I would love to see some commentary on the Balkan situation ... both how it affects the east and how it affects the board as a whole.

A few questions for the professors, if there are any left:

1. What do you make of France's failure to convoy while having four armies sitting and holding? How could France have better planned this English attack?

2. With Austria fighting Italy and Russia fighting Germany, Turkey seems to be the odd man out in the east. With a build coming, where does Turkey go from here?

I have a question.

A lot of the talk from the professors is about PROPER gunboat play. I know that is what we are here to try to learn,but my question is, how much time did they themselves dedicate to learning this form of play? It is not easy to be intuitive about different peoples moves, and you don't play with the same crowd over and over. Would gunboat games on another site be just as appealing, because you don't know what you would get from the talent level there? When you go back and look at all the top gunboat people here, they mostly play together,in big coin games. After a while, even in anon game, you could probably guess 3/4 the people they are playing with? I was reading the forum from Roka the other day and he was pissed at Draug about not playing correctly, As good gunboat players, shouldn't you be able to expect the anomaly?

Appealing for the professors and other high level gunboat players

Some of us seem to have missed the memo about a school holiday.

@2wl
1.France did what he could (and should) have done with the convoy,the problem was he didn't make room for a new fleet earlier,as I mentioned it in my lost post.
And all the holds in his homeland were also wrong,of course,as holds usualy are wrong.
2.I've also mentioned Turkey in my last post.Of course he's pretty much alive and has a great future,thanks to Italy.He earned a build,yes,but he made the same mistake Austria have done before and took Bulgaria with a wrong unit.Despite the fact we pointed out the Austrian failure regarding Bulgaria and have explained in details why it was a bad idea to have a fleet there on the wrong coast.
So much about the school and missed memos.

Hello everyone,
In lieu of the original professors I have been granted permission to share some comments with y'all. I've been trying to keep up with this thread, and I must say I really love both the concept and the way this game has turned out. I hope you will bear with me as I try to step into some pretty big shoes. Apologies for the confusion over the instructors, and apologies in advance if I retread old ground.

General comments first, then questions:

Starting in the southeast, which for now presents the more interesting theater.

1. Italy -- I am a big fan of your 1903 stab of Austria. It was well timed in that Austria was out of position in several key places (with Russia in GAL and the Austrian fleet sidelined in Bulgaria). Even more importantly, you did not leave yourself exposed to the other eastern powers; both Russia and Turkey were more likely to attack Austria than ally against you. (If, for instance, your stab had been for Vienna or Bulgaria, you might have faced aggression from R/T much sooner.) Your convoy to Albania was an excellent move, and with Turkey's Mediterranean presence weakened, you faced minimal exposure.
All that said, your moves this turn were perhaps not ideal, and the reason why is one of the more important tactical elements of this game -- so important, in fact, that I'm going to hit "Enter" and the turn caps lock on
SPRING MOVES ARE ABOUT POSITION; FALL MOVES ARE ABOUT CENTERS.*
What I mean in this case is that you have given up possibly your two best-placed units (Albania and Aegean) in order to take a center you will not be able to claim for another turn. The army in Albania was an immensely useful tool, bordering three key supply centers. AEG threatened four. In the spring phase, your #1 priority should have been to make sure that army was not forced to disband. This would have left you with several options to make progress in fall (Greece would almost have been guaranteed regardless). Also, it was extremely likely that Turkey would force Bulgaria; leaving Aegean in place would not only have forced an Austrian disband (making Greece even more vulnerable), it would have left you leverage against Turkey, too. You misordered TRI, I assume, but the better alternative was to tap Serbia; that would have guaranteed Albania's survival if coupled with ION-GRE.
The takeaway is that oftentimes, especially in spring, paying attention to potential forced-disbands is incredibly important. Keeping your own units on the board and forcing opponents' off it is a key tactical element. Even if you don't gain an SC in fall, good things happen when enemies have to rebuild away from the fray. As it is, Italy will have to play the dreaded guessing-game this fall.
Things to consider: I'm not going to give tactical advice -- that's for your TA. Positionally, all I can say is that you must be monitoring the Russian situation, obviously, to see if he is likely to head south. You also must keep a very close eye on Turkish builds and movements, and adjust accordingly. For instance, a fleet v. army build would be telling.

