I hadn't been aware of that game. Though I have almost no interest in gunboat, it was interesting to look at.
I wouldn't have commented just to "me too" or even to say thanks except that the GR-100 game came up and I happen to be in it. If anyone wants to discuss dynamics in that game, I'm happy to do so where such discussion wouldn't interfere with the game.
Also, I'll raise the most interesting game(s) going on over there as they would have been very easy to miss. slypups put together, so far two, "Pairs" games. It plays on Modern. There is a GM and the 10 players are divided into 5 two-player teams. You stand or fall as a team in terms of winning. There is a mildly complicated, and in my opinion useless, flourish of "bounties" which are individual and give you a target that, if defeated, and additionally if occupied, gives you more weight in a draw. The complexity is such that I don't believe it can rationally modify your game play non-trivially. So just focus on the main different quality - you have an unshakeable alliance from the start. (I made a small contribution pre-first-game in adding that the pairing is secret information, which I modestly believe is part of what makes it so good.)
The first of those games (http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?
gameID=200950 - don't forget to copy and paste or it is interpreted as a local link because of forum code) is probably the most fun game of Diplomacy that I've played in my 30 years in the game. Or perhaps second place. We're frequently counseled that the behavior of all powers always matters to everyone, and this is true to an extent, but in Pairs, pretty much everyone is either in your orbit or your pair's orbit. Early on, you're trying to figure out the alliances. People keep planting false flags. I grant that, being experimental and arranged in forums, the game attracted unusually strong players. But still, I've never seen such intricate play and diplomacy.
Sadly, that first game ended early when one player had to leave and there was acrimony over how to proceed. (There had been an NMR, what to do, etc.) Another player insisted that if that player were replaced that we had to replace him too, and rather than bruise feelings we just tied it out and started over with 8 or 9 of the originals. I invited in the player I most admire and hoped for same-to-better.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?
gameID=205748 is part 2.
This was a frustrating game for me because I saw the potential in the first game, and in the second game drew a player who just doesn't talk. Like, hardly ever in regular (FP) games. And in this game, he had no interest in discussing the state of the world or in working on things diplomatically in a joint game. At most, he'd send me a note with his planned moves. So I lost the special aspect of the game that made it interesting and was at such an enormous disadvantage as I'm sure the other 8 players were experiencing what I did the first time. As you can see, I'm soon to be eliminated. (To be clear, lest I'm misunderstood, I both like and admire this player. I just don't think his play style is conducive to this experiment.)
We're already in discussion about a third go. Hopefully we can fill it with big talkers. My pair from the first game (ND) and I have asked slypups about allowing signups as pairs, rather than assignment from individual signups. This is less good in a sense, as it clumps players of high talent together, and on top of that, it provides a disincentive to even join for players who, with the pairs that they can find, will be a bit dominated. All it does is prevent my particular fate - it makes it far less likely that you end up with a non-talker or someone with whom you have a language barrier. But the medicine may be worse than the disease. Presumably the non-talkers will eventually weed themselves out if these games become popular because they're at a far larger disadvantage than they would be even in regular full press games.
I don't know if GMs have special ability to control games, as seems to have been implied here and there. At least, it seems GMs can pause games. I'm not sure how they are designated or how such controls are accessed. But if there is interest here in such a thing and someone explains to me how to manage the technology to be a GM, I'd be happy to be the organizer and oversee things in terms of setting up pairs and tending to game play aspects, which I think I do understand well.
The only asterisk that I include here is that if slypups is on this site and if he wants to direct it, I'll cede the honor to him (and probably play!) as it is his invention. Variants are slow-coming on webdip and fall from heaven here. (It was the main reason I came over here, and I've played some wild games!) It seems more likely that, if this idea gets further fleshed out and is popular, it gets implemented as a game mechanism here, not requiring specific oversight by a GM. I'll be happy if I can help to build some interest over here.