Diplomacy Dojo Episode 3: Stalemating Russia in Gunboat25 min read

Intro 0:00  

The Diplomacy Dojo is a weekly discussion, led by Your Bored Brother, about Diplomacy tactics and strategies. Let’s listen in on what our players are discussing this week.

BrotherBored 0:12  

Are there more topics you would like to cover?

Hunter 0:15  

Other topics? So I was interested in discussing, I guess, stalemate lines against Russia in Gunboat.

BrotherBored 0:26  

Stalemate lines versus Russia in Gunboat. Alright, let’s talk about that. Have you looked at the true stalemate lines that can be configured against western versus eastern positions? I think there are some diagrams out there online.

Hunter 0:43  

I don’t think I have.

BrotherBored 0:46  

So I guess there are two levels to it; one is, there are these true stalemate lines. There are some unusual stalemate lines that can be formed. They are quite a challenge to form in Gunboat, because you have no way to send a diagram of those stalemate lines to the other players, or explain to them that what you’re trying to do is to get into those positions. They might be frightened by what you’re doing. 

Another level, not a level of challenge, but just something to think about, is that those diagrams you’ll find online, although they are true absolute stalemate lines, there are strong defensible positions that you might be able to create even if they are not a stalemate line per se; and there are stalemate lines that might exist in a particular match of Diplomacy based on the unit composition. So, to keep in mind the unit composition.

So for example, if Russia has an insufficient number of fleets in the north, then Russia can be reduced in the north, even if Russia has a somewhat defensible position—or, I’m sorry, even if the northern players cannot form a stalemate line against Russia per se, it might be impossible for Russia to expand further due to insufficient fleets. So like if England or France or Germany, whatever, park fleets in Skagerrak and the North Sea and the Barents Sea and whatnot, and they shut Russia down from being able to build fleets or advance further with fleets, then, even though technically that’s not a stalemate—a true stalemate line—in practice in that game, Russia’s never going to be able to get enough fleets built to be able to overpower those positions, and that’s how you can shut down Russia, that way. And a similar thing can go on in the south, where if Russia has the wrong composition of armies and fleets, then there can be some kind of defensive position that’s assembled that Russia lacks the proper positions and units to be able to break it down.

Hunter 2:45  

If Russia doesn’t have enough southern fleets, then you can just park armies in Piedmont and in Venice, and they can’t break into Italy. I mean, you may be giving up Austria, but they can’t get any further on land. We saw a bit of those in our game, where Russia was limited by the absence of fleets, but I guess the fleets are what are going to make stalemate lines fighting Russia completely different from almost anybody else on the board.

BrotherBored 3:16  

Yeah, I think that’s fair to say, and it also makes the fight against Russia highly conditional on the composition of units that both sides have.

So usually, the way I approach a strong Russia who I need to resist in a Gunboat game is to be as aggressive as possible, because Russia doesn’t necessarily have defensible positions. So since there aren’t stalemate positions that run through the areas that a medium-size Russia would have conquered, that means that with good play, Russia’s centers can be picked away at. The idea here is by preventing Russia from getting enough momentum to be able to solo win, maybe the other powers will rally somewhere else and also start picking away at Russia. And if Russia can be reduced even a little bit, that can halt Russia’s momentum, and that will be the end of the game. Even if there’s not a stalemate line per se, just that like, okay, well, no one can really eliminate Russia at this point, but Russia is not going to advance anymore, so I guess the game is over.

Hunter 4:24  

That makes sense. I mean, it’s probably far easier to build defensible positions than true stalemate lines. The trick then is just figuring out, what are the valuable positions to hold onto, for instance.

BrotherBored 04:44 

Okay.

Hunter 04:45 

If say you’re battling a Russian, either in the north or in the south, I mean, assuming they have a fleet or two to actually fight.

