And certainly we all must chuckle when advertising for a gunboat game it is required to specify you want gunboaters "with a brain."

@Maniac:

"Promises kept and promises broken" implies that there has to be corresponding action that allows a player to definitively say whether a second player has kept or broken their promise in the negotiations. Therefore, this action while not directly stated as part of the definition of diplomacy, can be considered as an implied definition.

This corresponding action, for the game in question, is fulfilled through (you guessed it) moving, supporting and convoying.

When advertising for a gunboat we allways want gunboaters "with a brain",of course. When advertising for a cllasic game we don't need cllasicians "with a brain" we need six " with no brain" who will be instructed by the seventh how they all should play to hand the solo to him as soon as possible.
There is nothing wrong with any variant,both variants are diplomacy,there are only good or a less good diplomacy players.The only difference is you need to think more in gunboats and to talk more crap to those who buy your crap in cllasic diplomacy.

All those players who complain about gunboats do that because they are poor strategists and because they don't want to play a game where you need to think more and where you are not depending to others exclusively but to yourself at the most.
So "gunboat is much more inferior to classic" is a pure nonsense,it's completely the up side down - clasic can play any retard,he just need to be instructed by any other player in the game but if you are retarded you can't win a gunboat.Means classic is much more inferior to gunboat.I play both gunboats and classic games so I'm talking about it based on what I've seen all in both versions.

It was always my impression that the whole point of Diplomacy was that because units are equal strength and the board is balanced, you have to rely on others. Without that element of reliance and cooperative tension it isn't the same game.

on a related note i declare white chocolate inferior to cocoa-based chocolate because it is not really chocolate and digital darkrooms are inferior to traditional darkrooms because they are not really darkrooms.

It is so true. And you can rely on others in both variants. It's just more hard work in gunboats and some people don't like hard work as they like chatting.

"It was always my impression that the whole point of Diplomacy was that because units are equal strength and the board is balanced, you have to rely on others. Without that element of reliance and cooperative tension it isn't the same game"
The words are English but placed in an order so as to make very little sense, I'm guessing this person does not play gunboat because if they did the words would be re-arranged but hey you don't have to know anything about the subject matter on this forum to make comments like you're an expert, as this thread proves.
Gunboat Diplomacy is a very subtle and clever strategy game, to play it badly takes minutes, to master it takes a lifetime.

Oh, it's already THAT time of the season?

IT'S-ANOTHER-WAY (=variant?)-OF-PLAYING-THE-SAME-BOARD-WITH-DIFFERENT CORE RULES,-SO WITH DIFFERENT-SKILLS-NEEDED.
Thus with different preferences.

@Split: yes, if you are a poor strategist you suck at GB while being able to do well in full press. On the other side, if you are good when it comes to strategy/tactics but poor in everything social-related, you do well at GB but suck at full press.

And the game, as it was originally thought (MadMarx quote), emphasized social aspects more than strategical ones.

@MadMarx: how can you compare two variants basing only on the description of one of them? Yes, it's the original, full stop.

Well said Hereward

@ Split

"The only difference is you need to think more in gunboats and to talk more crap to those who buy your crap in cllasic diplomacy"

I disagree. The thinking in gunboats is from a purely tactical perspective and there is limited chance for cooperation or to form far away alliances, complex alliance structures and the like. It simply isn't possible or feasible to coordinate such a thing limiting the potential variable outcomes in gunboat. In Classic, you have to factor the possibility of these being around and you have to know how to talk to people to get them to do what you want. Its not always as simple as just talking, you have to consider how to talk to them, and what makes them tick. All this requires thinking which simply doesn't happen in Gunboat.

"All those players who complain about gunboats do that because they are poor strategists"

I do not like gunboats. Yet, does that make me a poor strategist? If you recall just the other day, I beat you at a Gunboat game (Elite War third Try). So if I am a poor strategist, yet I beat you (a presumably not poor strategist) and 5 other people (also presumably not poor strategists), then we have reached a scenario where the worst player on the board won, and won soundly.

Following this train of thought we have "if you are retarded you can't win a gunboat"

Now, I assume by that you mean if you are retarded you cannot win gunboat assuming that the other players are not even more retarded then you. Considering my tactical philosophy in gunboat was simply to attack and overwhelm (with little thought given to who was allied to who, who would be in my best interest to attack etc.), which in most games would be considered a retarded tactic, managed to win, then your statement is right away wrong.

In fact, I have never seen a player who was not very skilled win a Classic Game when more skilled people were around, yet I've managed to win a Gunboat game when nearly everyone on the board had more gunboat experience then me. (and probably all of them had more exp. than me). Your statement then is not only false, but the opposite is true.

Halt - as I said you don't need to know anything about the subject to talk like an expert on it.
I'm guessing you're not a gunboater, if I'm right why pretend you understand, it just makes you sound like an idiot. Winning a single gunboat game doesn't make you an expert on the subject.....

You have a theory based on one gunboat played,congrats!

Crosspost,sorry Nigee.

