"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."
Classic is a very unbalanced board, but at the end of the day, any good diplomat can forge the right alliances to lessen the effects of balance.
@Halt: First, I'm going to point out that your Gunboat Ghost Rating is 95, meaning you're no expert on how to play gunboats. playing on 3 classic gunboats on this site, and not many more on others I am hardly expert on gunboats? However in those 3 games I have had 2 solos and a survive (and I will admit that my survive had me do one of the mistakes I will explain below).
Regarding that win, I think
gameID=115030 is more of an example of how not to play as Germany or Austria. Turkey provides minor examples of a poor midgame strategy (1904-1907 in this case) and Italy provides excellent examples of how not to play the late game.
In the opening years England signaled multiple times for an alliance and thought you had accepted it. Split should have realized that you were going to have to disband a unit if you didn't take London, but he took the risk, he assumed you wanted an alliance.
Germany made quite a few really poor moves:
1. Not covering Munich against a clearly hostile France
2. An insistence of supporting Russia in Scandinavia, when his fleet would be better suited to defend his border.
3. Very poor move choices regarding defending his border against fairly predictable moves. Examples:
Spring 1903: Belgium was indefensible, he should have abandoned the supply center to prevent a forced disband. He could have dislodged you either in Ruhr or in Burgundy, which would have provided better defenses in the long run.
England was an ally in war, he could have signaled for an alliance by not taking the wide open Denmark. Taking Denmark wouldn't give him a build because it caused him to lack the units to defend Holland.
Spring 1904: He support held Kiel which only had 1 enemy unit bordering it. He double support held Munich which only had 2 enemy units bordering it. He wasted two orders for nothing there. When your losing a war, every unit counts and wasting moves will cost you the game, especially in a fairly predictable turn. Its the Spring so most good players will position units rather then waste a move by trying to supply centers. Don't hold units, bounce predicted movements.
Spring 1905: When facing absolute enemy unit superiority, cutting supports is more effective then support holds. Guess where the enemy is going to move from, and cut supports accordingly. If you support hold your sealing your own fate, it prevents any possible expansion and it means whoever has the most numbers will win. I once as Turkey had 2 units and 2 supply centers, defending against Russia who had 4 units in Turkey and the seas bordering it. I lasted 3 years merely by cutting the right supports from Russian units. I got a survive with 1 unit left and Russia solo'd.
Those mistakes sealed German's defeat.
Austria also made many mistakes:
Autumn 1902: Moved to both Rumania and Bulgaria. Turkey had 3 units bordering Bulgaria and Russia had an army inside Rumania. There was no way he could take both without poor orders from both Russia and Turkey. Your much better off trying for one then trying for both.
Spring 1903: Trieste doesn't need 3 supports when only 3 units border it. As I said earlier, when your losing a war don't waste units with unnecessary supports. Try to predict enemy movements and if possible go on the offensive.
Autumn 1905: Italy just signaled an alliance and made a move against the biggest solo threat (France). Italy's movements in Spring 1905 where by far the best moves anyone made all game (however granted Italy's initiative was probably less from recognizing the French threat and more of the lack of progress in a war with Austria). Austria, rather then following Italy's example continues to support hold Trieste even though nobody was planning on taking it.
Autumn 1906: I have 3 problems with these orders:
a) why the double bounce in Albania. If your moving to all possible places surrounding Albania, moving to Albania is useless because your going to bounce it.
B) Why the trainwreck movement (I call it a train when you move move army in territory a to territory b, army in territory b to territory c, army in territory c to territory d etc. Its a trainwreck when the last unit is bounced, bouncing all other units in the train).
C) Turkey signalled an alliance to you against Italy last turn. Why start a war against him when France is a solo threat and you might want to move those units against him instead. France is going to have 11 or 12 scs by the end of the year, and 13 or 14 scs by the end of 1907.
From 1906 to 1908, Austria goes all out war on Turkey, France has 13 scs at this point (1907) and will have 15 or 16 scs by the end of the year (1908). Don't send all your units South when your biggest enemy is in the north. I'll talk about 1909 later.
Midgame Turkey mistakes:
Autumn 1904 builds: Your making gains against Russia and Austria is too focused on Italy to defend against you. Don't build 2 fleets to start a war against Italy, who is too far to realize any short term gains.
1906-1908: Stop fighting Austria. Let him Greece and start support holding his units. Your fighting a war on 2 fronts and don't have the units to fight both Italy and Austria and by attempting to your prevent both Italy and Austria from fighting France who is a solo threat.
The final years are played poorly every player other then France and Russia (who at this point is an OPM (one province minor) so doesn't really matter):
England continues to try for Moscow, rather then try to stop the French from expanding in Scandinavia.
Austria and Turkey continue to fight, preventing Austria from sending anything more then 3 units to fight off France.
Austria grabs Venice rather then trying to work with Italy against France. This is a WTA who gives a shit about how many scs you have at the end, at this point your only chance of a draw/solo is fighting France.
Italy in 1908 continues to fight Turkey rather then trying to stop the French. Disloding Turkey on Ionian cost him the sc Naples.
Had Italy, rather then being insistent on taking revenge on Turkey, started supporting Turkey in and around the west med, they might have been able to make a stalemate line and stopped French expansion in the med.
These final years of play are typical in gunboat games by noobs and incredibly frustrating. When there is a clear solo threat, I stop attacking anyone other then that threat, and am annoyed when nobody else takes the iniatitive and continues to attack me for 1 or 2 measly supply centers additional supply centers for their country at games end. Its fucking WTA (or at least should be), who gives a shit if you end at 5 scs at 7, your betting off drawing with 5 then surviving with 7.
In conclusion poor play by Germany, Austria and Turkey in the mid game, and buy England, Austria and Italy in the late game gave you a win. I'm not saying you didn't deserve it, you were as aggressive as possible in the early game, which is generally how gunboats should be played, and you continued to expand at everyone opportunity after that. Had there been better communication between your opponents you wouldn't have won, but you still played well.
Had Gauk been Germany and Italy rather then Russia, I don't think you would have won. However I don't call your win luck, you won because your opponents played worse then you did, which isn't luck.
@Split: JMO is right, full press doesn't require less tactics, it just requires different kind of tactics. And charisma in itself is a type of intelligence. I don't think Classic requires less intelligence then gunboats, just requires a different style of play.
BitCoin
)
)
)
)
)