BrotherBored 04:56 

So Russia can, if Russia is playing a strong game, Russia probably has a big chunk of the Balkans. If Russia has got Rumania, Budapest, and Vienna, that’s hard for Russia to advance further than that a lot of the time. You can build a defense that runs from Tyrolia, to Trieste, to Serbia, maybe to Bulgaria; and that is pretty dang defensible. Russia is not gonna be able to outflank that very easily. That can be combined with a defense of Anatolia, where if… Let’s say Russia’s in Black Sea and Sevastopol, but Turkey’s in Armenia, the two home centers that border Black Sea, and somebody is in Bulgaria guarding the gate and like, it’s gonna be not really possible for Russia to outflank that. Either of those can be done or they can be done together, because even if Russia takes over all the Balkans, if that’s been done entirely with armies, then a lot of those armies can’t outflank Turkey’s position. An army in Greece isn’t going to be able to move to Aegean sea or whatever, and backdoor Turkey. So if, let’s say Italy has got a fleet in the Aegean sea that’s holding Constantinople and Turkey’s other three units are in Constantinople, Ankara, and Armenia, then that can be a pretty dang strong defense. Not a stalemate line per se, but I don’t see how Russia is going to get around that. Now, if Russia has control of all the Balkans and Anatolia, yeah, Russia is in a pretty strong position, and your last line of defense is Piedmont support hold Venice, or maybe Tyrolia support hold Venice—it depends on how many units are there and which players belong they belong to—and trying to wall Russia off at Ionian Sea.

Now, meanwhile, there’s a similar thing going on in the north, where if Russia has got Munich and/or Berlin, usually you can hold Russia off there. It’s pretty hard to advance past that into, say, Kiel. Russia getting into Burgundy and Belgium are really unusual in Gunboat. So if you can build a defense that’s like, okay, Russia has been locked out from advancing in St. Petersburg. Yeah, Russia got to Munich and Berlin, but we’ve got a defensive position that goes from Burgundy, to Ruhr, to Kiel, to Denmark, to Skagerrak to North Sea, to Norwegian Sea or something and like, okay, we’ve created a wall that Russia is not really going to be able to fight. Russia would have to build more fleets or something, and that’s not going to be forthcoming, so we made a defensive position.

However, if Russia has significantly advanced in both the north and the south, and you don’t have any defenses against them, Russia is just going to win, and that’s just how Russia wins the game. So sometimes it can be a matter of counting the centers Russia is going to be able to gain from Russia’s advances on each side. So if Russia has completely taken over what Russia might hope to gain in the south, like the Balkans and Anatolia, then that means Russia has got 13 southern centers, as going to have to get five northern ones in order to make up for it. What are those five northern centers? Well, it could be, like, Munich, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Sweden, and Norway. That’s a realistic way. That’s, that’s five. That’s 13 plus five, I believe that is a solo win. 

And so similarly, let’s say you’ve walled off Russia from getting Anatolia, okay, so now Russia needs eight northern centers to win. What is going to be those northern centers? Maybe Munich, Kiel, Berlin, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, St. Petersburg, and then one more is going to have to come from somewhere. Oh, that sounds pretty challenging, is it going to be Edinburgh? Holland? No, those sound like pretty tall orders. So I would say, focus on creating some chunk of the map that prevents Russia from advancing and then cross your fingers, and then the other players on the other side of the map make some similar defense. There’s not going to be one player who’s assembling the whole line against Russia because of how Russia split on the the two sides. You have further thoughts or comments on that?

Hunter 8:59  

On the Russian stalemate lines?

BrotherBored 9:02  

Yeah, in Gunboat.

Hunter 9:04  

Doesn’t some of that apply in Press also, though?

BrotherBored 9:07  

The strategic stuff about how Russia’s positions—or, I’m sorry, the tactical stuff about how Russia’s positions work—but in a Press game, you can talk this stuff through. So I guess, let’s reference how stalemate lines normally work in Gunboat; medium-level players and advanced players can be counted on to know the usual stalemate positions, and how to get to them. And they’ll appreciate that somebody is in danger of a solo win, like, “Oh my god, Italy’s all the way—got all of Iberia and Marseille, and conquered Turkey, and is about to finish off Austria! Oh my god, we have to stalemate Vienna or something or we lose.” They’ll probably understand to think like that, and know where the defensible positions might be.

But against Russia, Russia is so weak in Gunboat Diplomacy, Russia’s usually eliminated, let alone going for a solo win! So the experience that players have to prevent a Russian solo win is very low, and what must be done to stop a Russian solo win is very different. So when you multiply together the fact that it’s rare and the fact that it’s different, and then also throw in there, there’s no way for you to educate your allies on any of these things during the middle of the match, whoo… So I guess that’s a little advantage that Russia has, a small silver lining, to being able to so rarely solo win, is that if you get into a position to solo win, perhaps the players won’t understand what to do. And remember, you only really need like one player to not understand, and then you’ll be able to break through their defenses.

Hunter 10:49  

So I have another question.

BrotherBored 10:50 

Sure.

Hunter10:52 

I think you think France is the easiest country to solo with, is that true? 

BrotherBored 10:56 

Yes. 

