Talk:Battleship (game)/Archive 1

Number of shots per turn?

The article says you get one shot per ship per turn, but the rulebook listed in the references says it is only 1 per turn regardless of how many ships you have (this is the way I remember playing?) Could someone provide a citation for the 1 per ship per turn rule? Rhinopig11 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For the MB version I'm sure you're right. The article used to list several variant rulesets used by public domain versions of the game, but somebody nuked those as unsourced a while ago without even troubling to make sure that what they left in was consistent, much less preserving the information that alternative rules existed. —Blotwell 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Milton Bradley version (copyright 1976) here. The rules on the back of the box (which are copyright 1967, not 1976) clearly set out both 'RULES FOR THE SALVO GAME' (one shot per ship per turn, called shots are marked in white, white pegs are replaced with red if these turn out to be hits) and 'ADVANCED SALVO GAME' (after a salvo is called, the opponent announces how many hits were made, but not where or on what ship). Further, the 2002 MB rulebook linked in the article's references clearly sets out the rules for the Salvo option on the second page. 121.45.197.119 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate/Redundant Articles?

It looks like Battleship (game) needs to be merged with Battleship game. -- Logotu 19:58, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Looks like it has been now - and the other page redirects to this one.

Does anyone know how old the game is? The article mentions it was a pencil and paper game before the 'lectronic version came out, but it doesn't say when it started. Presumably in the last hundred year, but not necessarily. sheridan 00:24, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting question - there are people who study historical games, so probably a book somewhere with some insight. My guess would be 1890-1910; the combination of intense public interest in naval affairs, plus the technological changes (fire direction, depth charges, etc) that introduced the new element of attacking enemies that you couldn't see. Stan 04:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, though it also wouldn't be difficult to imagine an earlier game based on cannon fire, say (though the idea you detail seems more likely to me). sheridan 15:14, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Using the Diagonals

The description here says the ships may be arranged horizonally or vertically. When I was a kid we used to allow ships to be placed along the diagonals as well. I mean the obvious 1:1 diagonals, not the knight's move (2:1, 1:2) or higher diagonals. This makes the game more challenging, and seems to me the "right" way to play. What do others think?

• I don't remember that being physically possible with the game pegs... Liu Bei 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, the article is about the pencil & paper game, no? NoobSauce (not logged in) (please copy a response here so I can respond to the response.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.239.178 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

17 shots?

The article appears to say that in one version of the game (the one first described, thereby implying that it is common) each player gets to fire one shot for each square of ship that he has, thus on the first round, the first player gets to fire 17 shots before it is the other player's turn. Has anybody actually ever played with that rule? It sounds like it would be immensely frustrating for player number two, to have to be passive for a whole 17 shots. Also the next several turns will be very long, as the players are unlikely to lose many shots early on. --Peter Knutsen 08:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this concern. I have an old (1920s?) book at home somewhere with this game in and I'm sure the salvo size is about 5, at least at the beginning of the game. So either it's one per ship and you start with 5 ships, or it's just fixed at 5 throughout. —Blotwell 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is considered as if both players shooted simultaneously. They both have 17 shots (or more/less depending on rules) in the first turn. It's the second turn (and consecutive) when players calculate damage done in previous turns and calculate how many shots they have available. In that case both have even chances to win. —lockoom 12:45, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Interesting, If one follows the link to the official rules, there is only 1 shot per turn allowed. I'm not sure why the main article describes the one shot per floating ship method as anything other than a rules variant? (albeit one that sounds like a good way to play). -bareman

Battleship userbox

There's a Battleship userbox, for those interested. {{User Battleship}} --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Different set up

My set (by MB) has 5 spaces for a Aircraft carrier, 4 spaces for a Battleship, 3 spaces for a Cruiser and a Submarine, and 2 spaces for a Destroyer. Anyone else seen a set like this?--Jcvamp 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's MB game is like that. The 1-space submarine is the pen-and-paper version. 205.174.22.28 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this could be added to the article to give more clarity to the article, and a list of the ships used on the board game could be added.--Jcvamp 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rambone Destroyer - The Legend of Multiplayer Battleship

Rambone Destroyer is one the best Battleship players of the world that performed at miniclip. He learned by xbxbx, Merlini and others. The famous phrase was "when Rambone wins everybodys win". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.191.241 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links Repeat

These 2 external links link to the same game:

• Flashplayer.com
• Battleships-General Quarters II

The first is v2.7 while the second is v2.8.1. The second one seems to be the official site. Jonorossi 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition of a free game

Does everyone thing adding a link to my free game ([1]) would complement the free online ones? My game was on this page until last month when all the external links were removed. Jonorossi 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Strategy?

