, then you did a great job.

Optimal as giving you the most chances to win, assuming the other players will also be playing by a confined set-of rules. Such as don't be open to a backstab, or don't attack Russia now that Germany is threatening to solo etc,

I do not want to take away from your win at all. All I am saying is that, it isn't hard to stop someone from solo'ing and assuming reasonable competence on all players it is nigh impossible.

Actually, if played well, you can sneak into a position where, even at 13 or 14 SCs, the solo is inevitable. But it is much easier to do when you can verbally manipulate the other players.

Every player sees the games differently. Beleive me. No such thing as optimal. Every games' every phase is different, even is the units are at the very same place and even if it's a gunboat. The magic is to run towards the cliff as fast as you can, and stop just right before you fall off and be sure those running behind you will be able to stop as well, instead of pughing you down with themselves.

Each game has 7 different "runners" towards the cliff and on the way running you must get to know them and see how fast will they be able to slow down. If you can make them, as a group, run faster than being able to stop, then you won.

While each and every player beleives they are safe and the solo can be stopped, as a group they are probably over the tipping point, even though they don''t see that. You will be a good player, when you can fool the 6 other players at once.

Roka played that game beautifully, and it's really hard to point out many mistakes made by other players. My biggest mistake as Turkey was taking way too long to build my second fleet. I wanted Italy to feel secure to defend from France, but all that did was let roka as England steamroll France and I was way too late to help do anything about Tunis. Maybe if Russia hadn't fought me as long as he did...

Very nice allorgy and insight. Thank you

Draugnar is right, there are early situations when the solo is inevitable, but Draug, trust me, you can manipulate people in gunboats as well, it is just a different set of communication channels. Mainly just orders and builds, but they have their meaning and messages as well.