As a matter of fact, I find gunboats more challenging because all information is open to everyone. To work together effectively in a gunboat requires subtle communication by moves rather than words. Of course your enemy is watching as well, which makes it more fun to deceive him.

Diplomacy, as I learned it, was a board game where seven people got together at one of their houses, and played over one LONG night. You set five minute time limit for builds/disbands and retreats; fifteen or twenty minute time limits for spring and autumn term orders. All orders were written. Everybody got wasted. That was the deal.

So, anonymous and gunboats are unnatural, diplomacy-wise.

How can I improve my Russia game?

For starters, use another opening some time.

@Ivo_ivanov

+1

@Hamish
Gunboats are just like playing chess with dice.

@Baskineli: the standard way to give someone a point is just to write their name and put the number next to it, like this:
Hamish +1

Gunboats are NOT like playing chess with dice, unless you don't know what you are doing of course.

Basinelli -1

Just because *you* can't read your potential allies and opponents indicators in their moves, doesn't mean there isn't very subtel diplomacy going on.

I'm not saying that I'm a great Russia or anything, but I can tell you what Russia's opening say to me about Russian strategy for the game, at least as he is originally thinking.

Northern opening (Moscow-St. Pete): Russia wants a nice, log, drawn out war between Austria, Turkey, and Italy, and will work with whoever emerges triumphant if it's a quick knockout blow, or try and drag things out if things are even. Russia's main aim is to knock England back into insignificance, or knock them out entirely, and is thus praying for a nice, bitter Franco-German war. Then, working on down, Russia can either pummel Germany or start really intervening in the south. I don't think Russia in this circumstance gives a fuck if either France or Italy emerge strong, so long as France isn't strong enough navally to force the North Sea.

Southern Strategy (Mos-Sev or Mos-Ukr): Russia's hoping England is either the target of an F/G, or is working on an E/G, although the former is better for Russia, as Scandinavia will wind up English as a result of an E/G. Russia's aiming at a quick knockout of either Turkey or Austria. Italy is Russia's best friend in this game, and a Russia that sides against Italy is setting himself up in the midgame, by my way of thought. Assuming a quick knockout of either Austria or Turkey at the hands of a three way alliance, Russia will then stab the other one, and hope Italy moves at the same time. If Italy moves against France right off the bat, though, the Southern strategy takes forever, and Russia will have problems coping with the E/G part of the E/G/I.

Central Strategy (A Mos-Liv, A Mos-War): Russia is hoping for an E/F. Desparately. Because if they don't get it, Germany, England, and a southern power are going to eat Russia for lunch.

@Draugnar
I played a few gunboats here already, and I do get what other players indicate. I just think it is a lesser version of Diplomacy, one where no words are being exchanged and ideas are not being planted.

You aren't the only one, Baskineli.

i'm on board the 'meh' train. Not a gunboat fan.

however that doesn't mean we should clog up a potential discussion of what Hamish is lacking from his gunboat (Russia) gameplay.

I am not a big expert on Russia - meanwhile I did very poorly playing Russia. It always feels like it is too big and I only have 2 units on each side of the map.

@Bob
How's this central strategy work? mos-lvn AND mos-war at the same time?

Yes. For the central strategy to work properly, you need to start with two armies in Russia.

in Moscow*

No. I outlined the strategies by where the Moscow army went. Thus, to me, either Livonia or Warsaw indicates a central strategy.

Fact #1
All powers are not created equal in the game of diplomacy, tactically speaking.
This of course can be balanced out by good diplomacy, deal making, and negotiations.
Fact #2
Gunboat makes negotiation and deal making a difficult ( but perhaps not impossible ) process.

conclusion
Playing a country that requires much diplomacy ( like Russia and Italy Austria ) is going to be harder that playing one that doesn't ( ones that can "hole up" ) like England France and turkey. These countries the communication is easier because they have really only 1 person to communicate the single message of "let's be friends" easier.

In gunboat, the coutries that are the "natural tactical targets of others" would be Russia, Germany and Austria. Italy is rarely anyones target of choice but then again it's hard for italy to do any coordination of merit due to the fact that in order to communicate with italy's potential friends means jumping over their potential enemies.
And France is not really a good friend OR enemy.

As for Russia, my theory is that it's only good partners turkey, and due to the black sea affair it's hard to send the message to turkey that you want to be friends without letting one or the other into the black sea.

Conclusion of conclusion:
Stop playing gunboat. It's a variant that computers can actually beat humans on occasion. What does that tell you?

Wow.... never expected so much resistance to gunboats. :-)
I'm very interested in the conclusion that Russia, Italy and Austria are more difficult to play, and that this is made visible in gunboat games. Are there statistics anywhere on this site? Can we see if Russia, Italy and Austria perform significantly worse in gunboats than they do in normal games?

"Are there statistics anywhere on this site? Can we see if Russia, Italy and Austria perform significantly worse in gunboats than they do in normal games?"

Every now and then someone trudges through the sites history to compile these, and TheGhostmaker has got access to the database so he can probably automate the process. I'm also interested in seeing if Gunboat really does favour countries who traditionally require less diplomacy. We should go bother Ghost about it.

Um, Ghost is just starting into Uni. Why don't we let him get at least a couple months under his belt first.