"Thus, Diplomacy is a war game....unless you have an old school version with square cubes of wood and rectangular blocks of wood to differentiate army and navy..."

Ok, that's funny. I do in fact use the old school one with square cubes of wood and rectangular blocks of wood. Well played.

@Dys....sorry, the mechanics of Gunboat are 100% the same as rgular Diplomacy. The game is also fraught with communication, which is why some people suck at it...they don't know the "language" of gunboat. Thus, it is the same game.

@Dys - Gunboat has plenty of communication. Communication come sin many forms and verbal/written (F2F or postal/email/web) is just one means of communicating. A good gunboater knows this and knows how to communicate as well as read communication. Unfortunately, in most games here you have one or two genuinely good gunboaters and a bunch of fucktards who can't read the moves to understand the messages.

Damn, krellin, you beat me to it.

Ahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha hah a!! Dys has played **2**...count 'em ******TWO****** games and is telling me the tactics are simple in the extreme! Well good, then, my boy! I expect to see an *very* high win ratio! You see, if everyone is playing by the same tactics and rules, they are less simple. I've played a multitude of war games over the years - Squad Leader, the Russian Campaign, Submarine, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, Star Ship Troopers (a little sci fi...), King Maker, The Plot to Assassinate Hitler, Risk, Axis and Allies, etc etc etc...I fail to see any great deal of complexity in tactics in most of these games. The rules may be complex in some (line of sight, varied unit strength/movement/etc) but from a tactical point? Nahhhhhh....not complex.

@krellin - Look for a game called TacOPs. It's a PC game that plays like a boardgame but is one of the best tactical and strategic combat simulators I have seen. It also has one hell of an AI. The graphics aren't great (Angru birds has better) but the game play is fantastic.

Here it is.

http://www.gameswin.biz/gameen.php?id=1235

@Draug - Thanks. Always looking fora good combat sim. Big fan of turn-based. Dont' care about graphics if the AI is good.

Used to have a game called "The Perfect General" which was pretty fun, except I figured out pretty quick you just load up on arty and the AI didn't know howto stop you...but it was fun.

I think the PC and Console game world have really lost something, because strategy games have fallen to the wayside (and no, RTS is not the same and does not count. I like 'em...but they are not the same)

Metric fuck ton?

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2833jb/:1dOtq+fQv:cQQ4vrqW/www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=1708/

Draug - Of course. And I think that's an entirely reasonable argument. And I'm not saying gunboat isn't a good game. I like gunboat games. I used to play tons of it years ago, and I still play it sometimes. I just don't think it's the SAME game.

Most of what we're arguing about is really the definitions of terms, and that won't get us anywhere. My point, if I have one, is this.

There is obviously still some level of communication in gunboat. (Whether it has "plenty" is another matter.) But as you point out, you have to learn to speak that language before you can play it. And it's heavily influenced by the interface you're playing on. You don't see many convoys of London to Moscow or Rome to Switzerland around here, but it used to be a fundamental part of the language of gunboat in other formats.

But regardless of all that stuff, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that there isn't LESS communication in gunboat, and that what communication there is isn't quite different. So if you're defining the essence of Diplomacy as going around and talking to the other 6 players - which I do - then gunboat is a very different game.

The mechanics are, in my opinion, pretty much irrelevant. The mechanics aren't what make it Diplomacy. The negotiation is. Anyway, that's what I mean when I say gunboat isn't Diplomacy. It's not a criticism. It's like saying Bridge is not Hearts. Although they probably have some similarities they are clearly different games. Gunboat and regular Diplomacy obviously share some characteristics, but in my opinion they are not particularly similar.

Krel - I'm this guy:

http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/results/player_fiche5.php?id_player=588

I jumped on here because a couple friend that I play with in the real world play here. Just because someone doesn't play on one random online Diplomacy site doesn't mean they haven't played 1000 games.

Jesus dude - You're like those guys on online forums who get worked up over post counts.

"The mechanics are, in my opinion, pretty much irrelevant." Well, since whatever communication you have - verbal or smoke signal - is all regarding the mechanics of the game, I'd say the mechanics are central to the game.

Just curious, Dys - what do you do for a living or what is your major? I have a suspicion...you are not a technical guy, are you? Whereas Draug and I are both Engineers/Computer Science guys - who therefore live in a world formulated first by rules and a structured environemnt.

