Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
nopunin10did (987 D)
Mon 12 AM UTC
(+1)
Replace PPSC with something rank-based?
I've put together a length proposal over on PlayDip to provide a rank-based scoring system for draws that's similar to the Carnage system used in several North American Dip tournaments today.

https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57975#p951166
63 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+18)
Winning
Oli won.
On Imperial Civilization's off-topic thread (link inside), there was a brief stint of Second to Last Person to Post Wins. Now that the thread is closed, Oli won.
6704 replies
Open
Devonian (1871 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
(+13)
1v1 Tournament Rules, Rankings, and Challenges
Official Rules for 1v1 Ladder Tournament
1572 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1626 D (B) (B))
Sun 10 AM UTC
(+1)
Padlock City
What's the deal with all the padlocks that have appeared throughout my games when viewed on the vDip homepage?
56 replies
Open
Notifications by email?
Is there a way I can get email notifications for my campaigns? I haven't gotten any at all, and because of that I've lost several games.
2 replies
Open
kaner406 (1559 D Mod (B) (B))
10 Mar 18 UTC
(+4)
Bourse 2018
See below:
191 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1626 D (B) (B))
27 Oct 17 UTC
1066 Tournament
As discussed in episode 23 of the Diplomacy Games podcast I'm thinking of putting together a 1066 tournament. Interested takers?
143 replies
Open
butterhead (975 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+11)
Advertise your NON-live games here!
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
2409 replies
Open
nopunin10did (987 D)
Tue 12 Jun UTC
(+2)
At long last: 1900
With some help from Tobias & Oliver, my implementation of Baron VonPowell's "1900" is finally live.

47 replies
Open
WWII Tournament
I would like to start a tournament. I've seen the Known World and 1v1 tournaments, and those are great fun. So why not apply it to World War II? I'm still working out the details, but I'll post some details.
304 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
Sat 16 Jun UTC
Would anyone like to join a Known World game?
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=35213
0 replies
Open
Frozen Dog (1000 D)
Thu 14 Jun UTC
Playtest of variant
Hi! I am trying to organize a playtest of a variant I created with some unique rules that made it not possible to implement on vdiplomacy (yet!). I have called it 'Feudal Diplomacy'. [See below for details!]
3 replies
Open
ubercacher16 (1271 D)
Tue 12 Jun UTC
Possible Change
See first post
10 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (936 D)
Tue 12 Jun UTC
(+1)
Game Showcase
Here, feel free to share any links to games that are notable to you!
10 replies
Open
CCR (1717 D)
Wed 13 Jun UTC
Zero games variants
I thought I'd create a few games of the newest variants, and looked for those still not played, without opened games, or no new ones yet.
2 replies
Open
Mittag (1582 D)
Sat 09 Jun UTC
Sandboxes?
Does anyone know any good adjudicator, online of for Mac, that I could use for playing around with positions?
7 replies
Open
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
Clock Watching - Sniping the NMRs
I am unaware of the actual term, but is it considered bad form here on vDip to change your orders in anticipation of an opponent's upcoming NMR?
36 replies
Open
Ghastly (986 D)
Thu 07 Jun UTC
Would appreciate a replacement for 1800 variant Prussia
I have no motivation to keep playing turns, so I figure I could give my only game to someone who does. Sorry for making a new thread, I couldn't find the game-sitters thread.
2 replies
Open
Enriador (1396 D (B))
Sun 03 Jun UTC
(+1)
[New Variant] Scramble
Play as an European colonial power during the Scramble for Africa! Based on @Tristan's 'Africa' variant.

Soon on vDip: http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=124
13 replies
Open
Skyrock (1157 D)
Sun 03 Jun UTC
Thoughts on fixing the Classic - Economic variant
See main post below.
Skyrock (1157 D)
Sun 03 Jun UTC
(+1)
The variant in question: http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=53

I love the [b]idea[/b] of playing simultanously on two boards, but I strongly dislike the execution:

1. Every home center on the economic board is bordering another one, forcing everyone into a Trieste-Venice situation.
2. It is extremely easy to occupy someone else out of their home center in an unwatched moment, locking them out of ever building units on the economic board ever again.
3. It violates the triangle design of the Calhamer map ( https://files.catbox.moe/yx9sj1.png ), and doesn't replace it with anything interesting.
4. Every space on the economic board is a supply center, without any non-SC spaces for maneuvering.
5. The board is plain boring with only walls breaking up the monotony here and there.

