Gunboat Strategy for England

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I've been looking over the records of several gunboat games in the last
few days and I think I've seen a pattern...

England attacks either Russia or France early. Germany remains more or
less neutral, with no long-lasting cooperation with either England or
England's enemy.

If Russia is the 'victim', England makes early gains but can't hold them
for long. That leaves England scrambling to to hold even Norway and its
home supply centers.

If France is the 'victim', intimal gains are limited to Brest or
nothing, and then France reclaims territory and gets London and/or
Liverpool.

The northern attack against Russia seems fundamentally unsound to me.
The attack against France may be okay, but without sustained German
cooperation (hard to achieve in Gunboat), I have my doubts.

I'm guessing that the best aggressive early plan for Gunboat England is
to contest open SCs with Germany, going after Belgium and soon
thereafter Denmark and Holland. Of course, grab Norway in 1901, but
don't be afraid to give it up later for a chance at Denmark and Kiel.
Even Munich may be possible if France is busy winning or losing against
Italy.

I'm not a particularly experienced player; do my thoughts make sense?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Dvd Avins wrote:
> I've been looking over the records of several gunboat games in the
> last few days and I think I've seen a pattern...

If you'd care to do further research, http://tinyurl.com/4qkbm provides
links to 152 Standard Gunboat (NoPress) Judge games where England
Soloed.

> England attacks either Russia or France early.

This is strategically sound. For England to Solo, he needs the western
half of the board, plus a Russian or Italian Center.

> If Russia is the 'victim', England makes early gains but can't hold
> them for long.

I'm not sure why you've reached this conclusion, unless England has
tried for Moscow/Warsaw soon after securing StP in the games you
have looked at. If England takes StP and Swe, then he has Germany
outflanked, and in serious trouble.

> The northern attack against Russia seems fundamentally unsound to me.

It is, most certainly, NOT unsound.
http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Zine/S2003M/Shoham/StPetersburg.html

> If France is the 'victim', initial gains are limited to Brest or
> nothing, and then France reclaims territory and gets London
> and/or Liverpool.

Attacking France alone is dangerous, at best. If you're going to
do it, Lon-Eng, Eng-MAO in 1901 is probably the best approach.

> I'm guessing that the best aggressive early plan for Gunboat England
> is to contest open SCs with Germany, going after Belgium and soon
> thereafter Denmark and Holland. Of course, grab Norway in 1901,
> but don't be afraid to give it up later for a chance at Denmark and
Kiel.

If England gives Nwy to Russia, it won't be long before Russia begins
building Fleets in StP. Then England has real problems.

> I'm not a particularly experienced player; do my thoughts make sense?

Well, if you are going to play aggressively, your aggression should
have a purpose, and that purpose should probably be to achieve a
secure position with the opportunity to Solo. Attacking Germany
does not do that.

Eric.
--

 

[rs]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Dvd Avins wrote:
> I've been looking over the records of several gunboat games in the last
> few days and I think I've seen a pattern...
>
> England attacks either Russia or France early. Germany remains more or
> less neutral, with no long-lasting cooperation with either England or
> England's enemy.
>
> If Russia is the 'victim', England makes early gains but can't hold them
> for long. That leaves England scrambling to to hold even Norway and its
> home supply centers.
>
> If France is the 'victim', intimal gains are limited to Brest or
> nothing, and then France reclaims territory and gets London and/or
> Liverpool.
>
> The northern attack against Russia seems fundamentally unsound to me.
> The attack against France may be okay, but without sustained German
> cooperation (hard to achieve in Gunboat), I have my doubts.
>
> I'm guessing that the best aggressive early plan for Gunboat England is
> to contest open SCs with Germany, going after Belgium and soon
> thereafter Denmark and Holland. Of course, grab Norway in 1901, but
> don't be afraid to give it up later for a chance at Denmark and Kiel.
> Even Munich may be possible if France is busy winning or losing against
> Italy.
>
> I'm not a particularly experienced player; do my thoughts make sense?

Those thoughts make very good sense. And you have discovered by many a
player still does not see. If you attack France, your usually on your
own. Why be the trailblazer for such paltry gains? Swoop in only after
someone else begins the battle. Again with the Russian attack. No
negotiations means not coordination with Germany, which means you always
have to worry about Germany sniping at Sweden. Lot of effort for two
dots. But Germany! Lots of neighbors their so lots of potential for
others to jump in at a whim. Easy to share cause Hol, Kie and Den are
usually conceeded to England without question. Easy jump from there to
Bel and Swe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <A5FVd.41273$ya6.2447@trndny01>,
Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> wrote:

> If Russia is the 'victim', England makes early gains but can't hold them
> for long. That leaves England scrambling to to hold even Norway and its
> home supply centers.

Hold them against whom? An early attack against Russia in nopress is
usually done as part of an EG alliance. Fattened on the Russian centers, EG
then turn together against France. If successful, England needs to push
into the Med as far as Rome and Naples, at which point stabbing Germany for
Holland, Kiel, Denmark, and anything he holds north or west of them will
complete the solo.

If England is attacked by France before he's picked up some builds, he needs
to adapt to the game as it presents itself; he may actually end up allying
with Russia, if Germany is not helpful enough.

If England is attacked by Germany, either Germany is being ridiculous or
England was exceedingly careless. Either way, England needs to find an
ally and fight back.

> If France is the 'victim', intimal gains are limited to Brest or
> nothing, and then France reclaims territory and gets London and/or
> Liverpool.

England can't make much progress alone, but with even a little help from
either Germany or Italy, France will decline and fall, with England usually
picking up more than her ally: Brest, Portugal, and Spain for England,
versus Paris and Marseilles for Germany; or Brest, Portugal, and Paris for
England, versus Spain and Marseilles for Italy. And in both cases Belgium
usually remains English, as the ally seeks centers elsewhere.

