TopGunBoat Journal: Conclusion9 min read

TopGunBoat Journal—Table of Contents
Introduction | Spring 1901 | Fall 1901
Winter 1902 | Spring 1902 | Fall 1902
Winter 1903 | Spring 1903 | Fall 1903
Winter 1904 | Spring 1904 | Fall 1904
Winter 1905 | Spring 1905 | Fall 1905
Winter 1906 | Spring 1906 | Fall 1906
Winter 1907 | Spring 1907 | Fall 1907
Winter 1908 | Spring 1908 | Fall 1908
Winter/Spring 1909 | Fall 1909
Winter/Spring 1910 | Fall 1910
Winter/Spring 1911 | Fall 1911
1912 | Conclusion | End of Game

This game is ending either as A/E/F or A/E/F/I. The deciding factors are England’s effectiveness in getting Austria to turn on Italy and Austria’s willingness to do so…

Spring 1913 Adjudication

Spring 1913 GM Observations

I’m a bit surprised that England pulled back from Tunis and went to Gascony. It make me wonder what England is going after. I don’t believe he is going for a solo, nor do I think that is possible for anyone at this point (with one exception: Austria finally stabs Italy, England stabs France, and France throws to Austria). If England is going for a 3-way draw of A/E/F, moving to Gascony makes no sense to me. If England is going for a 2-way draw of A/E, England will need more armies.

England has made it clear he wants Austria to attack Italy. I would assume that means that England wants Austria to take Tunis. I expect a fall order of NAF s ION-TUN. However, Italy may go for Tunis and Austria may support this. If that happens, I don’t see how this doesn’t end in a 4-way draw. I don’t think England has the units to effectively attack France to whittle the draw down without France throwing to A/I.

Spring 1913 Player Journals

Fall 1913 Adjudication

Fall 1913 GM Observations

I guess Austria is an alliance player. England has done everything possible to get Austria to turn on Italy, even trying to give Tunis to Austria. However, Austria has done everything possible to prop Italy up. I’m not sure what else England could have done. Probably, England could have moved to WES in the spring instead of GAS and ordered WES-TYS in the fall. Then, Austria could still be supported into Tunis next year if they want it while Italy would not be able to support it. Now, Italy can support Tunis without help from Austria. If Austria was to be able to be persuaded to eliminate Italy then Austria will have an even more difficult time than it would have been before.

I enjoy alliance play and can understand Austria’s approach. Personally, I don’t really try for alliances to this extent in gunboat (there is no relationship building that is enjoyable like in a press game). In my short time playing Diplomacy, I have encountered many approaches to the game. Here’s a few common goals players play for:

Solo Win
I don’t know if David Cohen is the first to coin the phrase “Soloist” or not, but his “Soloist Manifesto” seems to voice this the goal most clearly. This approach focuses on winning above all else and places an almost infinitesimally small value on surviving as part of a draw. A person who values winning above all else doesn’t care about participating in a draw but will choose that over elimination if they no longer believe they can win. Some with this philosophy will oppose attempts to narrow the draw pool by throwing a solo to someone not narrowing the draw pool. My understanding is that a soloist may be flexible in their gameplay for tournaments with the goal being to win the tournament (as opposed to winning one game in the tournament).

In my opinion, many players profess to be a soloist are not actually soloists or are soloists with a very low threshold for determining when a solo is no longer achievable. I have not yet tried playing as a soloist but look forward to doing so in the future.

Best Possible Result
The player who goes for this will play for the lowest possible number of survivors in the game (that is what they define as the “best possible result”). A solo is the #1 goal. For a draw, the smaller the draw pool, the better. Someone may look at this and think it is soloism, especially in light of the dedication to going after a solo win. The difference is the desire to “narrow” the draw pool once a solo is not achievable. The player who wants the best possible result will prefer to narrow the draw pool while a soloist doesn’t care about that. A soloist may claim to care about that if they think it will give them a reasonable chance to get a solo. A player who wants the best possible result will narrow the draw pool when they have no chance at a solo win.

Players who want the best possible result care about their rank on websites that have a rank. A soloist couldn’t care less about their rank. If you care about your rank, you are not a soloist. I have generally not cared about my rank but I have frequently played for the best possible result.

Alliances
This player enjoys alliances and may or may not care about their rank on Diplomacy websites. Many (especially those who play for solos) derisively call this being a “Care-Bear”. While I have mostly played for the best possible result, I have also enjoyed playing as an alliance player. I suppose someone may feel like alliance players aren’t trying to win, and that messes up the game. In my opinion, it’s a bit hypocritical for players who care about their rank to criticize this because this is a valid way to get a high rank. I think a soloist’s criticism of alliance players is fair because the alliance player isn’t playing to win.

Ultimately, if someone doesn’t like this, I think they should use diplomacy to overcome it instead of complaining about it or mocking it. The whining of someone who lost to a solid alliance isn’t very persuasive to me.

The Top 5 Strategic Goals in Diplomacy

What are the typical strategic goals for Diplomacy players? This article elaborates on the top five strategic goals, in a rough order of priority.

Fall 1913 Player Journals

Winter 1914 Player Journals

Winter 1914 Adjudication

Draw among Austria, England, France, and Italy