Hunter 10:57 

So, other than France, which country do you think is easiest to solo with?

BrotherBored 11:01  

Probably Austria.

Hunter 11:03  

I agree, actually! I’m trying to improve my play in England, but I think I said—so I managed to solo with England once. Can I tell you something?

BrotherBored 11:12 

Sure. 

Hunter 11:13

This is actually really strange. I usually don’t get defeated as England, but a lot of times I draw. The only time I soloed with England, it was actually the first game I ever played of Diplomacy on PlayDip. It was just the first game I ever played, and somehow I soloed, and like Italy got super strong…

BrotherBored 11:30  

Here’s what I think this is…

Hunter 11:33  

That was years ago, though, so I guess I don’t remember how I did that.

BrotherBored 11:34  

I think that France and Austria have a path towards a solo win that allows them to go from place to place and capture all the things they need without losing momentum, and I’ll explain a little bit what I mean. With France, the default solo win path, in my opinion, is to wipe out Great Britain, conquer all of that, and then try to roll up the rest of the North. 

At some point, if you can spare a few units, which you should be able to because all the units you use to attack Great Britain can go on to make all the other attacks, you sneak into Tunis assemble a defense there; and then Munich and Berlin are pretty hard to defend from the south unless the players have really prepared to prevent your solo win. You can pull it off. You can get it going. The match may come—whether you win or not win will depend on how you fight over Tunis, Munich, and Berlin. But I think it’s a pretty easy plan, and most players understand, can learn how to execute this plan. 

By comparison, let’s say, England, a very similar country to France, is more distant from all those centers. It takes more effort for England to send units around to fight for Tunis, and it takes more effort for England to send armies into the center of the board, because they’re gonna have to be convoyed, they can’t just walk there. So for England to accomplish the same solo win plan as France requires more guesses, and more success, and more risks. 

England has this other little advantage, which is that England might be able to offset not being able to get one of those centers by getting maybe Moscow, but that’s not easy. That’s also not easy to do. So England getting a solo win is, in my opinion, very similar, but when you compare it to France this way, harder. And Austria has a similar thing going on, in my opinion. Where if Austria can capture, can wipe out one of Austria’s neighbors; if Austria can take over all of Italy or take over all of Turkey, and maybe taking over all of Russia, Austria can subsequently turn those units towards taking out other neighbors and start mopping up all of the South, and, great, Austria’s home centers are right near the middle of the board, so Austria can build units that suddenly go after Munich and/or Berlin, to get the center that’s probably needed to cross this stalemate line and win, forming a very similar function to Tunis, for France, in getting the solo win. Especially if you’re crafty enough to go from Munich and Berlin when you’re just that like 11 or 12 centers before players understand the true nature of your solo win threat.

And so, similarly, a lot of players can learn how to solo win with Austria because there is not a lot of options. The number of paths that take you to 18 centers, there’s not that many, there’s pretty much a very precise 18 centers you need to win. I guess there are some wacky scenarios where like you might be allied to Russia and get all the way to Liberia or whatever, but that’s unusual, and I wouldn’t try to teach somebody to win that way.

By contrast, Austria’s neighbor Turkey has a really similar, probably, plan for solo winning, but has the disadvantage that because Turkey’s home centers are off in the corner, it means that Turkey will have—very clearly be a solo and threat by the time Turkey’s marching on Marseille or Munich or whatever, in most matches. And that’s a similar disadvantage to what England has, where you’re basically trying to do the same thing as Austria, except your home centers are further away from the positions they need to be to fight for the key centers. So from a defensive perspective, England and Turkey have this advantage that they’re in the corner. From an offensive perspective, that’s a disadvantage. To put it another way, usually the last two or three builds Turkey makes do nothing. They will not be involved in anything that happens. That’s why a Juggernaut alliance is so strategically advantageous for Turkey because it means you go as far as possible to capture that distance center you might need, like Spain or Marseille, without getting so huge, and then backstab Russia for the remaining centers you need to reach 18. And those centers being far easier to conquer with builds that were built in your home centers that you gain from your captures than if you were trying to capture, let’s say, Marseille as your 18 center.

Hunter 16:08  

Alright, so which country do you think is the third easiest to solo with?

BrotherBored 16:18  

Haha. That might start getting subjective, like just what I personally find easy to do. I’m not sure. I think when I talk about France and Austria, I think that I’m stating a fact that applies to most players. Beyond that’s hard to say. A lot of people think Italy is really challenging to solo with, because Italy has to spread out in two directions in order to win, and is not able to concentrate forces and build up momentum. To solo win with Italy requires you to make very farsighted tactical and strategic decisions. Good players can solo win with Italy, but it’s very hard to teach this to somebody, there’s not just a, you do X, Y, and Z and then you solo win, that’s not available for Italy. I think that makes it hard.