Actually Marx you have it backwards. Gunboat is the purest form, it gives you the most opportunity to do all the things you mentioned - foster relationships, lie, deceive, beg. The press-variant is a bastardization of this game as it gives an additional tool. The press variant is much akin to using training wheels on a bike.Once you understand the game better, you'll be able to play gunboat. Until then, I feel sorry for you that you are stuck playing this poor, bastardized variant of this great game.

@Halt - if you had a clue about any variant of diplomacy games you would never as France take Munich in 1901 and then take London in 1902.So much about that great win of your's.

@Split and Nigee,

I do not claim to be an expert and if that post made it seem like so, I am stating right now that I am *not* nor was it my intent to *pretend* to be one.

I do not claim that my win was great, and as I've said in other forums, it was a completely luck based victory - not a planned one - so it was not, in my opinion, a great win. With that said, even if I played poorly and made poor choices, I still did win, which is why I believe gunboat is luck based and not as strategic as you make it out to be. (I've played several gunboat games now, about ten, and I am basing this statement on all of those).

What my previous post was demonstrating was that SD's OP was flawed based on that one game. Normally, I wouldn't use just one game to make a point, but his statements:

"if you are retarded you can't win a gunboat"
"All those players who complain about gunboats do that because they are poor strategists"

His statements have a finality to them that, seems to me,, to be akin to a scientific law, something that can *never* be wrong. My post therefore, was just to show that it was flawed based on that one game as an example.

Also, Split, don't take my post so personally. It was not meant to be an attack on you or your skill. I have immense respect for your playing ability. Rather, my post was just to demonstrate that some of your statements were flawed.

You can't win Classic Diplomacy if you aren't a good strategist either. How else do you have effective moves and circumvent a stalemate? So someone who is good at Classic Dip has to have the social and tactical skills. A gunboater just has to have the tactical.

Yeah, but a gunboater never negotiates like a diplomat

So, just because the guy's name is MadMarx, everyone feels like its ok to feed the troll? I mean, it's obvious that gunboat isn't diplomacy. It's a dumbed down version small minded introverts. It's like saying checkers is the same as chess. Sure they use the same board but ones for grown ups and one isn't.

@dipplayer: yes and no. Of course you have to know how to play to win a full press game. That's why I used the world emphasize - you need much less strategic skills in a fp - or, so to say, you don't have to be "that good" if you diplomatic skills can compensate for it.

Don't assume that all people that play full press games have great social skills. One reason that turns me off full press games is the whining and moaning that goes on if someone loses an SC, they also come up with idiotic strategy and logic that far from preventing a 3rd party solo almost guarantees it. Then in the EOG they say things like "because you lied to me I threw the game" or "because you took Denmark in 2003 I thought I'd stab you back in 2014" .......... I don't think non-gunboaters have great social skills, maybe when they are winning yes but some of the press is truly pathetic, especially when people are losing.

Nigee, that reads like just about every one of Lando's GB EOGs ; )

Umm what?

ha ha ha..... the truth is out :-)


Maybe that's why he prefers GB

"Boohoo I was Austria and Italy attacked me. I didn't win but at least I made that bastard pay because what sort of idiot gunboat player attacks Austria as Italy?"
I believe that's word for word.

Fine, I'll say it. Diplomacy is a dumbed down variant of Poker.

Well thats not word for word, and I agree that is sometimes my sentiment after a GB game but tis kind of indulting for you to suggest that i lose every game.

" clasic can play any retard,he just need to be instructed by any other player in the game but if you are retarded you can't win a gunboat.Means classic is much more inferior to gunboat.I play both gunboats and classic games so I'm talking about it based on what I've seen all in both versions."

Well I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but that post convinced me.

Anyone arguing that classic games don't require tactics is just naive. However, tactics are only one part of the game. The rest is the press, manipulation, getting people to make moves that don't make sense tactically for them to give yourself an advantage. If the game was meant to be played without press then the rules wouldn't give you time to talk and discuss every turn.

I have played 5 gunboat games, I won 4 of them and drew 1. I won't say they aren't fun, because they are, but all they are is tactics, and signaling your intentions to other people/reading other people's intentions.

I don't understand how anyone can argue that classic games are less work then a gunboat. The press in this game between myself and other players was 62, 347 words long. Please...explain to me how gunboat games are more involved then that. (gameID=73022). Just because you are bad at WTA press games, (1 draw, 1 survive, 3 defeats) doesn't take away from their merit.

jmo, you have not earned the right to insult anyone's playing ability. until you have joined and played games against proven comeptition your ghostrating means shit. you play in low bet PPSC games, with elss than 24 hour turns against player with less than 5 games under their belts. this is no way has given you the right to say anything about anyone's ability. i have never played you,s o i will not say you are a bad player - i have no idea. however, the impression you give off by the type of games you play is that you are a ratings-whore with no real ability.

you further show your ignorance by saying "they are is tactics, and signaling your intentions to other people/reading other people's intentions. " which is simply not true.

To argue that every phase of every turn you are not "diploming" with every other player on the board is a complete and utter lie, and only a player who understands neither the press nor the gunboat game can make this claim.