Well,Barn,I'm not sure Italy can create such a mess on the west having armies in Piedmont and Syria and fleets in Ionian and East Med.Even if he could do that and help Ger/Eng to destroy France I don't see how that benefits Italy as he remains where he is and face German armies in France and English fleets in Iberia and Mao...
You remember I was talking about the Piedmont move combined with the Lepanto, right? Piedmont combined with the fleet in Tunis or with the army convoyed from Tyrhenian in fall '01 would be something else...
Regarding Sweden - I believe you you aren't sure why you bounced Russia in that game because there is NO valid reason to do that.I'm also sure you are perfectly aware that bounce had nothing to do with your final 3-way draw.
I don't know the exact number of combination for the spring '01 possible orders but less then 1% of all combinations gives you a reason to bounce him.But I believe we are talking about a proper gunboat here with logical openings,in which you wont see Italy moves to Trieste or Turkey to Armenia or Austria let Russia have Galicia or other bad moves in spring '01.

Split, I appreciate your input. Obviously, you have one of the best minds for the game on this site, and I'd love for you to share your insight more often. I don't pretend to be one of the very best on the sight, but I think I'm qualified in helping the target audience for this game. More importantly, at the time Chaqa was setting up this game, I didn't see any top tier players publicly volunteer to help out, so I did. Privately, I see that Lando, Czech, and Barn all volunteered. I do feel a little sheepish being on the same list as those guys, as they are on another tier than I am, but from what I gather, they are going to be commenting on a part-time basis. Hopefully, I can provide adequate commentary in their absence.

It seems some of the other guys have given their comments on the Sweden and Piedmont situations, but I'll give my opinion. I agree that people bounce the Russian in Sweden too often (and I personally need to adjust the situations where I execute the bounce). I pretty much always bounce the Russian when he takes Galicia in the spring, which I think is the right play. However, I also bounce the Russian a good amount of the time when he bounces in Gal, depending what else happened on the board, but I think I need to rethink that part of my game.

Regarding Piedmont, I don't personally open there often when I'm looking to Lepento. However, I've seen it be effective, and I think it can but the French in a little bit of a bind without committing many resources to it (only using what would otherwise be a likely hold in Venice). In this situation, for example, France covered, so he's sitting in Marseilles. He will want to build another fleet, but if he builds one, it will have to be in Brest, which will might spark a conflict with England. It just muddies up France's game, while not usually being a risk to Italy's.

Anyhow, I'm hoping to finish typing up my thoughts on this past season tonight after work.

Autumn 1901


Russia:

The good news is that you are building two, but you already knew that going in to this season. The bad news is that England moves to Barents, so he immediately has support pressure on St. Pete. He's clearly gunning for you, but will his neighbors allow him to continue the attack? You will be very interested in how western politics develop.

Do you continue working with Turkey pressing Austia, or do you try and shake things up to try and relieve pressure on your southern front? Talk to your TA about your upcoming decisions and understand why you are making them.


Turkey:

Lando laid out a good outline of why supporting the Russian could be a good idea. You do send an even stronger message toward Russian. Tactically, what you are losing is the ability to bounce Austria in Greece if he decided to support you into Rumania, even though that's fairly unlikely. I think this is a matter of individual preference rather than a matter of right and wrong.

You are not thrilled to see the Lepanto, but you must now prepare to defend against it. Make sure you get with your TA to discuss your situation and how to respond.


Austria:

Things are off to a great start for you. The Italian is friendly, you secured Greece, and you kept the Russian out of Galicia. Not to mention, the Russian is facing northern pressure from England. What more could you ask for? Your moves weren't hard to figure out, but you didn't mess them up.

Your builds are a no-brainer, and I don't think I'm really influencing play when I say that. What you are concerned with is moves next year. If you haven't already done so, get talking with your TA about them.


Italy:

Your followed through on the convoy to Tunis, and your only other decision was what to do with Marseilles, and I think you made the best decision. I think it was unlikely that France was going to leave it open, especially since he wasn't likely to get Burgundy. You've made his game a little harder, and didn't really put yourself at much risk, since it's pretty unlikely he's going to launch an attack on you.


England:

You opted to convoy over to Norway and move to Barents. It's an aggressive move, and I can see why you made it. It's always nice to be able to convoy your army, and Norway was your only choice. However, keep in mind that you aren't guaranteed any gains, and you are also a bit vulnerable on your flank.

So, how do you proceed? Do you come out firing at either France or Germany to try to secure an alliance with the other, do you wait and see if either come at you before making a decision, or do you try and play neutral long enough to secure St. Pete and get another build before making that call?


France:

Overall, you didn't have the most productive year, but that's not entirely your fault. Your most likely enemy at this point is going to be either England or Germany, and see all those arrows on the map next to your units? They are all pointing away from those enemies, which isn't what you would prefer. You wanted to secure your two neutrals, and you didn't want to chance letting Italy slip into Marseilles, so I can't fault you for the moves you made, but your army placement isn't idea.