I think a similar thing is going on with Russia, where because Russia’s 18 centers can come from anywhere, like all over the map, and some percentage is going to come from the north and some from the south, which order you should go for? Russia, I think it’s challenging, because you’re not going to be able to just totally roll up the north or the south, so you’re going to have to make gains everywhere. That’s hard. I’m not saying that it makes Russia intrinsically difficult for getting a solo win in terms of the gameplay itself, but just to learn how to do it is similarly more challenging than these other powers. So having performed that analysis, I’ll say, France and Austria are probably the easiest. I’ll lump England, Germany, and Turkey like in the middle there, in the middle of the pack and say that it’s more challenging than France and Austria, but you can still learn it; and then Italy and Russia being the most difficult because to learn to get those solo wins requires more complex ideas. That’s my take on it. I’m not sure that everyone would agree with that analysis.

Hunter 18:03  

I see. So for France soloing, you usually just destroy Great Britain, so then you just roll up the north and try to sneak into Tunis when you can.

BrotherBored18:11  

Yeah.

Hunter 18:13  

Do you have a similar strategy for Austria? I guess, destroy Turkey?

BrotherBored 18:17  

So actually, not necessarily. I think that it’s easier to take out Italy or Russia first, and then use those positions to finish off Turkey. I’ll often play games where Italy or Russia get Turkish centers, and that’s desirable for me as Austria, just so I know that nobody’s building any more units in Anatolia. It’s just a straight improvement for Italy or Russia to have wiped out those Turkish centers, because no one will ever build there again. And once I’m assured that either Turkey is contained, like Turkey’s not going to be able to get captures and builds, or Turkey’s centers are all under the control of somebody else, that opens up a lot of options because it means that units are only going to come from every other direction. And so when I solo win with Austria, I think my most typical plan is to get Turkey contained somehow with Italy or Russia and or Russia on my side, possibly just balled in three centers, possibly with damage inflicted down to two or one centers, possibly completely annihilated, and while Turkey is contained—When Turkey is contained, then launch an attack against Russia and or Italy

So a lot of times when I am getting close to the win as Austria, some of the last centers I take would be something like Smyrna or Ankara. Because somebody is holed out there. Maybe Turkey has one center there and it’s not a big deal. It’s not a big deal for Austria to have some split forces.

Most of the stalemate lines, the well-known stalemate lines, can be held with between 13 and 15 units. Obviously everybody wins before they have 18 units, so when you think about it analytically that way, you can make sense, like ah, I see how you could have 12 units advancing or defending the key positions, and maybe three or four units mopping up some centers that you left behind. 

If Austria has taken over all of the Turkish home centers, that’s probably not tolerable to the other players, that’s a big… “A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga! [Imitates fog horn sounds]  Austria got a corner. Maybe we should do something about that.” That’s why if I’m Italy, and I’m allied to Austria, I got to insist on getting some Turkish centers for myself. If all the Turkish centers are going to Austria, then like, oh, god, there’s not much left I can do. 

Hunter 20:52 

So you don’t think you have to destroy Turkey quickly?

BrotherBored 20:53  

I just think that Turkey has to be contained. Turkey is usually going to have four centers in 1901. If Turkey reaches five or six centers, it’s really unlikely that Austria is going to solo win. Honestly, you’ll probably spend the rest of the dang game just battling Turkey, or trying to play for a draw with Turkey. A Turkey at seven or eight centers is probably undefeatable. 

As Austria I’m thinking, really early on, man, who’s going to help me contain Turkey? I’m all for completely wiping Turkey off the map, I’ll help them get Turkish centers, whatever. It just, as long as Turkey remains viable and has four or five centers, Turkey can concentrate all of those units in one direction to make a capture, because Turkey has a corner. And just continued to gain momentum from there, and those builds are always going to be behind the lines that I’m trying to assemble as Austria. This leads to my personal theory that there are—of any two powers, the natural hostility between Austria and Turkey is the highest, for these reasons that I’m explaining.

To be clear, it’s not necessary for Turkey to be eliminated, it just needs to be impossible for Turkey to make captures and builds. Does that make sense? 

Hunter 22:07

I see.

