Gunboat has plenty of diplomacy that goes on in a higher-level game, but it's a lot more subtle. I remember someone telling me once (figle, maybe?) that he would support a move simply to signal which direction he wanted the person to go: for example, an Italian A Ven supporting an Austrian A Tri -> Tyr would signal he wanted his Austrian friend to go north. It also makes stopping solos a fun exercise, because you have to hope the other players are competent enough to see it coming and react accordingly.

The problem is that the majority of gunboat games don't have the skill necessary for elaborate diplomacy without press. The most you'll see in most games is the occasional lucky supported attack or hold, and then of course stopping an oncoming solo. And gunboats are more often marred by multiaccounting/metagaming: for one, they're usually anonymous (so players can't PM each other), which means a multi cannot be detected until after the game ends, and for two the multi has a significant communication advantage, being that it can get another country's support (the other account) whenever it wants.

As for public press, I find that public press is obnoxious if played simply as a standard game. Everyone gets buddy-buddy and a lot of 3-4 nation coalitions form simply because no one wants to piss someone else off. (And I totally admit to being guilty of this behavior myself.) The only legitimate 7-way draw I've ever seen on-site happened in a public press game: ava, Ghost up there and myself formed a WT (F/G/E, respectively) and Draugnar organized a Med Triple to counter. They kept Russia around because they didn't have time to kill him and didn't want to risk things breaking down by trying to squeeze someone out.

Public press is really fun for themed games, though. (See also: the Rage is Therapy series, a public-press series of games where the intent is to be as big an asshole as possible while still maintaining alliances and such. Great fun!)

My gunboat's have been "less than successful" of late, but I really like it as a format. When played with good enough players, you can have alliances, stabs, new alliances and stalemates. It's a good way to work on your tactics, without thinking about the diplomatic side of things.

That said, you do end up with a much greater risk of sods-law deaths, where you're killed straight off just because your two neighbours happened to go for you and you died before being able to communicate with them.


The other main advantage for me is that they take many fewer visits to the computer, because whilst I'm on here a lot, quite frequently I can't get on for 3 or 4 days. To get a pause for these would be ridiculous, so I need a sitter, which has to be Ghost given the site governing powers on our accounts.

Exactly, it's bare tactics. This is useful in that part of playing regular Diplomacy is putting yourself in a position where it's not in your neighbors' interest to stab you. gunboat is all about maneuvering, position, timing, which is more than half of the regular game. And yeah you can work together in gunboat, just harder.

One interesting thing is that most gunboat games tend to be winner-take-all, which I actually think is counterproductive in gunboat, forcing neighbors to drop what they're doing and turn on the leader to prevent a solo. In regular Diplomacy this is great because it makes it harder to maintain ironclad alliances, but in gunboat the alliances are already so tenuous you don't need WTA.

To be honest I didn't like gunboat games AT ALL when I started, to the point I just wouldn't even play them, I thought they were crap.

But I play them a lot now, and I DO like them and normal games quite a bit; the diplomatic factors come from supports, but also I think it really coems down to every single MOVE being that much more meaningful. You can't communicate with anything else, so you have to say everything and anything you can with your moves AND you have to watch what other people are "saying" and doing with theirs...



To use an analogy--or try--I'd say gunbaot games are a lot more like Texas Hold 'Em poker, and then regular Diplomacy's more like Five-Card Draw, standard poker...I don't quite know why, but that's jsut the analogy that coems to mind (and yeah, I'm not too big on Public Press games either, seems like a gimmick to me...)

Fun part of gunboat: not having to talk to incompetent people :D

I would use the analogy of chess - blitz games rely more on intuition, and pattern recognition, whereas, longer play (2 hour increments) requires in depth thinking and analyzing as well as the aforementioned requirements for blitz.

^Well, that is only a guess, considering I haven't played a gunboat game yet! I hated blitz chess at first, so I am hoping when I finally do get around to playing gunboat I will like it eventually, but as for now, I view it as destroying the use of the silver diplomatic tongue. Which, I find to be the crux of diplomacy.

@Eklade:

Actually, I like that analogy, I think in gunboating there is a tendency for a lot more plays made on intuition and in the heat of the moment, whereas in day-by-day play or even in face-to-face (if you can get a moment alone to think) there's more of an emphasis on deeper reflection...

Sort of the difference, then between being a quaterback and a pitcher in a close game--the quarterback has to face an oncoming rushing blitz and a clock winding down and so has to use his intuition and brians quickly and act quickly, whereas a pticher can take a far longer time sixing up the situation and determing what PRECISELY he wants to throw.

Hmm, I feel the opposite way. Talking to people muddles the waters for me (is that bad?). With gunboat, you choose a target and go for it, and you get a much clearer sense of the best tactical moves.

I like that it ultimately helps my pure tactical play (expecially because I play FTF, so the gunboat learning to play by instinct is important). FTF is by far the most muddled way to play the game, you almost never get moments to think because you have to talk all the time. Until the end game, anyway.

Actually, the next game I play I'm going to treat like a gunboat, write my orders, then diplome to try and make them work, wish me luck.

Well, I guess it comes down to whether you're a letters person who likes to write and talk and diplome that way--like I do--in which case you probably prefer standard, or if you prefer to just take things on tactically, in which you'd prefer gunboat.

But I like both anyway :)

bump

The real benefit of gunboat is ultimately getting practiced at reading the board as unadultered diplomatic information. You can read what's happening despite the diplomatic protests of your ally.

personally, I get paranoid in Gunboat games. I played a game as England, I moved to the chunnel just because i couldnt talk France out of not doing it. Same with Turkey and Russia, I take the black Sea because there is no reason why the other shouldnt take it.
let me know if what I wrote makes any sense

@gramilaj - next time I play you ftf at least I'll know your strategy, lol

@mongoose, it makes sense to an extent. Instead of moving to the channel, why not move liverpool to yorkshire so you can cover london in case france moves there. This way you don't make an enemy out of a potential friend. Its all about that balance, i think.

@gramilaj: "The real benefit of gunboat is ultimately getting practiced at reading the board as unadultered diplomatic information. You can read what's happening despite the diplomatic protests of your ally." EXACTLY