It is true that the orthography was not stricly defined centuries ago. To be precise, the Académie française was founded in 1634.

But why are we discussing the 1600 French spelling of Franche-Comté ? Are the other names of the variant written in the local language of that time ? In 1600 :
- how was written Moscow ? Москва ?
- how was written Georgia ? საქართველო ?
- how was written Armenia ? Հայաստան ?
- how was written Syria ? سوريا ?

I will rephrase what I wanted to say :
If I understood correctly, the names of the spaces of a Diplomacy variant are spelled on this site in current English.
In current English, the name of the space we are talking about is "Franche-Comté".

What about Constantinople? ;-)

@Retillion: Lovely stuff! You have us on the ropes!

I just noticed:
http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=97

Shouldn't it be 27 SC's for a win, not 28?

@ JECE : as you know, the standard VC is, in most variants, equal to 1 + the total number of SCs divided by 2. When the total number of SCs is an odd number, it should, according to me, be rounded UP. That allows, for example, the theoretical possibility of a 2-way draw.
So, 28 SCs is, once again according to me, the correct VC. for the 1600 variant.

Why would you round up after adding 1, though? The adding 1 is there to simulate rounding up for even numbers. Winning total should be minimum absolute majority, I'd've thought.

To reduce it to a minimal state - 3 centre map. I'm sure everyone would agree that the sensible winning count is 2 centres. Rounding up and then adding one gives the centres requires to win as 3.

Retillion: I understand what you're saying, but 26.5 is usually never rounded up to 28. I'm fairly certain that this variant creator put quite a bit of thought into the map, which would suggest that the creator was perfectly aware that 2-way draws had been made impossible. Does vDiplonacy have a consistent standard of allowing 2-way draws by changing the victory conditions of odd-SC-count variants as you describe?

@JECE :

I find that the fact that a 2-way draw is possible adds interest to the endgame mainly because it gives more diplomatic possibilities. For example, when there are 4 or 3 players remaining you still must be very cautious about a stab.
In other words, it adds possibilities to the game.

In other words, when a 2-way draw is impossible your survival is guaranteed as soon as there are no more than 3 remaining players. And that is what I want to avoid.

Once again, this is only my opinion. If you don't like to play in a game that allows 2-way draws, you are always free to change the VC when you create your game. This is vdiplomacy where so many different variants are available, so changing the VC of a game is a little like changing a variant.

But is this default victory condition then standard practice for all variants on vDip?

No, usually it's half of the SCs+1 rounded up. Variants that have more or less victory SCs are exceptions. One should always read the variant description though ^^

GOG: Right, that's what I was asking. So, notwithstanding exceptions, in variants with an odd number of supply centers, the victory condition is generally 1.5 SC's more than half?

GOD, rather.

"You are posting too frequently, please slow down."
We need a semi-colon here.

No its usually one SC more than the half.
Example: when there are 30 SCs total, the victory condition will be 15+1=16 SCs. If the total amount of SCs is 31, it will be 15.5=16.
Clear now? :P

That's not half, rounded up, +1, though. That'd be (31/2=16, +1=17).

Which comes back to the initial issue raised - 1600 has the default victory condition of 28 (not 27) or the 53 available centres. Which would put it as an exception to the generally accepted win-cons, rather than consistent with them as Retillion is arguing.

Yes and yes, you're right. The victory condition lies with the variant developer. If he feels the game will be better with more or less victory SCs, he'll just do it...

Then since this is an external variant imported to vDip by Oli, the wishes of the variant creator should be respected, correct? Retillion was not the 'developer' so far as I am aware.

In fact, the infotext of the Realpolitik file Oli used to convert the variant to webDip code clearly states that 27 SC's is already a maximum goal:
"The map has 53 centers, so 27 are needed to win, although other victory conditions could be used since it takes a long time to get 27 centers."
http://www.int.graue-substanz.net/variants/geographical/europestart.htm#1600
http://www.graue-substanz.net/ressourcen/infotexte/1600_infotext.htm

@ JECE :

I have never written that I was the developer of the 1600 variant.

What I have written is that, when the number of existing SCs is odd, *I personally prefer* when the VC is equal to the total number of SCs divided by 2 rounded UP + 1 and I gave you an explanation about why that is my *personal preference*.

As a consequence, *I would personally prefer* to play a 1600 variant game with the VC set at 28 SCs. And when I wrote that, I have kept using words like "according to me" and "once again, "this is only my opinion".

I also happen to think that variant developers usually set VCs with a rounding DOWN of an odd number of existing SCs simply because it is customary and not because of a thoughtful personal decision. But, once again, that is only my opinion, and we are all free to create games with the VCs that we want.

Retillion: It was GOD that seemed to suggest that you were te developer.

I personally understand your argument and reasoning. However, I believe that it should be people with your preferences that change the settings accordingly. Don't you think it makes more sense to keep victory conditions as users expect them to work? That seems like to me like a pretty big change to pull without warning.

@ JECE :

I certainly agree with the idea that "it makes more sense to keep victory conditions as *developers* expect them to work".

However, I disagree with you about the idea that "it makes more sense to keep victory conditions as *users* expect them to work".
Indeed, why should one prevent himself from proposing something that he estimates to be an improvement ?

Maybe because this is an established variant developed over a decade by its author? I view this issue as akin to the moral rights of authors that prevent publishers from unduly tampering with their work.

We are also back to this unidentifed developer. Didn't Oli just convert the Realpolitik file (whose developer set the victory condition at 27 SC's) and draw a map to go with this file?

bump . . .