*Yes, the two are related. I'm talking rule of thumb.

Austria -- Italy screwed you over last turn, no doubt about it. Although it might have been prudent to cover Trieste, I do not blame you too much for your blind faith in the green man. The good news is that you are still in OK shape, with potential to break into the "not-too-bad" category. You were wise to abandon Bulgaria -- I expect you are hoping that Turkey will build a fleet and ally with you. Attempting the disband of ALB also paid off big time. At this point, you are largely reduced to defending, but if you do that well you have a good chance of surviving the next few years and turning your fortunes around. The Turkish fleet in BUL is relatively good news.
Things to consider: in a situation like this (defending on potentially many fronts), the question becomes how to balance the interests of your neighbors. That is, who is the most likely to stop attacking you if they hit a brick wall, and who has the fewest alternatives. In the early game when Austria faces I/R/T aggression, it is often Italy who is the most likely to get fed up and wander off somewhere else; that is why you often see Austria throw everything west when Italy takes Trieste in '01. That might not be the case here, but it is something you should discuss with your TA.

Turkey -- Congratulations, you survived the Lepanto. You are now in a decent position to move on from here. It is common in gunboat games for Turkey to face early pressure -- A/I are often eager to see off their biggest threat. But because of its strong defensive position and the difficulties of A/I/R coordination, Turkey has a good chance of seeing out the early aggression and emerging strong in the middle game. In this game, Turkey now has some latitude to choose his own path. Taking BUL from BLA instead of CON was the safe choice, but it has hamstrung your position somewhat. F BLA, A BUL would have exercised much more influence and made you more capable of striking quickly; as is, it will take time for you to redeploy to your chosen theater. But this is merely an inconvenience.
Things to consider: obviously you must take account of AEG and decide how much you are willing to gamble with that, but generally you seem to be in the enviable position of being able to choose your enemies. Remember that your choice will affect the whole board, and discuss the ramifications with your TA.

Russia -- It is highly unlikely that you will lose an SC this turn, which is definitely good considering where you were a year ago. Your moves this turn should be fairly routine with little opportunity for imagination, unfortunately. You are definitely in the "wait and see" camp. That is all.

Germany -- There are a few things you cannot get away with in this game, and a half-hearted attack is one of them. Your attack on Russia was a legitimate choice -- commendable, even -- but when you convoyed to LIV you should have been prepared to leave yourself exposed to England. If you were not, you should not have begun your attack at all (retreating to LON did not help, either). Now, your forces are split, and you are certainly not going to take down Russia with just two armies. At this point, time is of the essence. You must grow quickly, or else you are just waiting for either England and France to patch things up or for France to conquer England. Neither of these are likely to be good for ze kaiser. Discuss with your TA which direction is likely to yield the most gains the fastest, and commit to it.

England -- You dug yourself a hole, but for this year at least you're not lying down in it. At this point there is little you can do but pray that Germany doesn't come after you, but if he does your job is to make it clear that there can be only ONE winner in the west. If he doesn't, you just defend as best you can and thank your stars France only has two fleets.

France -- You're in a solid position, but you should be looking to speed things up as much as possible. The first one to win their respective theater is usually the one with the best solo shot come the endgame. That could be you. Germany and Italy are cooperating, for now (monitor them closely, paying close attention to Italy's progress v. Austria). Your priorities include bringing those idle armies into play.

Questions;
@2ndWhiteLine
1. You are absolutely correct that the French armies are not effectively placed atm. A common pattern in early French attacks on England is to convoy from GAS/BRE to LVP. Foreign armies in the isles usually spells doom for the Brits because of their mobility, and France usually profits with a speedy conquest. France's failure to convoy in this game can be partly attributed to circumstance -- the Italian army in PIE (a strong point in its favor, I feel) and German presence on the Rhine made convoying difficult. However, given the advantages of having that army across the channel, I think it would have been worth the risk abandoning BUR to convoy, considering a A PAR build could respond to a German invasion. Also, a third fleet would have been better than a fourth army, even if it meant postponing.
2. Turkey has his choice it seems, as I mentioned. In general, he should be looking to resolve his own theater quickly, while keeping the rest of the board muddled. How this can be accomplished must be discussed with his TA.