Ideas on fixes:

1. Re-arrange the country positions to follow the triangle model of the Calhamer map ( https://files.catbox.moe/yx9sj1.png ).
2. Make sure that every home SC is separated from each other by at least one neutral space.
3. Allow warping between the home SC on the economic board and the trade hub home SC on the Calhamer board (A - Trieste, E - London, F - Brest, G - Kiel, I - Rome, R - St. Petersburg, T - Constantinople).
4. Cluster the neutral SCs between at least three powers to faciliate negotiation (similar to Benelux, Scandinavia and the Balkan on Calhamer).

Optional ideas:

* give option-starved Italy and Turkey a few more diplomatic options such as through warp zones
* place one of the SC clusters between Italy, Turkey and Austria to give them more options and more opportunities to grow

Comments and suggestions on my thoughts so far?
Mercy (2043 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
Good points. I'd like to zoom in on point (3). I don't mind that the triangle design of the Calhamer map is broken; in fact, the thing I like about playing on multiple boards is that you can have direct contact with more different nations than you would have if you played on just one board. However, I completely agree that it isn't replaced with something interesting. Every power just having two neighbours, and England and Turkey even having just one neighbour, doesn't make the map interesting in my eyes.
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
Regarding issue #4: Are you thinking about reducing the number of SCs or increasing the number of spaces?
Regarding issue #5: I agree that I'd Like to see something more interesting, But what? I thought it'd be interesting if the corners of the boxes bordered, which would add some additional Flexibility, but it sounds like you are looking for something different.

All told, I like the map as it is. I like that the Home SCs are immediately under fire (after the first build phase). If you made enemies in the first year (everyone does), those enemies have a new front to attack you on. I also enjoy the purity of the map, reminiscent of Pure, Chromatic, or Who controls America where each player starts off with nearly identical topography (the fact the England and Turkey border an edge is anathema to this concept, but could be fixed with a wrap around).
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
Also, the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win the game, which makes it a bit like researching your way to victory in Age of Empires, not best win condition, but effective nonetheless.
Skyrock (1157 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
I would reduce the number of SCs on the economic map, mostly because I wouldn't want to completely re-do the existing shrunken Calhamer map (and it would probably also become illegible if I made it even smaller to accomodate a larger economic board).

I'm not a huge fan of Chromatic and similar symmetric maps, for the reasons detailed here: https://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/chromatic-diplomacy/
Asymmetrical maps make for meaningful choices, and triangles make for good negotiations as everyone can act with or against everyone. In Economic you could as well flip a coin whether to go left or right, and once the left and the right neighbour of X have decided to fleece X together, there is nothing X can offer to change the minds of the attackers as both can only gain from it and there is no way for one to stab the other as long as power X still stands between them.
drano019 (2150 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
(+1)
@Mercy -

In reality, only Germany actually has 2 neighbors in the Economic map, as France/Italy and Austria/Russia are separated by the impassable barriers to start. Coupled with the design of the Economic board and point #2 above, and it makes the Economic map very dull. If a player like England takes France's starting position in Barley, then England has just basically made it impossible for France to win the game. With a 24 SC victory condition, being locked out on the Economic map has reduced you to a "has-been" virtually immediately, as capturing 24 SCs on the regular map when you have little way of getting additional builds on the economic map would be close to impossible, especially considering your rivals would be gaining builds from the economic map still.

@Caerus -

While the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win, the layout of the map, and the easy ability to blockade people makes that nearly impossible. I mean, taking all but the far right or far left column? With the way the walls are positioned, it's quite simple to stalemate someone somehow.

I think part of the problem I see is that it seems like building in the Economic map in the first build season is a necessity. If you don't, it's quite likely you'll lose your only build center, or at the very least, will be at a severe disadvantage, and will see your ability to win greatly diminished.
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
@Drano
I agree that winning by those means is not a realistic possibility with the current rules. It is simply a technical possibility that I find interesting. I should never have called it effective, that was a poor word choice. I agree there are a number of decision that are taken from you, (i.e. building in Econ on 1st build) which is why i'd like to see some improvement. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.

