i would say the main point is speed. u sacrifice some of the complexity of the game, but it takes less of a time commitment to play. of course, the tactical and strategic elements of the game also get a far bigger role, so it is also a way to hone those skills or test them more purely,

its just another variant to try really - like a public press game or like a PPSC game... just another variant =P

Can someone explain this to me? I thought the point of gunboat was that you dispensed with the negotiations and dealings, and just played it like a straight wargame?

According to wikipedia "the gunboat rule means there are no discussions".

No communication is allowed. Neither private nor global. The variant serves the purpose IMHO of familiarizing noobs with the nuts and bolts of board movement and order adjudication. As Babak has correctly pointed out, speed should be a pleasurable by-product of this variant, but it seldom is.

King of Gunboat has been pleasant in that regard, but hardly surprising given the calibre of the participants.

there is no talking, but you can still communicate with your moves.

Trying to make your views known using orders is brilliant!

Jamiet,
Here's the basic premise. Lets say you are England and I am Turkey.... Russia goes south and attacks Turkey right off the bat. You go towards France.

Russia is successful and gets the upper hand on Turkey. You realize he will soon wipe Turkey out, and after that, Austria should fall. After that, he would be unstoppable.

So do you keep attacking France, knowing the best you can get is 2nd place, or do you suddenly convoy an army to Norway, to try to get the Russian to divert his forces, giving Turkey a chance to survive?

Its about trying to maintain the balance of power.

Although I must say, Gunboat works MUCH better as a WTA game. In the example above, too many people would choose 2nd place rather than go after the Russian.

DbJ, thats redundant, the entire game of Diplomacy functions better as a WTA. =P

Agreed

jamiet, you can communicate and set up alliances through (blind) support. if we're fighting a common enemy and i know you are going after a specific center, i can use one of my units to support you in. that lets you know i'm a friendly.

WTA? What's WTA?

Winner takes All. Whoever gets to 18 first gets all the points. 2nd place and 7th place get the same amount: zero.

Yeah, I knew Babak would say that. :-D

In a PPSC (Points Per Supply Center) games, some people are satisfied with 2nd place, because they still earn more points than they put into the pot.

wta = winner take all
ppsc = points per supply center

in both, draws are split equally to all nonCD survivors, but in ppsc, 2nd and 3rd place behind the winner still get pts (which mutates the incentives inherent in the game - for balance-of-power)


in gunboat it is critical that you go and look at the moves ordered every turn to see who ordered what support.

i meant '2nd and 3rd ETC'.... as in all places after 1st, its not limmited to 2nd and 3rd.... sorry if i was unclear

Keep in mind, Babak and DBJ have an agenda - they both dislike PPSC intensely.

PPSC is better for new players - You can ally with a stronger power, play the game learning from that power, and take away more points than you started with. Or get stabbed :-)

WTA is "purer" and is more closely aligned with the original board game and with FtF (Face to Face) tournament play. But it means that if someone else wins, you walk away with nothing.

You are all right - no written communication is allowed.

What is so much fun about the game is trying to communicate with your orders. You can use supports to convey messages to prospective allies (remember that you have to read the written orders - failed supports don't show up on the map).

Part of the fun is the guesswork - trying to work out whether you should be giving support to an ally's army, or whether you should be moving. If you get it wrong, then you miss an opportunity.

Also, how do you stop a chip leader? Dingleberry is right - at some stage, you have to try and bury the hatchet with an enemy to concentrate on the greater goal - stopping the leader! A series of support holds and moving units away might do this, or you might get crushed in the fightback.

One of my most enjoyable gunboat games was this one:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3702

A WTA game, it was marked by Italy's (Braveheart) rapid rise to dominance, moving westwards to take out France, then England. As Turkey, I'd allied early on with Austria (Flashman) to take out Russia (Noirin). As you can see from about 1910 onwards, it suddenly became a game of 'stop Italy'. Hatchets were buried, and various attempts were made to stop him winning. The triple alliance lasted for 15 years, with no conversation, discussions etc, until Italy's fleet superiority finally paid off. It was a fantastic game, and just shows you what you can get out of gunboat games.

