Conquer Club

Gunboat diplomacy is a methodology by which you declare your intentions by your actions.

The boardgame Diplomacy even has a variant called "Gunboat" because you don't have a "talking" diplomacy phase, you just move, and let your actions speak for what you'd say if you were "chatting" about an alliance.

It often consists of doing little things, and is just as often characterized by what you *dont'* do as much as what you do:

(example1: I have Peru, Brazil, Argentina. I take Venezuala, but leave Central America alone even though it has only 1 army, because the owner of C.A. is fighting with another player in upper North America and maybe if I leave him alone he'll leave me alone)

(example2: I have been fighting for Africa while Player2 has been fighting for S.A. I "fail" to attack Brazil when it is momentarily under-defended, and continue my crusade to unite Africa -- and after he gets all of S.A, I continue to "fail" to fortify North Africa except for enough to protect against lesser built up areas in Western and Southern Europe. To me, this is saying "no need for us to squabble and waste one another's resources, we can share for the time being".)

Moving to block (and protect) another player is yet another example. To my mind, this is not entirely selfish on my part, and so I'm thinking he should do me the courtesy of not attacking through my block. It's a real bummer to move to protect someone from being eliminated and having them turn and attack you, I tell you.

And yet for any of this I don't want to POINT IT OUT in game chat because maybe other people don't have a clue either and I don't want to telegraph my/our intentions.

*********************
My questions for you are this:

How much gunboat diplomacy do you employ in your CC games?

Is there a level of play at which more players seem to "get it"? Because in my first 20 games, I'd say that most of the people I've played so far don't have a clue, though a couple of the higher ranked folks I've played so far apparently had at least the concept.

Is this not a concept or "style of play" used on CC much? Am I fooling myself thinking I can communicate in this manner with this group of players? I've notice that there are fairly limited styles of play here so far, including a distinct tendency for players to "turtle" rather than all cooperate to keep overall numbers of armies down by systematically whittling people. (I know *why* there is a tendency for this, but there are reasons for the other style too (more about this in another topic later)).

Just curious,

Yvgni

I do that if I'm at least fairly sure the other player will get it, if I'm not or if I notice that they aren't getting it I usually point it out in the chat.

Yeah, I do this a lot. And if the other guy doesn't get it, I usually say something in chat.

But you have to watch for the fake gunboats, of course, so it may not be that the other guy isn't "getting it", he may just not trust you...

I actually play in Admiral competition in Gunboat DIplomacy, so I know both games well

There is a significant difference between Risk and GD. Diplomacy has an option for a draw and very stable front-lines. In Risk, there is no draw and any frontline can be broken. If you leave just 1 depending your bonus, I will always break it, unless a third player dominates the game badly and I need you to have this bonus...

In a risk you have to think what happens with large stacks. If you move large stack close to a player, you signal your intention to attack and vice versa. Besides, if you stand 20 v 20 on a border, you'd better attack as you are expected to have 3 armies left after you attack...

I prefer it to spoken diplomacy. Although, I have been accused of a secret alliance by players who don't understand some of the intricacies of the game.

Yvgni wrote:How much gunboat diplomacy do you employ in your CC games?

Quite a lot, it's the only sort of diplomacy I use here.

Yvgni wrote:Is there a level of play at which more players seem to "get it"?

I wouldn't say there is a specific "level" but I do agree that a lot of the people here does seem to be completely oblivious to it.

It all sounds like simple logic to me, and yes, I "employ" it you could say in a decent amount of games.

Basically every single move comes down to "will this move benefit me in the long run." If you break someone else, not only are you diverting attention to yourself, but you're wasting armies. And the number one thing that low ranks in on this site don't realize is that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to be the one to step up and stop someone else.

For example I recently had a World 2.1 game where I was starting to secure Europe rather quickly. Another player, teal, who was focusing on South America, decided to use his deployments to deploy on Moskva and break me. He said his reasoning is because he didn't want me to take Europe so early in the game.

It was an 8-player sequential game. It should be self-explanatory why that's *such* a poor move on his part. It's the main reason I hate playing with lower ranked players, who more than on average, although not always, just don't get the gist of the game, no matter if it's No cards/Flat Rate/Escalating. Another thing that makes me laugh are people that will go and take out someone with 45 armies in a flat rate game so that they can get like 3 cards... it's hilarious...

I'm happy to say that it tends to work in most games I play. I'm currently in a World 2.1 game where I've been holding NA and another player has SA. We both had some pretty big stacks on the Columbia/Panama border.

However, another player started growing pretty strong in Asia/Europe and I was the only guy on the board strong enough to keep him at bay. However, the resulting battles were a bit costly and I had no choice but to start taking guys off the Panama border. It was my hope that the player in SA (who sort of had his hands full elsewhere with another player anyways would not take the opportunity to hit me even though he outnumbered me down there pretty drastically. That he's have the sense to realize that I was the only guy who could keep this other player from taking over the board.

On the other hand, I didn't want to say as much in chat. You know, the whole chicken little thing. He took the hint and pulled some guys off the border himself.

In general, I'm finding that I need to announce minor truces or agreements less and less. Even when I do, it can be as little as saying, "Are we going to keep at it like this?" and whatever little pissing match I've been having with an opponent ends.

I've been in an abundance of games where many players are totally clueless of the big picture until it is pointed out to them. It's definitely better when people "understand" the situation and it doesn't require an announcement in the game chat.

I'm curious though... why have you labeled this phenomenon "gunboat diplomacy?"

oVo wrote:I'm curious though... why have you labeled this phenomenon "gunboat diplomacy?"

because that is what it is called:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy
come on now, i live in texas now, and i know you
guys have history class in school!!-0

Now, to you higher ranked players, does this count as an informal alliance? Would you hold it against someone who comes through you at your smaller border at a time the player feels he is in a better position? I'm just wondering if this would be considered breaking an alliance, even though nothing was announced, as you say it would look fairly obvious.

deathcomesrippin wrote:Now, to you higher ranked players, does this count as an informal alliance? Would you hold it against someone who comes through you at your smaller border at a time the player feels he is in a better position? I'm just wondering if this would be considered breaking an alliance, even though nothing was announced, as you say it would look fairly obvious.

If it's not announced, it's not an alliance, and you wouldn't be "Breaking" anything. However, it would generally be a bad idea to do, as the reason that player would leave the border easy to break, is because someone else was getting far too strong. If you attack one of the weaker players in that situation, you'll just be giving the strong player an easier win.