> The northern attack against Russia seems fundamentally unsound to me.
> The attack against France may be okay, but without sustained German
> cooperation (hard to achieve in Gunboat), I have my doubts.

Actually, sustained cooperation is more likely in nopress than otherwise.
Without press to discuss the situation with putative allies, it's difficult
and risky to arrange an alliance shift. The tendency is to stay with an
ally until you can stab him without needing help, or until you can join in
an attack that others are making or clearly must make lest the ally solo.

> I'm guessing that the best aggressive early plan for Gunboat England is
> to contest open SCs with Germany, going after Belgium and soon
> thereafter Denmark and Holland. Of course, grab Norway in 1901, but
> don't be afraid to give it up later for a chance at Denmark and Kiel.
> Even Munich may be possible if France is busy winning or losing against
> Italy.

That seems to me a silly strategy. With Germany gone, or hurt, what is to
stop France from attacking? As you weaken Germany, Russia will surely
benefit; do you want to deal with northern fleets? And Munich is the
hardest center on the board to defend against attack; to take it and hold it
will require more armies than it and its neighbors generate in builds,
leaving you vulnerable to attack from either flank. Even if Italy
overcomes France, you then have to worry about Italian fleets continuing
north in pursuit of a solo.

Germany is a danger to England only if he is allied with another power. So,
don't give him reason to ally with anyone but you; instead, work with him
until you cannot be threatened by either of his potential allies. Then,
when he has nobody to turn to, stab him for the solo.

Of course, things don't always work out the way you want. In such a case,
take advantage of England's defensive strength, second to only Turkey, to
survive until one or both of your tormentors are themselves threatened.
Then, work your way back, rewarding the power whose moves benefit you and
ensuring that the one attacking you can't see any easy gains.

--
Randy Hudson

 

[rs]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Randy Hudson wrote:
> In article <A5FVd.41273$ya6.2447@trndny01>,
> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If Russia is the 'victim', England makes early gains but can't hold them
>>for long. That leaves England scrambling to to hold even Norway and its
>>home supply centers.
>
>
> Hold them against whom? An early attack against Russia in nopress is
> usually done as part of an EG alliance. Fattened on the Russian centers, EG
> then turn together against France. If successful, England needs to push
> into the Med as far as Rome and Naples, at which point stabbing Germany for
> Holland, Kiel, Denmark, and anything he holds north or west of them will
> complete the solo.
>
> If England is attacked by France before he's picked up some builds, he needs
> to adapt to the game as it presents itself; he may actually end up allying
> with Russia, if Germany is not helpful enough.
>
> If England is attacked by Germany, either Germany is being ridiculous or
> England was exceedingly careless. Either way, England needs to find an
> ally and fight back.
>
>
>>If France is the 'victim', intimal gains are limited to Brest or
>>nothing, and then France reclaims territory and gets London and/or
>>Liverpool.
>
>
> England can't make much progress alone, but with even a little help from
> either Germany or Italy, France will decline and fall, with England usually
> picking up more than her ally: Brest, Portugal, and Spain for England,
> versus Paris and Marseilles for Germany; or Brest, Portugal, and Paris for
> England, versus Spain and Marseilles for Italy. And in both cases Belgium
> usually remains English, as the ally seeks centers elsewhere.
>
>
>>The northern attack against Russia seems fundamentally unsound to me.
>>The attack against France may be okay, but without sustained German
>>cooperation (hard to achieve in Gunboat), I have my doubts.
>
>
> Actually, sustained cooperation is more likely in nopress than otherwise.
> Without press to discuss the situation with putative allies, it's difficult
> and risky to arrange an alliance shift. The tendency is to stay with an
> ally until you can stab him without needing help, or until you can join in
> an attack that others are making or clearly must make lest the ally solo.
>
>
>>I'm guessing that the best aggressive early plan for Gunboat England is
>>to contest open SCs with Germany, going after Belgium and soon
>>thereafter Denmark and Holland. Of course, grab Norway in 1901, but
>>don't be afraid to give it up later for a chance at Denmark and Kiel.
>>Even Munich may be possible if France is busy winning or losing against
>>Italy.
>
>
> That seems to me a silly strategy. With Germany gone, or hurt, what is to
> stop France from attacking? As you weaken Germany, Russia will surely
> benefit; do you want to deal with northern fleets? And Munich is the
> hardest center on the board to defend against attack; to take it and hold it
> will require more armies than it and its neighbors generate in builds,
> leaving you vulnerable to attack from either flank. Even if Italy
> overcomes France, you then have to worry about Italian fleets continuing
> north in pursuit of a solo.
>
> Germany is a danger to England only if he is allied with another power. So,
> don't give him reason to ally with anyone but you; instead, work with him
> until you cannot be threatened by either of his potential allies. Then,
> when he has nobody to turn to, stab him for the solo.
>
> Of course, things don't always work out the way you want. In such a case,
> take advantage of England's defensive strength, second to only Turkey, to
> survive until one or both of your tormentors are themselves threatened.
> Then, work your way back, rewarding the power whose moves benefit you and
> ensuring that the one attacking you can't see any easy gains.
>
Which is exactly why players always seem to attack Russian and or
France, cause they think its easier. But you have to ask, how hard do
you have to work to get and then defend what you take? Attack Russia?
Lotsa work for just one dot. Attack France, thats a long slog unless you
get the jump on the French.

A smart Germany would have little interest in getting involved in your
E-F war. They have to work too hard for too little.

Personally, I like to play England like I play Italy. Don't worry about
quick growth, and be positioned to jump on any and all stragglers.
Impatience is the bane of many of player.