Finished: 11 PM Tue 19 Jan 21 UTC
Gunboat full of boats
18 hours /phase
Pot: 140 D - Autumn, 1909, Finished
Classic, No messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by jasnah (0 D X)
04 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1901: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
06 Jan 21 UTC Autumn, 1901: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
06 Jan 21 UTC Autumn, 1901: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
10 Jan 21 UTC Autumn, 1903: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
19 Jan 21 UTC Congrats to jasnah.
19 Jan 21 UTC Austria, I take it that you are a new player?
19 Jan 21 UTC GG. I thought we had a "stop Germany" understanding for a turn or too, so couldn't understand the attack on Rumania. It's possible we'd not have been able to stop him anyway though.
19 Jan 21 UTC When Italy lost 2 centers in 1906, that's when the game was officially over.
19 Jan 21 UTC Good game!
I have to applaud Germany's takeover of England - they went from a serious power to dead in 1.5 years. Of course, a new player taking the seat and (predictably, pointlessly) stabbing me didn't help.
Also, nice of you Germany to leave me kicking around :) I get that your path to a solo was clear and went through me.
19 Jan 21 UTC I'm told I don't have the friendliest tone but I write here with the best of intentions.

Austria had to be new and tbh Italy gave no impression that he would have understood what was required either, considering his many years of inert attacks on France, so even had Austria known how to play it might have been the only choice to try to take him out and work with Turkey in time for Tunis – not what this Austria had in mind, but potentially doable with just two German fleets west of North Sea.

My apologies to Russia and Turkey who saw basically everyone they had to rely on to not suck, suck.

Hundol, the second England basically walked out of his dots for me, it was bizarre and so extreme that (no joking) I wondered if it was a friend who had joined to throw to me. I am glad it was not, but the fact that I hadn't actually cheated doesn't change the great destabilizing effect of English play, so nothing you could have done that wouldn't have relied on Austrian support.

Austria, do you have any interest in hearing feedback? I ask because I've written to deaf ears too many times and will save us both from frustration if you're disinclined.
19 Jan 21 UTC I don't think A is ready for any tactical discussion. In fact, I fear that A is a new player, who thinks that ending up no. 2 in the supply center count is something positive. So, I would only say this: Know that, in Diplomacy, second place is the biggest loser.

Losing to a solo is the most embarrassing you can do in this game. Supply center counts are irrelevant; everyone but Germany in this game is a loser. And if you are 'bigger,' then you're only a bigger loser.
19 Jan 21 UTC I am a new player mainly play close games with friends where the dynamics are very different and much more backstabbing communication. Do some solo 1 v1 with friends. I was playing for second once I saw That I had no way of stopping Germany. Hence the reversal of strategy to take Rumania. I would welcome feedback. But felt as a whole once Germany got England essentially for free it was over
19 Jan 21 UTC Why is having second most supply centers make you a bigger loser?
I was able to contain you granted had some assistance from
Russia. But never the less my take on the game is that Germany overtook England where the conflicts between Turkey and Russia and Austria never resolved themselves and we were to weak to then threaten Germany
19 Jan 21 UTC If Germany had been opposed by Russia, Austria, and myself sometime in 1905 we could have hemmed them in and forced a stalemate. The fact that Italy wouldn't stop attacking me didn't help matters; if they had done like Turkey and made it clear they were happy to hang out, we would've had a chance.

Similarly, you had an unbeatable attack on Venice in Spring of 1902; an unbeatable attack on Naples in Spring of 1903; and decent attacks on both in Autumn 1903. I was basically locked into waiting for you to chip Italy, and you repeatedly refused to. You would have handily won the race; I probably would've gotten only Tunis.

>Second most supply centers makes you the biggest loser
We all lost to Germany this game. I believe the thesis is that you had the most tools available to not lose, but lost anyway.
19 Jan 21 UTC Hey Austria – thanks for chiming in and explaining your perspective, it is much appreciated, as there are many players who never explain what they were thinking and makes it frustrating to play with them.