@Skyrock
I don't disagree with your preference toward asymmetrical maps. What I found interesting with this map is the juxtaposition between the classic asymmetrical map and the symmetrical Econ Map. I agree the Econ map could use a bit of work (something to make it more dynamic), but if it is instead replaced by another asymmetrical map (especially if troops can travel between them), you are really just extending size of the classic map (something that First Crusade and many others already do to great effect). I am not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, and If you were to make an Econ2.0 map that had 2 asymmetrical connected maps, you can bet I'd play it. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
Is it possible to make part of a map Build-anywhere and the other not? Would it be possible to set up the variant such that you could build in any SC in the Econ map, and still only the home centers of the Classic map?
Skyrock (1157 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
@Caerus:
I don't mind to hear opposing preferences and opinions - that is why I reach out first, rather than to put a lot of effort into a modified Economic variant only to miss the mark.

It would be technically possible to declare every SC on the econ map as a home center for everyone, effectively turning it into partial chaos map. I generally prefer non-chaos variants, but it would only take minutes to also create a partial chaos version if there is popular demand for it.
Sky_Hopper (936 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
@Sky: How would that work, exactly?
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
I was suggesting it as an option to avoid the instant "has-been" status that Drano was talking about. being able to build from any of the Econ centers would allow you some comeback potential if your starting SC was taken. I don't personally like the idea either, but I had it, so I thought I would throw it out here to see how feasible it was.
Caerus (1488 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
oh... that was to Skyrock. My apologies.
Skyrock (1157 D)
Mon 04 Jun UTC
@Sky Hopper:

How would what work? If you mean turning the econ map into a chaos map, Webdiplomacy (and by extension Vdiplomacy) allows to flag initially owned centers and home centers separately, and the same SC can be assigned as a home center to multiple powers. South American Supremacy ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=24 ) would be a mild example of this, where Maranho (among others) is flagged as a home center for Brazil, but not as an initially owned SC. Classic - Build anywhere ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=5 ) would be an extreme example as every SC is flagged as a home SC for everyone, but the powers still only initially hold the standard provinces.
Sky_Hopper (936 D)
Wed 06 Jun UTC
@Sky: Oh. I thought you meant having everyone possess every single center on the econ board at the beginning of the game.


14 replies
nopunin10did (987 D)
30 May 17 UTC
(+1)
1900 for vDip: Progress Report (ongoing)
As mentioned in another thread, I've been working on the code and assets necessary to port Baron M. Powell's variant 1900 to vDip and/or webDip.

In order to keep myself accountable in some fashion to actually complete this task, and not just talk about it, I've created a small project plan where I can mark my progress.
88 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (936 D)
01 Jun 18 UTC
[Variant] Nautical
The Classic map, but with bigger sea territories!

16 replies
Open
Enriador (1396 D (B))
28 May 18 UTC
(+1)
Taking over Civil Disorders should be free of charge
Reasoning: the player who takes over a Civil Disorder is not just putting themself in a precarious position (as they must evaluate everybody's styles and strategies) but they are also saving the game's balance and fun.

In order to reward/incentive people to take more CDs, I believe that making it free of charge (rather than current 50% discount) would be for the best. Thoughts?
62 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1626 D (B) (B))
02 Sep 16 UTC
(+7)
New podcast for online Dip games
Hi everyone

Kaner and I have started a podcast about playing Diplomacy online....
177 replies
Open
d-ice (1892 D)
16 May 18 UTC
(+5)
Variants as maps, rules and tweaks
I’d like to propose a variant system that could lead to a significant increase in flexibility of testing out new variants.
12 replies
Open
Imp. Dipl.: urgent replacement for Prussia required
For following game as Prussia:
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34905#gamePanel
Post your user ID/send it
3 replies
Open
Enriador (1396 D (B))
25 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
New Variant: Crusades 1201
Hail diplomats,

New 11-players variant coming up, set in the High Middle Ages.
24 replies
Open
00matthew2000 (2531 D)
29 May 18 UTC
New Imperial Diplomacy Game, Players Wanted
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=35028
0 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (1000 D)
24 Jan 18 UTC
(+2)
New Variant: Dawn of the Enlightenment
It is on a temporary homepage, http://davidecohen.wixsite.com/diplomiscellany, since I am having a bit of trouble editing my main website. Please take a look. I would love to get comments, suggestions and criticism.
40 replies
Open
Known World Tournament
Awhile back, kaner proposed a Known World gunboat tournament in which 15 participants would play 15 games, one with each nation. I searched back for the thread, then just decided to start a new one. I want to see if there would be sufficient interest in this to try to get it off the ground.
461 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top