Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

...

24 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: GameMaster: Please remember that negotiations before the game begins are not allowed.
24 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): This game is not meant to be played like a traditional Diplomacy game where it's every man for himself, instead as stated above it is a ROLEPLAY game. With preset alliances.
24 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): The alliances are as they were in World War One, with a few slight alterations. Prussia, Austria/Hungary and Turkey are considered the "Central Powers" and are aligned. The Allies are considered to be France, Britain and the US. All other countries are wildcards. Some special notes on other countries, CSA, China and Mexico are all considered leaning towards the Central powers, as Mexico and the USA were often at odds, CSA and the US are still in a civil war and China had ill relations with Britain. Brazil and Holland are neutral countries and have no real obligation to either side. Russia and Japan tend to lean more towards the Allies but traditionally held a bloody relationship towards each other. Japan and China had similar ill relations.
24 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): Victory is simply defined as when one of the alliance groups prevails over the other.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Interesting idea here, I like it! I wonder about the repercussions of having France/Britain/US all on the same team, as it seems to give a lot of colonial power to the allies compared to the Central Powers. A question on the neutral powers: Are we supposed to indicate what "side" we pick? Can we switch sides? How is it determined at the end of the game?
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Alright, well that cut off most of my message. I love the idea, I wonder about the wisdom of giving the Allies so much colonial power compared to the Central Powers, but alas, that's what neutrals are for right? Question on the neutrals: Do they have to pick a side? How is this done? Can they switch mid-game?
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Ok, I have no idea why this keeps cutting off my messages. This is weird. The questions above are regarding the neutral powers.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Maucat): The idea of pre determined alliance is very interesting.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Moraag): Hey guys, first time playing Imperial Diplomacy so go easy on me ;)
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): I'm curious - what's to stop all the "neutral" powers from just joining one side to make things real easy? And if they're supposed to join the side they lean to (China, CSA, Mexico for example), why not just put them on that side?
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): I'm actually quite surprised and content at the enthusiasm and depth of these questions. But I feel they are all fair and so I'll proceed to answer them. 1.For the individual asking how to indicate which side to choose: I would assume this is Holland I am addressing, and the neutral countries, (China,CSA,Mexico,Brazil,Russia,Holland and Japan) are all free to choose whichever side they want to. It would be optimal if once a country were to choose a side to remain on that the country in question would state their side in the main chat and remain loyal to their own side, so actual sides can be distinguished. There is nothing stopping them for switching except for their own reputation in game, for example if the CSA were to choose the Central Powers (Prussia,Austria and Turkey) and then switch mid game to the Allies then what reason would the Allies have to trust CSA? 2. At the end of the game the prevailing side would be considered the one with a definitive alliance of countries with the most SCs. 3. The question of a large conglomerate of "neutral" powers would be best answered by the fact that it is more historically accurate if they were given the ability to choose which side they see fit. World War One was more a glorified European war than a true World War like World War Two. 4.Again, the side they lean towards is for a sort of historical feel, but the neutral powers are free to try and create a third option instead of joining one of the solid alliances which have already been established.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Hey, Holland here. Yeah, just wanted to see if you had some sort of idea how you wanted it to play out. Personally I think it's a lot more fun to give the freedom that you're allowing. Not really fair to the Central Powers if the Neutral's start their own faction given their size compared to the Allies, but still a lot of fun. I can see this working out in a fun way if people really get into it.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): Indeed, I am Prussia, the author of the explanations above and the creator of the game, I cannot state for a fact that I will survive for long but I plan on bringing my alliance to power/victory.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): One of the main problems either side may run into is unification, I mean, this is diplomacy the game where backstabbing is ever present.
25 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Batguy): Although if the Neutrals create one or two more factions it may end up becoming a meld of the Allies and Central Powers vs the neutrals, who knows?
26 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Well let's get 6 more people signed up and find out what happens!!
27 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (drano019): Seems like it might be time to try to advertise a bit?
30 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (Prasann Singhal): Yes, we need to get this done quickly
30 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (DanShot360): Would you have to declare war before you can attack other nations?
30 Jan 17 UTC	Spring, 1861: (DanShot360): and why is Russia not a member of the Allies?

...