When I do that, it means I'm really desperate.

I did that in the Pacifist games. It was easier than arguing about the outcome.

@dubmdell: Yeah, either you see at the start of the game but I think it's common towards the end of the game.

I should have qualified it - I mean specifically towards the end of a game.

I think JesusPetry is right that it's a desperate call or plea to the others to say stop what you doing and face the imminent solo together?

I honestly hadn't thought much about it, I've taken it as a sign of desperation or just faking desperation, and the possibility of both means that I won't make any assumptions until orders have come through. It's both creative and a bit iffy to use votes to communicate in gunboats. I don't know if I would do it myself, especially not if we could reach a consensus about what different votes mean.

I would tend to think it is poor sportsmanship to do something like that in a gunboat game, since the entire point is to be unable to communicate except through orders.

@Poozer/and to some extent Vaft: Surely if the votes are there then they are form of the game as it is able to be played, even if it is a gunboat. Gunboat means no talking but not no voting. I can understand why people use the votes, especially the 'draw' vote, tactically to emphasise intention. If you vote draw it shows you want to work together - adding in the cancel I often read as a person saying 'cancel our hostilities: fight against the common enemy'

Using Draw and Cancel as diplomatic tools is obviously okay, Pause is a bit iffy because the rules say it isn't a diplomatic tool, and it is to be used only when someone genuinely needs a pause, for important out-of-game reasons.

But honestly, give a desperate / frustrated gunboat player a button to click and he's going to click it. I use Draw or Cancel to indicate willingness to Draw or Cancel - this helps if you're leading, and want to reduce the chances of an anti-leader alliance. I use Pause whenever I'm frustrated with one of my immediate neighbors, like when he's attacking me instead of stopping a solo, and in my case, it is to be read as "Back off, ffs". Sometimes it's an indication of willingness to draw after draw whittling - like when you're the leader, everyone else hits Draw, but you want a little guy out of it, you could hit Pause and get the message across that you'll Draw if they take him out.

But as Vaft said, it would be unfortunate if any of these became standard, it would reduce the charm of having to guess what those votes mean, when they could, for all you know, mean that 15-center France needs to take a leak.

When a player picks up a near defeated country and immediately votes cancel... well, that annoys me.

@Sarg, I guess if you were to consider them diplomatic tools, then they are fair game. But I guess I personally think they should just be used realistically.

If you are in need of a pause for some real-life situation, then obviously use the pause button.

If someone CD's/NMR's early on, then canceling seems entirely appropriate.

Draw is a bit more tricky, since really at any point you could vote for a draw and think it is the appropriate action. That said, there are also the times where you get a couple of countries who need to work together against 1 power to prevent the solo, and those games usually result in all of those countries voting draw while the 1 country trying to solo holds out.

Interesting topic.

Feasibly you could code out 8 different messages using just pause/cancel/draw in either of the various conditions. You could extend that a bit further using Ready vs. Not Ready... 16 messages.

With only 7 countries you could use 6 of the 8 to represent an initial alliance question. Ready/Not Ready could be the equivalent of Yes/No. Once you've gotten down an initial alliance, you could switch from it meaning alliance to meaning who to attack...

I feel like I have started down a perilous road.

@poozer to enter a game with the understanding of what those signals mean with only one or two other players (i.e. the "decoder") is metagaming as far as I'm concerned. If everybody knows what they means there is no advantage conferred to any individual, and you are basically playing a shitty take on a white press game.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

First, I'm assuming this is for gunboat.
Second, I sure as hell hope this isn't in regards to a game currently being played.


I would say that using the buttons as some form of communication is against the spirit of gunboat. You want to play without communication, don't communicate.
If you want to imply a peace or whatever, play a global press or regular press game.

Why do I think it is wrong? Because if you work out a system in the forum, and play someone who doesn't frequent the forum, you have an unfair advantage in the game. Either don't come up with a system or convince kestas to put those types of tips in each gunboat game so everyone in the game is on equal grounds.

"I would say that using the buttons as some form of communication is against the spirit of gunboat. You want to play without communication, don't communicate.
If you want to imply a peace or whatever, play a global press or regular press game."

Well - it is unavoidable that voting draw has the implications that people have raised in this thread. It is just interesting to hear people's views.

I sure as hell hope you'll be able to get your panties untwisted.

@YJ - I entirely agree with you that it would be against the rules and is meta gaming. Basically, that's why I'm saying I don't think they should be used for anything other than their literal meaning.

@FK - Yes referring to GB. No none of this is relating to any active game, just general discussion following the topic Sarg brought up. I agree with you, it is inappropriate to use those buttons to create a messaging system outside of their literal meanings.