...which precisely IS the game, jb

jbalcorn, do you think anyone didn't know babak would say that...talk about being redundant ;-)

wta is the way a ftf game would be played. ppsc is a good alternative though as it allows new players to not lose every single game while they're learning how to play. does it encourage survival over winning sometimes, absolutely. but, a new player can work their way up from surviving, to coming close to winning (2nd or 3rd), to winning (draw, solo), and gain points while doing so. i think if new players had to work their way up while never being rewarded a point, many of them would simply stop playing.

I disagree. If you zero out, you get your original points back.

WTA provides purer game play. I'd start with a few 15 point WTA games, were I starting now.

^jbalcorn.

no offense babak, just a little good natured ribbing.

yes maple, but new players can gain points while they learn in the ppsc set up. getting points back isn't much of a reward. now, if this site didn't include new players, then i would agree with you.

I agree with mapleleaf and not with trip... although you don't find 15 point wta games :)

But, especially new players should learn the game playing WTA, for the reason to promote high quality playing...
I've seen and experienced MANY MORE bad decisions (against the spirit of the game) made in PPSC than in WTA games. Also those players tend to not listen to good arguments (stop supporting Russia, he will eat first me, then you... or please help stop the juggernaut), only to get eliminated later by the then superior power, just becuase they thought they might do better coming in 3rd... and where then eliminates or even came in 3rd but could have managed to draw the whole thing 4-way..... i.e even more points for them. Alas, they didn't listen...
Anyways, WTA makes better new players!

I don't care on the other hand whether a game I would play with good players is WTA or PPSC as I can expect them to play WTA-like...

and finally, yes: King of Gunboat has been pleasantly fast, so far :)

"were eliminated" of course... not "where eliminates"

thats a really good point wiz.

i learned by getting my ass handed to me in ftf games. while it wasn't the most enjoyable way to learn, i think it was much more beneficial long-term than if i had been allowed to claim some sort of success for a second place finish.

Back to the subject at hand, though... The inital statement that there is no diplomacy in gunboat is patently false. Just because you can't write/speak directly to the person does not mean there isn't covert communications and diplomacy through actions. In fact, Judge games allow you to put in invalid orders which can be performed by units behind the line with nothing better to do to indicate intentions or offer support for the next turn. It's the one thing that the structured orders system here makes a little more difficult because Wales can't support Mos into StP.

This is the basics:
"We play a game to have fun and make it fun for others."
Gunboat is a game variant and can be quite entertaining in its tacit negotiation style and tactical puzzles to figure out without open negotiations.
Diplomacy is a game, have fun with the way you want to play it.

@Jbalcorn
"Keep in mind, Babak and DBJ have an agenda - they both dislike PPSC intensely."

Where the hell did that come from? I have never said that.

i'm glad to see so many of the good playerson this site agreeing with the WTA mentality...

I want to highlight two points:

1) wta IS the better way to learn even for newbies...

2) ppsc (in my opinion) is to the benefit of vets not newbies... because veterans can take advantage of the newbie's desire to get a few scraps and bones while the vet stomps to the solo...


so in the end... i really think ppsc is to the detriment of new players and the benefit of old/vets


one other point... if you play a bunch of ppsc games and keep getting some points back, you'll never hit "zero" to re-fill up to a 100

Actually, oif you don't win as much as you paid in, you get your full pay in back, Babak. You don't have to hit zero to reload as it were. this isn't online poker.

You don't have to hit "zero" to re-fill up to 100. When a game ends, phpdip looks at your point total, including the points you have invested in games you are still playing. If your point total is below 100 then you get however many points back to raise you back to 100.

It doesn't raise your available back to 100, it raises your available to whatever it needs to be so that the total (available + invested) is 100.

I second, or third, or fourth, or whichever the concept that gunboat is about communication through military force. It is NOT about the pure tactics of the units. You can still form alliances. But it is imperative that everyone knows to look at the orders or the big map.

Also note that while the small map doesn't show some orders, the big map does show them all. So you can just open that up rather than looking through the orders.

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=10031
Did you seriously pay 500 just to go CD in here? What the hell, man?
You said you'd stick it out when I asked you if you'd go CD, so...
Where. Are. You.

God damn it, forum stole my post.

@Drau and Ald - cool... did not know that about the 're-fill'.... but dosnt that make wta make even more sense for a newbie?

if you lose - its ok - you'll get pts back anyways... so if they invested 20, and they 'survive' and get back 5 or 30 who cares... they might as well get zero and they'll still 'top-off' at 100 overall right?

another words - you teach them the 'right' game, AND they get their points back anyways... =)

I'd still like the answer to this:

@Jbalcorn
"Keep in mind, Babak and DBJ have an agenda - they both dislike PPSC intensely."

Where the hell did that come from? I have never said that.

@DBJ - sorry, i haven't been following this thread.

Probably shouldn't have lumped you in with babak. I got from the tone of your posts that you like WTA not PPSC. babak is defininetely a PPSC hater. if I mischaracterized you, I'm sorry.

I have nothing against PPSC. But I think with gunboat, in order to get the full effect, WTA makes more sense.

@Babak - If they come in second or third, they may well get back more than the initial buy-in, so it helps them grow their points without having to get a win or draw. However, I prefer WTA for the most part unless I'm picking up a CD, then I do that hoping just to get a few extra SCs and a few extra points at the end of the game.

As I said, WTA is a more pure Diplomacy experience. but the video game generation doesn't want to learn from experience, they want to get some kind of feedback. PPSC is a good way to get some reward - hey, you survived, you had 4 SCs, here's a couple of points! The returning of points below 100 isn't a reward, it's a consolation prize.

The great thing is, babak can simply never join a PPSC game. I do think that there needs to be some kind of "Game Description" that is presented before a player can join that the creator can use to say something like:

"This is a Winner-Takes-All game that is looking for fast turnaround. We'll be playing 12 hour turns, but are looking for finalizing every 3-4 hours during the western hemisphere daytime. Please do not join this game unless you are OK with those terms".

OR:

"This is a PPSC game looking for 1 turn a day. Players from all over the world are encouraged to join. We would like a lively global chat and a chance to learn something from other cultures"

THAT would be a nice feature.

Man. Does Babak Ctrl-F WTA in every thread? I'm on his side, but he's really good at hijacking threads. =D

Gunboat is often a fun alternative because it takes less commitment than a normal game. While it loses the negotiation aspect, that doesn't mean you can play recklessly. There are always subtle ways to communicate with other players, and you can't just charge through expecting to win, balance of power is equally as important.

lol... so Chris just because I'm middle eastern I have to be a hijacker? thanks buddy =P

I dont have access to the numbers, I but I do get a sense that since I've started to raise a ruccus there are a few more WTA games forming and more people voicing their agreement that WTA is superior to PPSC as a game-model.

I am really hoping that in the new update, the threshhold for joining wta games is removed so it can be judged on an equal footing with ppsc... there simply will be no way to increase wta play until players can start 10-20 pts WTA games (and those who LIKE wta games now tend to have many more points and wont waste time on a 10-20 pt game - generally speaking)

anyways - what is ctl-F?

oh - find... nevermind

* I meant threshold for 'creating' wta games... sorry

Babak, you didn't start the fire. It was always burning, since the world's been turning, and since phpDip introduced the point system. Hell, even before that. Here's a short history lesson.

Before the point system, most people played WTA because the only ranking that existed was based on raw wins, so the only thing worth anything was a win. It was clear that this was terrible because people would join 40 games and only keep playing in the ones where they had some initial success.

When the point system was first introduced, only PPSC was an option. From what I can remember Noodlebug and I were the main bulldogs of WTA gameplay. Draws weren't implemented yet, and I advocated my objectives of 1. Win, 2. Don't let anyone else win. as the best way to play. During this period, my record suffered terribly because I simply am not cut out for PPSC play.

Finally, WTA was implemented and I rejoiced. Other than variants, I don't think I've played a single PPSC game since it was formally implemented, and I continued to work, even after Noodlebug left, to try to convert people to WTA. I've slowed down since because both me and the community were probably a little tired of it, though I threw some arguments and math when draws were implemented to try to prevent the phenomenon of soft drawing (no stalemate) and I advocated hard draws (stalemate) as the more satisfactory ending.

Chris - then I hereby declare myself your acolyte..

now if only we could make wta the 'standard' and ppsc a 'variant' that would be great...

step by step we will improve the play in this community ;P