Don't get me wrong, you are still in fine shape. You are building two, and unless the Italian army in Piedmont interferes, you can stalemate Germany if you choose to. Obviously, you are hoping he chooses an offensive against the English, regardless of what you intend to do. If that's the case, you have a decision to make: with England committed so far east, do you take that opportunity to try and secure an alliance with him, or do you use the opportunity to try and drive a knife into him?


Germany:

You had a strong 01, and it's hard to complain when you build three. The decision to take Belgium with Ruhr was pretty natural, as the chance France would move to Munich was fairly small. Your decision to support it in with Holland sends a pretty strong message, though. Simply moving in with Ruhr can be inferred as “didn't think you were moving there, so figured I'd take it”, while the sends the message that you definitively want it, which certain players can take exception to. Only you know whether that message was intended or not.

Tactically, you have the ability to attack the neighbors of your choosing, and it's important that you make the right one. Your TA should be able to give you some good recommendations on how to proceed.

Builds in

Get some commentary up in here.

Split, I'm not sure if we are talking past each other or what. Nor do I understand the caustic tone I'm picking up. I agreed with you in regards to the bounce in Sweden. Pointing to my game was simply meant to balance the point you made with Skittles high stake game. Sometimes the unnecessary bounce can lead to Germany's untimely demise. Other times, it simply works out OK for Germany in the end.

A move to Piedmont would only slow France down. I never made any assertion that it would blow France's game up. I did say that it could encourage and England and Germany to pile on France. In this situation, I would expect that Italy would seriously consider joining in. I am generally not overly concerned about E-G combos playing Italy. They seem to break down more often that not before reaching Italy proper.

Thank you, Skittles, for your ongoing commentary. :)

Looking at year 01, the big winner is Germany (thanks to Italy's move to Piedmont). Germany currently sits in the driver seat and has the ability to begin shaping the board and pick up a center or two more. Acquiring an ally or at least some neutral neighbors will be key though. England's builds are North facing and pro-French, but the French fleet build in Brest may make trust between the two smaller western powers difficult. Russia is in a difficult spot with England bringing pressure to bear on St. Pete's and a six center Germany to the west. Tough questions face Russia this year: will he attempt to hold on to his northern centers in the hopes that England is forced to relent, or will he throw as much as he can southwards in order to buttress himself with additional southern centers?

In the east, the builds would all point towards a classic Austria-Italy vs. Russia-Turkey battle. If this is the case, last year's bounce in Galicia, coupled with questions about whether Russia will need Moscow to support the north, gives A-I an early advantage. Key tactical moves in the early years will likely make or break these two (potential) alliances. Be in touch with your TA's!

Barn, I'm not sure what excatly are you debating here.Nor do I understand what "tones" you are talking about. I've tried to point out to the students the Sweden bounce was wrong,allways and forever.Simple as that.And you are saying sometimes it works out OK for Germany and sometimes it doesn't.So what are you saying to them? It's fine either way,right?
I told you we could talk about any game in particular but generaly the move is wrong. Skittles lost that game because of the manuevar because he faced England who knew what he was doing.And you haven't lost your game because of the manuevar because you had some other England in the game.
But I wasn't talking about how it could turn out for Germany,just about how bad that move was.
It would be the same if you said: "In a chess game if you lose a rock at the start of the game it can turn out you win the game in the end but you could also lose it.So go ahead and lose a rock!".
The same thing regarding Piedmont - I repeat for the third time it isn't a good move combined with the Lepanto.And you are saying Italy should consider joining E/G against France. Which units he has to do that if he's on the Lepanto?
No country has the power to mess up with two other players at the start so he can't threaten both France and Turkey.What if France decides to make room for the fleet Marseille build in '01,takes Spain(sc) and then orders Marseille to Gulf and Spain to West Med in spring '02? Is the move to Piedmont good because of that? I don't see what is it good for otherwise as (I repeat) it brings nothing to Italy,only to others.
Can he sit in Piedmont for ever and leave Venice alone? Or he just plays for E/G and doesn't care about his game?

About bouncing with sweden:

I think there are cases, when Germany MUST bounce russia. One particular case is, when England opens English Channel, strongly anti-French, and Germany bouncing sweden sends the message he will prevent Russia to expand north, hence he is willing to work together with England.

A specific example is: gameID=88274 where I was Germany, DipperDon was England and we literally cleared the board very very fast.

Also, there was a debate already about sweden, threadID=877939, where I've said and I still stick to it:
---------
If England opens anti-french (for eg to EC) then, if germany is willing to cooperate, he bounces russia, to show he will help england against france, and not let russia to bother them.