BrotherBored 22:08

Okay,

Hunter 22:09

So are there some games where you stabbed Italy while Turkey was still alive?

BrotherBored 22:11  

Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, that’s like my—I would say that’s a bread and butter Austrian solo win strategy, is to lure Italy out of position, into making Lepanto or something like that and get Italy like, “Oh, man, I’m all in now. I’ve got all my stuff concentrated over here. Oh, shoot I’d better send something to guard against France.” Okay, and I’m Austrian, like, “Okay, well, I’ve got Bulgaria and I have Greece so I’m good here. Time to attack Italy!” And then make a surprise attack on Italy, send an army to Venice. And if that works, right, you can just have two armies support each other all the way down the boot. Italy’s position collapses, and who cares? When there’s a war going on in Anatolia between Turkey, Russia, and Italy, that’s a great situation for Austria to just go on and do something else. I mean, if you’re going to win, you’ll eventually mop up those centers anyway. I think that the last two times I played Austria, I got a solo win doing exactly that. It was a rinse and repeat strategy, it worked both times.

 Hunter 23:13  

So you start Lepanto with Italy. Okay. I’m just curious about more of this. So you got Lepanto with Italy and Turkey was still alive, so did you make some progress against Russia?

BrotherBored 23:24  

I believe in one of those games… They’re very similar, so they’re kind of blurring together in my memory. But I believe in one of those games I cooperated with Russia for quite a while. And that was a Gunboat game, and in my philosophy of Gunboat play, you can pretty much ignore Russia as almost any other power. Russia’s just not an important priority. You can finish off Russia later, no problem, and that’s exactly what happened in that game. I went and took down Italy. 

So once Turkey has been so damaged that Turkey is no longer a strategic threat to Austria, probably Italy is Austria’s biggest strategic threat, and so once I had kneecapped Italy by invading Venice and sending armies to come down the boot and take them out, okay, now, Italy is no longer a strategic threat. Only have one other realistic strategic threat, and now I’ve got some builds. It’s realistic to start attacking Russia as well at that point. You can attack in all three directions, if those players are all weak, especially in Gunboat, where they’re not going to be able to, “Oh, we got to work together. Yeah, let’s work together; we got to stop this guy.” They can’t talk like that.

Hunter 24:36  

That’s true. I think it might be, it’s probably easy to get solos in Gunboat for that reason

BrotherBored 24:39  

Oh, sure. Absolutely, that’s the case. I think for me personally, my solo win rate in Press Diplomacy is like…. I always call like the statistical baseline for solo wins to be something like 7% on the logic that a one in seven chance is a 14%, but half of Diplomacy games roughly end in draws, so half of 14% will be 7%. Above my baseline, that baseline 7%, I have like a 9% solo win rate in Press Diplomacy; so like I’m just barely above average, so to speak, in getting solo wins. Whereas in Gunboat Diplomacy, I’ve had between like 18 and 20% solo win rate, which is almost triple that baseline rate. And some of that is that I’m really good at Gunboat Diplomacy, I play a lot of that. But some of that is, it’s easier to solo win in Gunboat Diplomacy.

Hunter 25:31  

Did you know that on the Play Diplomacy website, if I get draws I lose points?

BrotherBored 25:36  

I have heard about that, but doesn’t it depend on what your ranking is in the first place or something like that? 

Hunter 25:42  

I mean, I’m in the top 10, so if I get a draw, I lose, like 20 points, which I think is pretty unreasonable.

BrotherBored 25:48  

So I learned from villageidiot—who is a player who’s contributed to the brotherbored blog—I have played against him many times, and he’s one of the best players in my estimation, one of the best players around and is maybe a whole level better than me; a player who I try to learn more from. He told me that playing with that system is a factor in how he became so good because he had to get solo wins to advance higher in the ranks. There was no other way. So that forced him to learn and think much more deeply about what it takes to get solo wins, and not just settle for draws. So if that’s a consolation prize, villageidiot claims that’s how you learn.

Hunter 26:34  

Okay, alright.

BrotherBored 26:35  

Okay, we’re a little bit past the time that we had allocated, but I think that was a really good conversation. I appreciate everybody coming here. I think this was a really fun dojo. 

Hunter 26:47 

Yeah, I enjoyed it. 

Outro 26:51  

If you enjoyed this episode, remember to subscribe and review the podcast. To learn more from Your Bored Brother, and to participate in the dojo, visit the blog at brotherbored.com, or the patreon at bit.ly/supportybb. Thanks to loyalty freak music for the theme music, “it feels good to be alive too.”