@ssorenn
I'll get back to you in a bit. Great question.

Sorry about the length. Still growing into my role as a teacher :)

"1. Italy -- I am a big fan of your 1903 stab of Austria. It was well timed...
2."Turkey -- Congratulations, you survived the Lepanto. You are now in a decent position to move on from here."
I'm not sure,jmey,these two facts can possibly coexist in a same game,we'll see...
I still think the stab WASN'T well timed.He took Trieste and then what?
He'll defend it till the end of the game while Russia and Turkey take the rest of Austria,peace by peace?

*...piece by piece?* Sorry.

@Split
It's true that at this point it's unlikely (though not impossible) that Turkey and Italy go the entire game without coming into conflict, I agree. But I don't think that contradicts what I wrote. My point regarding Italy was that his stab gave him an excellent chance to make quick progress against Austria. Units in TYL/TRI/ALB/AEG/ION could have been lethal, and if he had progressed quickly he could have won the east. However, to do that required flawless play, which was not forthcoming (see the rest of my commentary). Now that Italy has stalled (maybe), Turkey has the chance to catch up, leaving him in a decent position. Both countries to some extent have the ability to shape their own destiny -- the victor will be determined by who plays the best from here. Do you disagree?

I agree with "who plays the best will win the game". But that's irrelevant.
The point of the SoW imo isn't who'll win this particular game but to teach the students how to win as many games as possible on this site.
But with all those advices - about how good for Italy is to stab Austria or how good for Germany is to attack Russia etc. etc. in these circumstances - they'll be able to win another game only by accident.
The stab was wrong and you know it,you wouldn't do it ever.If some of them wins the game due to some mistakes made by their opponents that doesn't mean the winner of this game should practice THE play because THE play wont give him another solo in the future when he meets some other competition.
I think the students should learn the basics before they are capable of developing the basic knowledge and capable of looking at the whole board and keeping the game balanced.That's important imo and not who'll win the game no matter in which way he'll win the game.

@ssorenn
There are different schools of thought on this question, but since I'm the professor now you get mine.
In my mind, what is meant by "proper" play is simply rational play. i.e., that every player acts in their own rational self-interest. In the opening, this often means adhering to established move-sets;* as the game progresses, it means reading the board accurately and choosing the strictly-dominant tactical moves. These are the skills that SoW focuses on. Sans SoW, these skills only come with experience, no way 'round it. There is room for variation under the heading of proper play, and this is what the very best gunboaters excel at anticipating and responding to.
In top games it is assumed that all the players will possess these skills, and though you occasionally come across some heated post-game arguments, generally they are played at the highest standard. When weaker players deviate from these standards (the "anomaly"), more often than not they are punished for it. Weaker players usually lose. The problem is that in games of the highest quality, every country's moves are highly orchestrated and predicated on the assumption of rational play all round. When that assumption is violated, somebody who assumed it gets screwed. The irrational player loses, and brings somebody down with him. Someone else benefits. That's why you can see such vitriolic responses to weak play.
The best moves are the best moves for a reason, but few moves are risk-free. Every time you place an order, you are making an assumption about the rest of the players. In the best gunboats everyone's assumptions are similar. Weak players introduce an element of chance that is anathema to the best gunboaters,

I don't know if that answered your question, but it's the best I got. Hope that helped.

*high-level gunboat openings are often decried as stale and predictable, but there are good reasons for this that I'm not going to go into right now. Perhaps later.

Thank you for talking the time to answer. I get why the opening should be relatively standard, it's the assumptions that are made in year 02 and beyond that sometimes get me. For ex. In spring 02 in this game I (Russia ) supported Bulgaria to Serbia, but the Turkish player did not take it. Would you not assume he would,with the coaxing of his TA.
Lastly, do you personally play on other sites,and in high stakes gunboat? If so ,do other gunboat players(not on this site) adhere to the PROPER gunboat rules/etiquette ?

