It's not gunboat, just anonymous.

Here it is: http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=146741

Hopefully someone will enter to balance this game...

Or not. You could alternatively learn to play against opposition. Or you could surrender.

chelodegli:

It sucks when this happens, and you are on the losing end of it. However, you will find that it's a curse generally only suffered by lower ranked players, and it's actually going to work out in your advantage in the long run. Look at it this way, the more players across games that are incompetent and likely to abandon, the more likely it is that you will be able to take advantage of this and solo more often.

For the unfortunate times when you are not able to take advantage due to distance, it is your responsibility to identify the threat early and rally the other players into a draw/cancel alliance.

People who win these types of games need to have their points, ranking, and all other "goodies" vacated.

Haha why? If you sign up for a game with shitty players, and you yourself are not a shitty player, are you not entitled to a shot at the win? Is tendency to CD some bar below which a player is considered "too shitty for a game to count?" I would say no. I would say from experience that the more skillful a player becomes, the higher ranked games he can participate in, and the less likely this type of thing is to happen.

What is the point? These games are big time investments, and the point (for me anyway) is entertainment, not to see my name next to a ranking or points. To play a game that is boring as all hell just to grub some points or increase your ranking, thus wasting everybody's time who wants to end the thing but you won't since you *feel entitled to win* to me is the height of childishness and poor sportsmanship.

And if we're honest, there isn't a whole lot of difference between experienced players of any "ranking". I've played games with SplitDiplomat, and Barn3tt, and the Czech, and while they play the game just fine, it's not like there is a noticeable difference between them and any other player who has played a lot.

People pretend like this is chess or something. It isn't.

Sir Putin: I would take your opinion more seriously if you didn't loose fully 34% of your games, *including* gunboat.

You couldn't win a game, honest or rigged.

Cheating is the new win!

I stand before you all a proud, filthy cheater. Lavish me with your hate, entertain me with your impotent rages.

I take delight in every contest I win, most *especially* the dishonest ones. There is no sweeter music than the feeble accusations of those unable to stop me from winning a rigged game.

Considering you're one of the chief culprits of milking terrible games just to grub points, I wouldn't expect your opinion on this matter to be anything but pro-cheap wins.

There you go folks. You can all be like Al. What a role model.

I think that's reasonable, Putin, though I definitely disagree that the really high-caliber players are not noticeably better than just regular experienced "good" players. I definitely can tell the difference, because the excellent ones make your head spin while making you love them and dependent on them. The good ones are just like me - eager to take advantage of opportunities, but not always able to manipulate the board.

Anyways, I agree there might be too much focus on rating, and not enough on just playing the game.