Does this game actually have any strategy, or is it mostly luck? I mean, I can see that, if the largest enemy ship remaining is x squares long, you would want to space your shots x-1 squares apart so as to avoid wasting shots without missing any enemy ships. Other than that, what strategy is there, really? Captain Zyrain 08:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not much. Battleship is really a dumbed-down version of the original public-domain game usually referred to as ‘salvo’, which has a lot more strategy involved. See the Oxford History of Board Games for more :) —porges_(talk) 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See Monte Carlo method. Strategy could also involve knowledge of your opponent's tendencies, since what a player perceives as random is not truly random. Efficient algorhythms can be exploited in the version where each surviving ship can fire a shot, although the x-1 strategy seems inefficient, since the gaps that allow the smaller ships to slip through would probably have to be filled in during a subsequent pass. If you can plan ahead, you could probably minimize the redundancy from your previous guesses leaving unnecessary gaps. Overall, anything that significantly improves on the 17% chance of a random hit is worth consideration. Finally, is it more important to find the ships or destroy them? MMetro (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battleship (videogame).jpg

Image:Battleship (videogame).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Will someone please figure out what the fuck this is supposed to say? 10x10 or 9x9 grid, 6 or 5 inch ship, and who the hell is Ben? --John Moser (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True inventor

This page states false info. Albert James Kolich is the true inventor of this game. Milton Bradly stole his design and took credit for this very popular game and I personally think Albert should sue, but he is a Catholic man, so he wouldn't do that.

Your proof? There's always somebody who claims they had an idea for a game/story/movie/whatever first, so yet another claim does not in of itself mean diddly. Besides, this particular game has been around so long and can be played merely with a pencil and paper that like with Tic-Tac-Toe I doubt there is any real "inventor" to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Movie

No mention yet of the movie based on the game that was announced in May 2009? I do not have a solid reference from which to add it.139.48.25.60 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

taken care of.--Interchange88 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

more info on the board game?

I just have one issue with the article, it mentions the Electronic Battleship and Electronic Talking Battleship by Milton Bradly, but there is no mention of the plastic PEG game anywhere in the entire article. Could someone maybe add a section at least mentioning the popular PEG game, this article is confusing to someone who was searching for information on *just* the peg version of the game and started reading about a pencil and paper game. Perhaps an entirely new article devoted just to the Milton Bradly Plastic and electronic games would be in order? 74.38.147.108 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I originally posted that in the wrong section, still my concern has yet to be addressed. I mean there is mention of the Milton Braldy publishing of the paper and pencil game and then it takes about the electronic versions but nowhere in the article is the board game mentioned. Specifically info on when and why MB decided to start building plastic kits instead of publishing the paper game? Info like that. I mean I first looked this article up specifically seeking information on the history of the board game and was shocked to read an article about "Battleship" that made no reference to one of the more popular variants of the game.

I just think that somewhere along the lines at least a mere mention of the plastic game should be made. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.150.92 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try and do something about it. --Interchange88 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is very little info floating around the web, and I can't just write stuff without citing it. I'll look around, though.--Interchange88 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I've come to despise Wikipedia. The game itself should be an adequately citable & verifiable source. Or do we need to link to the game on some toy site? Unbelievable! --Joe Sewell (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you verify "the game itself" as a source? There must be published sources somewhere, even if you can't find them on the net. But, in my experience, if you add uncontroversial and relevant things to wikipedia that you just KNOW are true but where you cannot provide a proper source, often they will be suffered - till someone unearths a source! But if anyone challenges your additions, you'll have to let it go, unless you can provide a source. Don't despise that - how else could wikipedia grow and improve? I don't like it when people callenge and remove uncontroversial but unsourced material wherever they see it - just as I don't like religious or political fundamentalist, say - but I realize that the system works best by allowing them.--Nø (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian version

There is a paragraph about the Indian version. This is interesting information but at present there are no references to a manufacturer or designer or if this is just a rules variant (rather than an actual manufactured game set) commonly played in India. Can someone provide references etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.94.18 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clifford von Wickler?!