As per usual retillion disappears when confronted with a logical argument. Yes the variant should have the winning conditions that the variant creator decided upon when making the variant. Vdip has multiple variants that conform to this. Obviously this was overlooked and missed when the variant was created, no doubt it will be fixed when it is brought to oli's attention.

kaner406: Thanks for looking into this. Could you reach out to Oli for us? I'm not sure how best to do that and we're pressed for time seeing as one 1600 game has already finished.

@ kaner406 :

You wrote :
"As per usual retillion disappears when confronted with a logical argument."

What is the purpose of that stupid personal attack ?

----------

1° It is indeed stupid because I have never disappeared from any conversation "when confronted with a logical argument". You have made an erroneous accusation against me. It is your responsablity to prove your declaration by showing us at least one conversation in which I would have disappeared "when confronted with a logical argument".
Such a conversation does not exist.
You are inventing.
In the current conversation, I stopped answering because I had said all about my opinion. I had nothing to add.

----------

2° What is the purpose of making a personal attack ?
It is true that you do not like me but that does not allow you to attack me personally.
You do not like me because you are a sore loser. You have been severely defeated in the only game that we have played together. You have been severely defeated because you communicated extremely little and very poorly in that game. But, instead of simply accepting your defeat, you blamed my alliance for being "too faithful".

----------

3° Isn't the forum a place where ideas may be exchanged ? Don't we all have the right to present and explain ideas ? Ideas that sometimes may differ from the dogma ?

I have simply explained why *I* prefer that the VC are equal to the total number of SCs divided by 2 rounded UP + 1.
It is my opnion that variant designers simply set VC equal to to the total number of SCs divided by 2 rounded DOWN + 1. The variant designers alway do so because it has always been done so, not because of a thoughtful personal decision.

Nontheless, I wrote :
I certainly agree with the idea that "it makes more sense to keep victory conditions as *developers* expect them to work".

Haven't you seen the number of times I wrote :
+ according to me
+ once again according to me
+ Once again, this is only my opinion.
+ *I personally prefer*
+ my *personal preference*
+ *I would personally prefer*
+ when I wrote that, I have kept using words like "according to me" and "once again, "this is only my opinion".

Since when expressing politely his own preferences would be bad ?
I will repeat now one last time the reason why *I prefer* that the VC are equal to the total number of SCs divided by 2 rounded UP + 1 : it is because it allows more diplomatic possibilities, otherwise a 2-way draw would not be possible and that is a problem because then last 3 remaining players are mathematically guaranteed to be included in the final Draw, which is never the case when the total number of SC is an even number.

----------

4° The worst part of all this is that you are a member of the administrators team. I use the word "administrators" because even though the members of that team call themselves "moderators", they are NOT moderators. A moderator is a person who moderates the speech of the users of an internet site. A moderator makes sure that there is no personal attack, or rude language used in a forum.
The only person who has ever acted here as a moderator is Oli, the owner of this site.

All the other members of the administrators team may be called "administrators", "judges", "referees", "investigators", "technicians" or many other names but NOT "administrators".

And so, kaner406, not only you do not deserve the title "moderator" but also you allow yourself to make a personal attack in the forum !

Some 3 or 4 years ago the forum of vdiplomacy was rather active. It has been almost dead for about a year. Do you really think that the personal attack that you have just made will help the forum to be more active ?
Isn't a moderator's (which, once again, you are NOT) responsability to make users feel welcome to express their opinion in a forum ?

As far as I am concerned, I am seriously considering to not write any more in this forum.
So if I diasppear now don't pretend that it will be because of the "logical" arguments that you might bring now. If I disappear now, it is because because I am fed up with personal attacks on this almost dead forum.

If your views need to be excessively couched in terms of "in my opinion", why contribute them to a discussion about whether an existing variant has been faithfully reproduced in this software? Opinion, other than that of the person who actually enacted the change, should be entirely irrelevant to "has this been unnecessarily changed from the original with no reason supplied?".

Thanks from a new member to Oli and other developers for getting this variant put up. enjoy Diplomacy, just found vDiplomacy with a glorious amount of variants, and I'm looking forward to a game of 1600 when I get the chance. Thanks so much for all your hard work.

What is the purpose Retillion? Well the fact is that I plain don't like your style. As per usual you respond to such a so-called 'horrid' and 'terrible' personal attack in the form of an essay, entirely derailing yourself from the whole point of the discussion.

Wait for it, we're going to get a whole rant soon enough about how mean people are and how mean people shouldn't be allowed to participate in an on-line community.

FYI, I have asked oli some months ago to remove me from the mod/admin team. So I'm still waiting. So don't go crying about a 'mod' being a big meanie to you. No doubt you have written some dry and hard to find information somehow purporting to respond to JECE's question to you, but in all honesty I simply cannot be bothered to read through your crap finding it.

If you want reasons as to why this forum is an almost 'dead' forum look no further than your inane, pedantic, self aggrandisement masquerading in the form of some misguided political correctness.


----

JECE, if you need to get oli's attention post it in the mod-forum, he will notice it there.

Retillion, your personal preferences are well known, and it's well documented as to why you hold them. In this case of 1600 the variant designer created a map with an odd number of supply centers and set victory conditions at 28. The variant has been played thousands of times in the past as designed, but you'd have us change it here and now based upon your personal preferences, which involve no actual play testing of this map.

I'd been looking for a reason to start playing again. The arrival of the 1600 variant (and talk of some development on Versailles!) certainly provides temptation.