"You don't see many convoys of London to Moscow or Rome to Switzerland around here, but it used to be a fundamental part of the language of gunboat in other formats."

I agree 100% and that is why I don't play gunboat here. It's like playing a MMORPG with a PS2 gamepad and no keyboard.

@ Dys Claimer:

Word of advice - don't waste time with Krellin. The guy is just a dick. Mute him, it makes life easier.

But I would argue gunboat *is* Diplomacy. It just isn't "Classic" Diplomacy. Same board, same pieces, smae rules, therefore the same game. Otherwise you could argue what we play here isn't Diplomacy because we have added the element of points and allow people to diplome during retreats and builds/disbands. Variants on a game are still the game, they are just variants. So gunboat is Diplomacy, just Diplomacy with less/different methods of diploming, just as World IX is Diplomacy, just Diplomacy with a different map and more players.

I'm a lawyer. I have to abide by rules, but you win and lose by talking to people.

I have noticed a couple big groups of people who play dip though. You've got computer/math/science people and you've got sales/customer service/political people. Obviously there are others, but at events I've been two there's always tons of those two groups. And you can often tell which are which without asking. I don't find that either is any better than the other, but they often have different styles.

Hang on..

"sales/customer service/political people"

How is that one group?

Draug - Agree. Like I said, we're really just arguing about the definitions of words. Can't really be right or wrong.

jamie - I'm certainly generalizing. But I do find that the salesmen and the lawyers, and the political wonks have a different style than the computer/math/science people. Not always of course. But the later group are often better tactically, are often better allies, and are often less aggressive. The former group is often better at persuading people to be on their side, tend to switch alliances more frequently, and often play more of a balance of power game.

It's kind of a dumb generalization, and there are tons of exceptions, but it seems true more often than not. Honestly it's not even really my observation. It's something others pointed out to me first, but it seems true from my experience as well.

@Draug -- I think by Dys' argument, Webdip is not Diplomacy either. Tone of voice is lost, facial expressions, etc. So - this is not Diplomacy.

@Dys -- Lawyer...huh...you guys dont' live by the rules...you live to SKIRT the rules to win the case...but you definitely do NOT come from the same mindset of an Engineer!

@Dys -- In reference to Jamie -- am I offending you? Is there something wrong with our dialogue? See...Jamie is mad because on day I used his own words against him like 5 times in a row...his own words from the same thread, mind you...and suddenly I was a dick and he muted me! lol

Krellin, you are suck a dick. :-)

LOL! Can't pass up the opportunity to use that WebDip meme.

@Jamie - I think he groups them together as the persuasive personality who may not be tactically and strategically as good as the technical group just as the technical group members may not be as persuasive as the emotive group. Notice I said "may not be". There are plenty who are skilled in both aspects of the game.

@Dys - Yes, to me the game is defined by the the rulebook. If we are going to declare that one variation from the rulebook means it is no longer said game, then any variation means it is no longer that game. But the spirit of the game is about cooperation and deceit and purely a game of skill (no dice or other random factors) that applies in all the current variants we play here, from various press types to different maps. To me, the only time it ceases to be diplomacy is when the core game mechanics change which, in the case of Diplomacy, means random factors come into play.

You are a lawyer, so think about this from the "defending the IP" point of view. Would someone be allowed to copy the map and all the rules except say there is no communication and call it "Anti-Diplomacy" or would they be sued into oblivion? I suspect the later and therefore gunboat is Diplomacy. Not my preferred form (I suck at it under the current constraints of all orders having to be legit, but it is still Diplomacy.

Clarification, I meant the game is definied by the rulebook in the rules stated intent (the summary as it were), but if one wishes to enforce an aspect of the rules outside of the descriptive intent, then one is taking a styrict "letter of the law" interpretation to the rules to define the game and therefore *any* variaiton means it is no longer that game. The *intent* of the "law" (the game) is to play a game if alliances and treachery that has no random chance involved. That intent exists in all forms on this site, but a few variants on VDip lose that intent by adding random factors like the hurricanes in the "Pirates!" variant.

Every year any armies in Russia must lose troops to the Russian Winter, and the Barents Sea must freeze over.

And if there is an army in Serbia for two years or more, it splits into Serbia and Kosovo, neither yielding supply centers.