I think a lot of them are common sense, supporting a neighbor's unit to hold can be a sign of attempting to work together.

They get more complicated when people start using draw/pause (though I'm not sure you should really use pause, as the rules say it is not to be used as a diplomatic tool).

No....I have seen BIZARRE things....A holds B, so B supports A into a totally different country....there are clearly "opening moves" (think CHESS) that I am not aware of.

Got some examples from a game? I see Venice support Vienna to Trieste and Trieste support Venice to hold off the start pretty often.

Its much more than just "sign language," although superficially it would appear that way. Succeeding in gunboat has a lot to do with reading the ebb and flow of the game, realizing the balance of power, and being able to see the direction the game is taking. Supports and holds have a lot to do with it, to be sure. There are certain openings in gunboat that would create hostility in full press (for example, France supporting to Burgundy or Austria moving Trieste to Venice), but are (mostly) accepted as standard in gunboat.

That being said, I think a ten minute gunboat phase with live end-of-turn chat would be a helpful tool for the gunboat novice.

Sometimes Munich also supports paris to burgundy right off the bat.

@2ndWhite -- The ebb and flow....AND the sign language....

What I'm talking bout is getting smoke in a year and a half because of **uncanny** coordination by neighbors that know the "opening moves" of gunboat.

Note....and AM NOT making cheating accusations....I am saying Gunboat is a distinct style of play that I want to master....and mastery of a thing first means learngin the alphabet, and then the language.

Basics: Support Hols a neighbor = "Let's be pals"

WHAT OTHER phrases are there?

Did you get pantsed by a Key Lepanto?

It's hard to say without seeing the moves.

Krellin, send us some links to games with examples that you're speaking of :-)

I have to say, I've recently been trying to gunboat, and I completely agree with krellin. Most of my games are ongoing but I had to say it seems like I am living in a different game with a whole set of diplomacy just as complicated as press going on around me. I would love to be able to join this EOT gunboat game of you guys don't mind making it small potatoes. Maybe make it a public press game or even one of the webcam games?

And I have definately seen things that would normally mean war are almost matter of course in gunboat. Like bouncing Russia in sweden

Some "phrases" that come to mind:

Germany bounces Russia in Sweden = "England, let's be friends."
France builds a fleet in Brest F1901 = "England, let's fight."
France builds fleets in Brest AND Mar F1901 = "Italy, you're fucked."
Russia moving St Pete to Finland = "Germany, lets be friends."

The list goes on. These sign language moves, IMO, are most important in the first few turns, as they can really make or break you in the long run. Instead of getting bogged down in a prolonged stalemate over one or two centers while you get left behind by the other powers, knowing what to "say" in the early game helps tremendously; that is, if the other player knows what you're saying.

I think a 10 minute/phase game with novices+coaches and any fillers needed is better, with the coaches saying, "okay, here's what just happened best I can tell, here's how I know." Actually saying "Okay, I did this to say this." "Oh really? Whoa I misread that. Yeah, let's be friends buddy." "okay, cool!" will really defeat the purpose of this exercise.

Also, extremely detailed EOGs, and by detailed I mean writing down how you read the board and why you ordered what, would facilitate this process as well.

Lastly, go read my thread, threadID=855593. Barn3tt posted a link to his excellent EOG in there that really describes "ebb and flow" well.

2nsWhiteLine.....THAT is GunBoat gold. PUBLISH that opening rounds list and I'll pay you....!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=830969#830969

the referenced EOG

Click-able link to Barn3tt's EOG for the lazy:
threadID=830969

thanks, yebellz and good thread Krellin- I think you put it well. There is a unstated understanding of certain moves and their meaning/significance. I think that in any group setting that will develop. After listening to a number of the diplomacy casts I realized that ftfers (at least the two Seattle area guys commenting) had their own interpretations of moves/builds that I never would have guessed without hearing from them.

2WL's list is a good start. I would probably disagree with the double fleet build for France though. That is anti-E in my book.

yeah, double F France is definitely heading for France.

I just wrote out three and then realized that these are my playing advantage. I don't think I will list any specific situations, but I can say that the biggest tell of a move is trying to think in their shoes where you would want to be in 2 moves. So, England in the channel likely wants Brest by the fall. So they won't move to BRE, but will rather convoy to PIC to give themselves the best chance.

This might be basic, but hopefully can be a jumping point for some thoughts.