Wooo there, ssorenn, you cannot post about a gunboat game you are in EVER for ANY reason. If this wasn't a training game you'd have just lost a decent chunk of your points. This is a game played with no press, but we gave you TA's to answer your questions. Please do not post additional questions on the forum about this game or I will be forced to remove you from it. You also cannot give out who you are in the game. That completely defeats the purpose on anonymous games. Please email [email protected] to confirm you understand these rules.

Sorry about that, please feel free to do as you will. I made the mistake

just keeping this on the front page

bump phase progressed

@VirtualBob (response to earlier question)
It is always important to be thinking about how one theater affects the rest of the board. In this game, I think the most that should be said regarding the Balkans is that the failure of one of A/I/T(/R) to build momentum is good news for the western powers. If one of France or Germany can win their respective battles quickly, they will be in a great position because of the impasse in the east. Also, Russia should be grateful for the failure of a clear winner to emerge, because this gives him time to recover his game (potentially) before facing sustained southern pressure.
In general terms, speed is one of the most important factors of the early-mid game; solo-pushes in the endgame tend to be more favorable when there are many powers remaining, since that makes coordination more difficult for the opposing forces. Solos tend to happen when one theater is resolved quickly, and the others are not.

@Split
I guess my philosophy in this thread is a little different from yours. I hope that the students do not read the commentary to try and find strategies that are always good. Rather, I'm trying to give people an idea of the types of things they should be thinking about with every move. Then they will be able to apply those lessons to every future game, rather than games with a specific pattern. At least, that's the idea.

Commentary coming later. gtg

We may need to pause and find a replacement(s) for TA's who do not have the time to assist their students. Can anyone assist me in working to find replacements?

bump

Is a pause going to happen? Is there anything we, as players, need to do?

bump

yawn

Germany -- Congratulations, you took Norway. But in doing so you've left yourself very exposed in the west and have paid the price in Belgium. This was a strategic error. France's four armies were cumbersome, trapped in France-proper and unable to influence the game or help accelerate French expansion. This was your saving grace since it bought you time before France could establish dominance in the northern oceans. Now, all of France's armies are useful again, and worst of all (for you), he will be getting a build this year when he should not have. Granted, you lost the guessing game, which was unlucky, but it was unnecessary to expose yourself at all; Norway could have been guaranteed this year even if you had pulled SIL back to Munich.
Because I have to:
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia..." (extra credit to students who spot the reference)
Your game is not over by any means, Germany, but time is of the essence. Get builds fast.
The takeaway lesson from this episode is that in the middle game (where we are now), countries are often in competition with each other even when they are not in direct conflict; there is a sort of Cold War, if you will, where two rival powers try to position themselves for a conflict they expect to occur later. This is very often the case in the western theater, where the two men left standing usually need to conquer the other to have a solo chance. In that situation, the key of the mid-game is to grow faster than your rival, sabotaging them when the opportunity presents itself. (This must be balanced against your own growth.) Germany failed to do that here.

France -- Great turn for you. You've got yourself a very useful build, and at this point it would take effort not to make it to the endgame. I was wondering if you would move to the Channel and am pleased to see you do it. A fleet there puts pressure on Belgium (almost redundant now, but not quite) and offers convoy options you desperately need. You are in a very strong position.
At this point, you must be looking ahead. Assume for a moment that you will conquer England (sorry England). What then? Where are your next centers coming from? When you've answered these questions, decide what units you will need, where, and ask yourself how you can possibly undermine the resistance you will face down the line. Factors to consider: which of your neighbors is weak, which can you deploy against fastest (assuming units in England), and will you likely have any allies.