But there are cases when germany needs a strong russia, for example turkey gets to BS, england opens to Edinborough posing no threat to Germany, it could be a good idea to make them fight.
If Russia opens north (mosc->stp) you might also support him, so he will secure scandinavia resulting a weak england, so germany can fight france.

If Russia opens weak south, you also might want to help him, because he will build south then, to support his units, slowing down turkey/austria.

As Split stated, you have to take all 7 countries' moves into count and make the decision according to that. Basically, if you need a strong russia, oyu let him in, if you have a good alliance by the very first move, you bounce.
---------

Conclusion, there's no rule fitting every game whether to bounce or not, it always depends on 7 players. In this SoW Gunboat it wasn't really a question, as Germany didn't even had the chance. Gemany made a decision, to open a way, sending a strong message who he thinks his enemy is. It's the other players' task from now on to go along with Germany or not.

I have also seen games, where russia got into Sweden, but he did NOT build in StP, and England was clever enough not to take StP. Just like Italy doesn't take Trieste. The result was an extremely successful English-Russian alliance. Yet this alliance didn't really get into the common thinking and until it does not pose any risk. But if England and Russia realize in the coming months' games they could actually work together, than Germany will get used to bouncing sweden again.

This game is contantly evolving, what was working a year ago, 2 years ago, and so on, might not work anymore. Keep that in mind, always.

Lon - EC in spring '01 is yet another story,of course it changes the view on the "Sweden situation" although even the move alone doesn't influence the decision to NOT to bounce. In that case we should talk how smart the spring move to the channel is considering potential Mos - Stp spring move...
But it seems we all don't agree about the bounce in the most common openings of all the powers...

I may misunderstand the SOW format, but arent Professors supposed to be the ones providing the commentary?
I think watchers can ask questions and such but I suspect that debating particular points with the professors only leads to confusion for the players and observers.

No one's tearing Split away from a gunboat debate.

@dyager_nh: you are totally right, and I think jmo should take a position on the issue.

However I think SoW students may benefit from there arguments, as you hardly get the top3 gunboat players (I exluded CSteinhardt :D) discuss games and strategy publicly. Even if we don't agree, you may be able to read and understand how we think and create your own style and strategy. Sadly, it can be confusing and a lot to take in at the same time. Therefore I'm not sure arguing with professors here serves the goals of SoW at all. Let's wait what jmo thinks, I suggest.

@Split: I knew you will bring up EC opening, also Moscow->StP. And you are right. All I was saying, I can imagine situations after Spring, 1901, when it is strongly advised to bounce sweden. And yes, the EC opening alone doesn't change the decision not to bounce, but I think in that particular case, it's a wise choice for germany, as he can basically immidiately secure his survival to the end with a big possibility.

If the top gunboater on the site can't act as a visiting prof here, something is wrong. And bear in mind, Split's english is probably a lot better than your croation, but give him a break on "tone" issues. He means well.

I think it would be good if Split hopped on as a professor especially since a few of the others seemed to be acting as PT professors. That way, he can present his reading of the board in a Professor format.
So he gives his write-up, other professors do theirs.

I only bring it up as I do not Gunboat but am interested and I found the recent discussion to make my head spin compared to well organized professor presentations.

Split is a Croat? Oh, that explains a lot! :)

I'm fine with Split or Roka hopping in for commentary. This is a learning game - more is better.

I just don't want TAs commenting because it may influence other players

It's definitely hard to keep my mouth shut, but I'm trying :)

I'd really like all the professors and guest professors to make an effort to keep the focus on giving new players insight into the game. How to read the board and understand what the different moves mean. Talk about what could have been done differently or better, etc.

What I'm not alright with is professors bickering or focusing on one or two moves to the exclusion of the other moves. But as long as the students are getting in depth commentary I am perfectly fine with top gunboat players making some additional points when they feel it's needed.

@Split, consider yourself a guest professor. I appreciate you taking your time to help members better understand how gunboats work.

@professors, the main point of this game is teaching. All top gunboat players have slightly different strategies so they aren't going to always agree. My main concern is that if/when you top players start debating specific moves you make sure you go out of your way to explain so that us non-gunboat players can understand what you are talking about. If it appears that two professors just aren't going to agree then simply agree to disagree and maybe save the specific situation for a different more specific gunboat thread. Thanks for all the time you guys are putting into this.

@rokakoma consider yourself a guest professor as well.

Just a general idea...

A skill you need (and most do this, but not all) is predicting opponent moves. You can come up with the best strategy possible, but if your opponent predicts it, he can counter and either turn it on its ass or stall you.

Which is why there is no definitive best strategy. Certain things may or may not work out even if they were planned well due to that factor some like to call "luck".