The beauty of stopping a solo and one of the things I greatly admire about Diplomacy is that to do it, you actually don't need to fight the solo threat. You don't need to push them back, or threaten them. You only need to keep them from breaching one of the many stalemate positions on the map that can stop even a 17 centre power from getting just one more, and so end the game in a draw for everybody, and you at one point would have had one of these positions if you'd have worked with Russia and Turkey.

I do a deep dive on what these positions are in this article When you are playing in a game where all the players know these positions, solos are regularly stopped even when the player on 17 centres is by far stronger than anybody else.

As for why having the second most centres makes you a loser, well, it's because you have lost rather than drawing: someone has gotten the victory condition, conquered the magic number of 18 centres, and so taken the entire pot of points, so that you get nothing. In this case you got your points refunded as you had fewer than 100, but if you had had more, you would not have gotten refunded, and would just have lost your points – when you could have made a profit on points by achieving a draw.
19 Jan 21 UTC Now that I know what context you're coming from, I agree with RoganJosh; a lot of the tactical intricacies (including good points made by France above) may be challenging to pick up all at once. But if you understand the strategic goal of stopping a solo by forming a stalemate line, that's really one of the major steps of improving at gunboat imo, and marks a major improvement for new players because of how much the stalemate line dictates the flow of the game in high level play.

The blog I wrote my article on is an excellent resource for learning the basics of gunboat.
19 Jan 21 UTC (The blog is not mine, I just contributed to it, but the rest of it contains fantastic content.)
19 Jan 21 UTC I agree, it's the best resource I'm aware of for Diplomacy strategy. His longread playthroughs of individual games are so fascinating!
19 Jan 21 UTC Those have issues and I don't consider them as sound from a perspective of providing accurate Diplomacy analysis as the basic guides, but they're entertaining reading for sure ;)
19 Jan 21 UTC I was relatively aware of stalemate lines but since this was my first gunboat experience i see what you’re saying about second place. My experience from playing with friends is very different from this with Friends there usually isn’t a chance to get to stalemate lines cause somebody always back stabs another prior to it getting there. I appreciate your feedback. Agree France I should have flattened Italy sooner since Italy was just having no success versus you. My worry was if I went too soon Russia and turkey would have taken some of my gains in the East and i preferred the position there rather then the one I would eventually have in Italy. Once Germany had put some pressure on Russia. I felt more comfortable moving on Italy. But at that point I was just going for second most supply centers which as you all have noted is a stupid goal.
19 Jan 21 UTC That all makes sense. This game has layers upon layers! Glad you've learned tons from this outing, best of luck next match :)
19 Jan 21 UTC Kudos to anyone willing to admit, and learn from, their mistakes!
19 Jan 21 UTC Thanks all for feedback. just out of curiosity are there enough players so you don’t typically run into the same people much?
19 Jan 21 UTC It depends on bet size, I would say. For games with a bet of 5, most of the time it's completely different players. For bet of 100, it's more or less the same group of players. In between, it varies.
19 Jan 21 UTC I’m broke points wise (or was before this game) so this is one of my first public games. Playing private w/ reliable (good) players is a great way to improve - that way you know for sure who is in the group and can expect not to see anything too crazy.

RJ a pleasure to see you, by the way, although I wouldn’t quite call this game as having played with you.
19 Jan 21 UTC Yeah, I didn't do much playing in this game at all. But nice to play with you too!

I think the by far best way to improve is always to chat a little after the game, ask people why they did different things, etc.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

jasnah (0 D X)
Won. Bet: 0 D, won: 140 D
18 supply-centers, 16 units
clevs14 (100 D)
Survived. Bet: 20 D
10 supply-centers, 10 units
RoganJosh (3336 D (S))
Survived. Bet: 20 D
3 supply-centers, 3 units
HundoL (163 D)
Survived. Bet: 20 D
2 supply-centers, 2 units
azcat1990 (468 D (S))
Survived. Bet: 20 D
1 supply-centers, 2 units
Tenerezu (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Bloody (114 D)
Defeated. Bet: 20 D
Civil Disorders
amonkeyperson (100 D)Germany (Autumn, 1901) with 3 centres.
lepardgeko (100 D)England (Autumn, 1903) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages