Count me in. I think from now on I'll 1) only join WTA games and 2) non-anonymous games.

Best way to avoid gaming against team players (friends playing together) and multiaccounters. It is sad really that some people just don't like challenges and will rather spoil the game for others so they gain maximum points for themselves and their friends. What's the point of playing if the only thing you are looking for is easy victory?

Gunboat games have their place, though it is definitely a lesser game. The time and concentration required for a gunboat game are much less than for a regular game. It is mostly just look at the moves and go. You can usually assess the alliances and situation on the board by one glance at it.

I really don't find the same problem with the friends playing together and multiaccounters. I mean, this is a constant complaint in every game. What does it matter whether you are in a gunboat game or not? That adds nothing to it. It is harder to recover when someone or some people start winning, cause you can't rally the board.

What does the WTA games do to stop friends playing together? I don't think this is as big a problem as you are saying, but a 17-17 draw is the same in any game.

Sorry, that may have been confusing. I meant, the only thing I could say, is it is harder to recover from an alliance in gunboat, since you can't rally the board.

me

i'd say gunboat have much more luck involved
don't mind the anonymous thing though

Gunboat is all tactics. Not sure where the luck goes in, as long as you can avoid being Austria or Italy.

most people enter games with a general game plan for the opening year or so that they enjoy playing with each country.
If you're Germany, and France's, England's and Russia's first few moves are to take your SCs, its near impossible to win.
ON the other hand, if france moves to EC, you will easily develop a valuable alliance.
Normally talking can offset this element of luck, but not in gunboat

If you can hold out for a few years as any country (except Italy and Austria), the people attacking you will probably be attacked. Talking can remove the chance, but it can also line up your opponents against you. It can also all be tricks. In the end, if France, England and Russia decide to attack Germany in any game, you are dead. In fact, leave Russia out of that for the most part. In a diplomacy game, you may be able to get Russia to move against England or Italy to move against France, but they could do that in the gunboat game just as well...if it is in their own self-interest. Your definition of "luck" is what other people decide to do during the game.

Now, pull Austria in a gunboat game...and, I know how you feel. That was just bad luck, and you have lost.

Do you guys mean:

1. Anon games
2. No Press games
3. Anon no press games

by Gunboat?

Gunboat = no press.

@ Tantris "Your definition of "luck" is what other people decide to do during the game."
My definition of luck is factors beyond your control that effect whether you win.
you said yourself that "Talking can remove the chance, but it can also line up your opponents against you." i'e, you now have control, and can prevent your doom.

in gunboat, you are automatically subject to your opponents pre game plans, and can only hope they all aren't against you.

So, the entire game of diplomacy is luck? You have no control beyond that which other people let you have, and your own moves. I don't agree.

@dave bishop, you may think you are limited by the pre-disposition of your opponents plans, but the diplomacy in a gunboat can still be there by offering support just prior to it's need. You can change your potential opponents' plans with your moves.

I like banoffee cheesecake and therefore couldn't possibly like apple pie.

Did that sound rediculous? My point here is that Gunboat is a version of diplomacy, it isn't diplomacy. To criticise it because it doesn't play the same way as diplomacy is crazy. Gunboat has its uses, I play it so that I don't overload myself with lots of diplomeing whilst I'm in other games. And also to sharpen up tactics and explore how the look of my actions can effect others as much as what I say to them.

I prefer 'real' diploamcy but Gunboat is still a fine game if played right.

My main concern right now is the potential for cheating in anonymous gun boat games. The additional problem if players know each other and use off-site communication is that we do not know whom to accuse until the game has finished. I believe I am correct in saying that if a game is identified for such play after it has finished, the stats will be left unchanged - so a loss after being duped in a gunboat counts as a loss.

Off-site communication is, I presume, very hard to establish anyway but at least in a game where you know the players' names you can get some sort of policing going.

I'm looking forward to my first gunboat game. I have been thinking rather like Maniac - my tactics need serious work; what better way to focus on them? - but I'm interested in everyone's criticisms.

The complaints seem to be that team players and multiaccounters ruin them and chance plays too large a role. Are there others?

Everybody keeps telling Austria sucks in a gunboat, but by playing a couple of games I've noticed how powerful it can be if not attacked in the first couple of years. A friendly Italy can also thrive in this situation.