(BAHH!!!! CAN'T be a good thread, Barn3tt....ABGEMACHT says I have nothing useful to say and nobody listens to me. FUCK OFF!!!) ((Well...what he means is that his reading comprehesion is far surpassed by his ability to bullshit and spew the pyscho-babble his Pysch major girlfriend whispers in his ear....but that's for another discussion....)

@Lando....it's more than 'thinking ahead where they want to be in X number of moves". There predefined signals and cues....I've seen long-phase games progress *rapidly* because....the opening moves are in...the "players" hav read the sign language and know what to do. In a sense, it is a FAR worse game, because it is too pre-determined by "known moves" and has nothing to do with diplomacy (i.e. if you do this...I can do this,....and then we do this together....and 3 turns from now we will get this...)

I'm starting to believe that Gunboat has very, very little to do with "Diplomacy"....

Actually, I think the Chess analogy is a bit off. Perhaps a better comparison would be with playing Spades. There's a lot that is communicated with what cards are played or not played. I think a good gunboat game is a lot more dynamic though.

@Barn3tt: brilliant EOG write-up! I've only read a bit so far, but I can tell that I'll enjoy reading and digesting it over the next few days.

Here's a convenient unix/linux one-liner (using curl) for downloading a set of map images from a game:

curl http://www.webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=79015\&turn=[0-17]\&mapType=large -o turn#1.png

Notes: Replace the five digits after "gameID=" and update the second number in brackets (the "17" in "[0-17]") to reflect the number of half-year turns minus one, to download for a different game.

Does anyone know of a convenient way of adding a dynamically generated text string to a series of images (i.e., "Spring 1901", "Autumn 1901", ...)? I imagine that it would take a little more than just a one-liner. I'll see if I can find a convenient Perl package that might help.

@Barn3tt --- Ahhhh....that *is* a better analogy....and definitely insightful....

and yet....still is convincing me all the more so that I love Diplomacy for the idea of "Diplomacy"....convincing someone with my rhetoric to act against his own will, instead of playing a set of signals, which anyone could get from a book (if I could convince one of you to publish the book). Words are unique to the characters....i.e. what i SAY to YOU would be interpreted differently by Lando....

....but the theory I am working on is that BOTH of you interpret the same "gunboat words" (signals/moves/holds/ etc) by the same very limited language. Thus, it is a far more limited game in many respects. Much more "pure strategy" and much LESS "Diplomacy"....

@yebellz, I think there's a command in convert that'll add text to an image. I would hack something up right now, but I'm on Windows at the moment

I think it would be more bridge than spades, where the key is making sure that the conventions you use mesh with whatever the other person is using so you can understand eachother. There's also a lot more subtlety in bridge bidding than in spades i would say, with really good players at least. Once you get to the play of bridge and/or spades, things have already snapped down to more or less a single possibility tree, and are much less nuanced

To each his own, Krellin. Of course, full-press slow games are very different from ftf games also. I prefer gunboats, or live- full press and ftf myself.

Not experienced with bridge, AM, so I'd guess you'd know better than me.

Also, Krellin, I was in the game you were eliminated in. I don't think you can chalk that up to not knowing the tells. Or at least I would be surprised if you could.

There are no set codes. Honestly, R opening to GAL and going to RUM and working with AH is not unheard of.

SImply, it is a matter of gathering information every turn to give yourself the opportunity to make the best possible decision. Sometimes, you can use your moves to make the the future picture more clear.

I don't think you can really rely too much on every player reading a specific order (i.e. specific speculative support holds or support moves) in the exact same way. The communication through that channel cannot be too precise since there is not necessarily common agreement nor understanding on how to interpret such specific details of these "signaling" moves. Even still, one could lie or go against convention and the uncertainty of the other player's understanding and intent means that you cannot too greatly rely on that.

I think the "communication" that lies in gunboat is in the overall strategic positioning that the player's present to one another, and careful speculation about the rational behavior of other's given the current position. I think players should try to think about the overall impression that their set orders are sending and attempt to infer the intent of other players.

For example: Russia and Turkey bouncing in Black in S1901 does not necessarily mean hostilities, but merely caution, if neither followed up with moves to StP and Arm, respectively. If Turkey then sees Russia use the fleet to support Ukr-Rum in the fall, while also facing potential pressure from E and/or G, then Turkey could perhaps infer that Russia wants to work together or at least avoid trouble.

Well said.