It is very unlikely that this game was actually invented by someone named Clifford von Wickler, since the name itself is very unlikely. It would be interesting what the source for this is.—Graf Bobby (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The source cited for that is just some webpage which gives no source itself and actually says he "discovered" (whatever that means) the game rather than "invented" it. I'm deleting that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Variations: monstruous sentence

The section "Variations" starts with the following sentence:

Electronic Battleship: Advanced Mission is for the Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, Risk / Battleship / Clue, for the Game Boy Advance, Super Battleship for the SNES, Battleship / Connect Four / Sorry! / Trouble for the Nintendo DS, Monopoly / Boggle / Yahtzee / Battleship for the Nintendo DS.

What's that supposed to mean? I didn't want to change it, since I know nothing about Electronic Battleship: Advanced Mission, but something seems to have gone horribly wrong here.—Graf Bobby (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Playing Strategy in Opening Paragraph

There needs to be a citation to "The predominant playing strategy has been likened to the Monte Carlo method." As mentioned already in this discussion, one could claim that little more than simple guessing is involved in forming a competative strategy unless one know that particular opponent's tendencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.78.3 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be strategic advantages to adhering to certain systems, e.g. placing one's guesses along diagonal lines spaced so that certain sizes of ships cannot be missed. (The strategy is randomized by choosing the first point and the direction of the diagonals at random.) However, I don't know what the link to Monte Carlo methods is, and of course a source is required.--Nø (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the "predominant playing strategy...likened to theMonte Carlo method" optimal? Is there an optimal strategy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.247.25 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Trademarks

I do not see anything about trademarks in this article. It mentions that there no patent on the game itself. But it misses that Hasbro has registered some trademarks on the name "BATTLESHIP". Which means that no one without license from Hasbro can release a game named battleship. Ibero2 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that? 78.105.8.153 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but might that be why I know the basic pen-and-paper game as "Battleships" (plural) but Hasbro uses "Battleship" (singular)? The plural is clearly an established generic. The singular isn't. 109.151.0.183 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

History

In Germany the game exist since the end of the 19. century. (see German version of wikipedia) --80.187.96.209 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Image at Top of Page is Bad

The image at the top of the page which says it is a paper version of the game has an 'L' at the top of the right-most row when it should be a J. Not sure how I am the first to have noticed this, but it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.242.248 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - ridiculous error that will taint the development of our children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.241.75 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian player vs. player online game

I think this is the Russian variant of the game. You play against a random human player (or set up a game against your friend, which only involves sending a link to the specific game).

http://en.battleship-game.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.164.156 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Airplanes/Avioane - game similar to battleship

I already posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Battleship-like_game_.28Airplanes_.2F_Avioane.29 but I want to get feedback from here too. I want to create a page for a game very popular in Romania, similar to battleship with a lot more strategy, with 3 airplanes. The goal is to hit the heads of the airplanes. You can play the game at http://airplanes.ro Ggofthejungle (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

shipsonline.org

Kudos to shipsonline.org for linking to the article. I did a quick comparison, though, and believe it's appropriate for the external link to go to en.battleship-game.org. It is superior to shipsonline.org because it has a labeled grid and allows friends to rendezvous for a game. shipsonline.org only pairs randomly. It's possible to rendezvous manually by clicking "Let the battle begin" at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Chambers (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Better lead needed

In most war/conflict games, the objective is to destroy (capture, or remove) the other player's pieces. The lead says nothing about how the game is actually played. It's supposed to summarize the article, including gameplay (i.e. Rules). Sbalfour (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ship spacing

I don't know if this can be called a variation of the rules (I don't use it as a rule myself), but when I place my ships, I always place them with at least one space between ships. So in the commercial version, the aircraft carrier for example will not have a ship in the 16 spaces surrounding it (assuming the ship doesn't touch the edge of the grid, but the ships must be completely in the grid anyway). Does anybody play this way (either as strategy or as a requirement)?

That was the rule when I first learned of the Salvo game from a book or magazine in the late 60's or early 70's. SlowJog (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoyle Board Games does not require this, but it's good strategy. Ships placed at right-angles can have just one space & it's still good strategy, placed like this:

XXX
   O
   O
   O

Interestingly, in this version the computer does not adhere to the spacing rule; ships are placed at random and may be completely adjacent. This gives the human player a considerable advantage if he observes the spacing rule! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Description

The last part of the Description uses coloured pegs. This relates to one commercial variation of the game. The rest of the article emphasizes the "classic" pencil & paper game. I suggest the description should be of the pencil & paper version.  Done

The 2002 Hasbro variant set of ships is confusing as narrated. Better another grid like the M-B just above. Done

The Hoyle Puzzle & Board Games version has 2 shots for the carrier until sunk, one shot for each other unsunk boat. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)