England -- I ain't gunn' sugarcoat it -- outlook is bleak. (Germany did not help you by letting France into BEL.) You made an interesting choice this turn with ECH. Sometimes when a country senses that the end is nigh, they will send their remaining units on the offensive. This can serve two purposes: 1) it can be meant to sabotage the country that most contributed to their demise or 2) the units can try and make a beeline to the stalemate line. In the late endgame, there is actually a (3), which is to get behind someone's line a run amok until people are bored into drawing. I'm on a mobile atm so I can't dig up examples, but suffice to say I've seen all of these strategies work, though the probabilities are not good. They are very much last-resort.
In this case, England might have tried for (1) by going to MAO and taking Iberia. However, by opting to defend his homeland he has maximized his chances of a turn-around, slim though they be.
Lest I come across as the voice of doom and gloom, the best advice I can offer England is that he's going to have to gamble and win in order to have a shot at surviving. Take chances to try to get a build. Otherwise you're just waiting for the hangman.

Austria -- You've seen off the Italian invasion, well done. His support hold to TRI looks like anolive branch. Just remember, vendetta's are good in mob films and sitcoms, not Diplomacy. Now, I'm not saying don't attack Italy; I'm trying to resist giving specific advice for moves. But I urge you to evaluate each option objectively sans bloodlust. Too often, especially with newbies, once a country is stabbed, it goes on a rampage againt its attacker, bringing both countries down. Instead, you must know when to call it quits. Remember the stab, and use it to anticipate the stabber's actions later on. And, as ever, watch your back.
Now, you need to be looking for one enemy and at least one friend. I suggest you start with the enemy. Your choices are I/T/R/G. Your choice must be predicated on how quickly you can make gains relative to your neighbors and the opposition you might face. For example, if you attack Russia, odds are you're going to run into Germany at some point (read the takeaway from Germany if you choose this course). On the other hand, where are you getting centers off G/I/T? Though you have some latitude, caution is called for. Pay very close heed to Italy's options -- he may come back.

Turkey -- similar advice. You're in solid defensive shape and must be looking for the all-important fifth center to act as a springboard for future gains. This is often the case with Turkey. Once the fifth center is gained, the strong defensive position is given an offensive boost. TBH, getting #5 is the important thing. Where it comes from is secondary. Just try and make a friend along the way.

Italy -- You're running into brick walls left, right, and center. Though I think you were right to call off the attack on Austria, momentum has been lost. You are in a tricky position with no obvious avenues of expansion. This is often the Italian's fate in gunboat. You can either pick a direction, smash your head into a brick wall for a while, and hope for something to break, or you can play the wait-and-see game. DIfferent gunboaters will give you different advice on this. Either way, you need something to fall your way.

Russia -- Tactics, tactics, tactics. As regards your retreat, a fleet is BAR offers only one thing NWG doesn't: a support to STP. Do you need it? (There is a clear answer, tactically if not positionally.) Meanwhile, the vultures may or may not be circling to the south. In deciding which of your scs to gamble with, my general advice is that those centers that are closest to many different powers are better to lose than those further away. That way, potential invaders will end up fighting each other, rather than you. (Ask if that didn't make sense.)
You're in a guessing game this turn. Ask yourself what A/T should do, then, based on what you've seen of A/T, ask yourself if they will do it. Good luck.

Apologies for typos.

@Austria you are doing great,I'm a big fan of your well timed response to a well timed Italian stab.
You don't have so many options as someone could think and sometimes is more important to teach a lesson the one who desperatly needs it,the one who ruins your and his game then to survive a couple of turns more.
Too bad he isn't the only one who needs the lesson.

@Split
I'm not sure if that was directed at me or what, but whatever. Forum arguments are a time-honored tradition of top gunboats :).
Of course, Split is right that there are occasions when suiciding into the country that ruined your game is rational (I touched on this briefly in my commentary on England). Apart from the warm feeling of satisfied vengeance, it is important to follow through with the implied threat of "if you attack me, I will ruin you." This is something the attacker must be forced to include un his cost-benefit

oops
analysis when deciding to attack.
in some ways, this is part of the ongoing meta-game of gunboat, which punishes bad play & pushes people towards best play practices.

oh, and the point i was building up to was that it could be rational for Austria to retaliate against Italy. but if he does, it should be for the rught reasons: ro punish bad play because hiss game is done or because, knowing what he now does about Italy, he doesn't trust him enough to turn his back. Obviously, this must be balanced with tactical realities

Bump. When will the game be unpaused ?