"What I'm not alright with is professors bickering or focusing on one or two moves to the exclusion of the other moves." - Well this is the main mistake you can't afford in a gb game. Every situation on the board concerns all the players in the game.
The move to Piedmont is equaly important to France or to Russia,the move to Sweden is equaly important to Germany or to Turkey.
Every player in the game needs to take care when any move which can disturb the balance of the game occurs.When you learn to realize that immediatly and to act accordingly there will be no more complainings about how a specific country "screwed up" a game for all the remaining powers in the game.Or how a certain NMR or CD benefits one power and ruins the others...

I kept my mouth shut, but apparently it is ok to comment so i have to say that i agree with split about single moves on the other side of the game being a major concern in a gunboat.

On the move to Piedmont i wanted to say that when i am france and italy moves to piedmont, i mark him down as an enemy to be guarded against and if even remotly possible to be destroyed at the earliest convenience whatever he does, as long as i do not desperatly need him to survive the game or hold a stalemateline. Piedmont, as well as some other areas on the board, are especially important and/or sensitive to certain powers. Pushing those buttons can be a dangerous thing, especially with the limited ability to communicate.
I myself try to rather err on the side of caution and a player that has once shown a tendency to push my boundarys needs to be destroyed.

Questions for professors (re-railing thread):

1. England's move to Barents was undoubtedly aggressive against Russia, and might be considered risky given Germany's fleet in Holland, which is pointed at North Sea. How (if at all) should England take into account Germany's fleet build in Kiel as opposed to Berlin? How does this affect E/G/R's northern strategies?

2. France, though still troubled by the Italian army in Piedmont, appears to be in a position where he can choose which of his neighbors to ally with. What factors should he take into account when deciding which of G/E/I to engage? At this stage, should tactical ease or long-term, positional strategy dictate his choice?

3. For the gunboat newcomer, what, if anything, can be read into Italy supporting BUR-MAR, rather than simply holding?

4. Russia is forced to split his forces between northern and southern fronts, thus leaving him potentially outgunned in both theaters despite his two builds (the curse of being Russia). What factors should Russia consider when deciding which way to send the Moscow unit in the next few turns?

Nice thread by the way. Will try to follow more.

I think a discussion amongst the top ranked gunboat players about specific small details is exactly how new players can learn. Gunboat is about the details, and if this discussion can help point out that the smallest move can have a huge effect, it helps everyone.

Anyway, I'll speak generally on gunboat first twhich will maybe help clarify why the three best gunboat players on this site can all have different opinions about the same common moves.

Diplomacy is about variables. Every unit on the board has a finite number of options for valid orders. In a gunboat game, when players can't talk, we have diplomacy in a vacuum. The key is understand what moves the players around you will make, and determining how you can best influence them all while focusing on your own stategy for growth. Every player has a different set of experiences, and when the game starts there is a completely clean slate. So for the first year or two, the only variables we can rely on is statistics and experience about which openings are best. As soon as players make moves and results are seen, we can apply this knowledge to reduce the expected randomness in the next moves. All players have different strategy preferences, each have different "strengths" so to speak. Every player needs to read what is happening around them and make moves based on this. They must try and draw from experience, how rational players will respond to certain situations. Each player can use this knowledge.

In short, to bring it back to a Sweden bounce - maybe he thinks England will react a certain way, maybe he thinks Turkey will take this cue to hit Russia too. It's all about feel, truly.

I think again this relates back to what rokakoma said about this discussion. When really good gunboat players share what they think about certain situations, this is invaluable knowledge to apply to your in-game decisions.

I'll try to get to jmeyers' question later this evening.

In short about Sweden and Piedmont "issue" and I wont be debating this situation no more - I believe no power in the game can afford to make enemies right from the start.
The moves are pointless,giving you no kind of an advantage and only thing you do you create a potential war over nothing...
This also stands for all other "non-neutral" moves in year 1.
Wait and see where and when to strike,don't make yourself the first target to someone else.
@Lando - "he thinks England will do this and Turkey will do that" - the policy of your's doesn't work and you know it.I told you - it's nice to be creative and willing to invent some new things (alliances) but I think if you want to win a game you need to adjust yourself to the board.

Students (and anyone for that matter) if you want to learn more about gunboat games, and diplomacy tactics in general, I would highly highly recommend Rokakoma's website/quiz! Even though I've played a lot of gunboat games, I learned a lot from his site.

I'd like to add an addendum to jmeyers' question. Regarding the Barents Sea, do you think its wise for England to put an otherwise useful unit in such a dead end position? Is it potentially risky for England to move his fleet into a corner position like that?

England's both turns were simply wrong,especialy the move to Barents after it was clear Russia was going to have Sweden and having seen German fleet in Holland.Which was another wrong move,made by Germany. Denmark is much more important for Germany in spring '01 and if England had bounced him over Denmark Germany would have been in a completely different situation now...
I'm not sure England can make it up now,I predict him first out of the game,sorry E.