5 more needed:

Modern (WWII):

kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23

I'm interested, too. But we will have to pause the game in a few weeks for two weeks, if I'm in.

Modern (WWII):

kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23

?(tobi1)?

Turn length?

1 day is fine by me

any more interest out there?

Modern (WWII):

kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23

?(tobi1)?
?(LoveDove)?

I would if there is room

I'll do it but what's the bet gonna be?

I'm interested, if there is room still.

The bet would be affordable to everyone who's signed up. (not to big in other words)

Modern (WWII):

AncientMemories
kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23
Puma

?(tobi1)?
?(LoveDove)?
?(R4p)?

Still need 3 more definite's.

yay finally a team game on the Modern map ~~~ I'm in for sure ~

Modern (WWII):

AncientMemories
kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23
Puma
Lukas Podolski

so we need two more.

However kaner can you explain the team allocations if we are to simulate WWII?

we're going with President Eden's variation of the teams as follows:

Allies: Britain, France, Poland, Egypt
Axis: Germany, Italy, Spain
Soviets: Ukraine, Russia
Neutral: Turkey

Provisos:
*Egypt switches sides to the Axis if Britain is defeated
*Turkey can switch sides at any time

Given that the theme is forced alliances which may or may not be balanced, I don't think it's particularly fair to make a large bet for the game. I'd propose a 20-point bet at the most; 200 with WTA would still be a sizable reward and it shouldn't burden anyone who wants to play too much.

As for phase length, I'd prefer 1-2 days. 36 hours would be ideal.

And to clarify my original variation comments: Turkey "switching sides" just means Turkey plays like a normal Diplomacy player would. It's not bound by any team obligations and can basically freelance. While that sounds wonderful, though, be sure not to piss too many people off... the three power blocs are just as likely to see Turkey as a dangerous wildcard and a mutual threat to their alliances' survivals as they are to see it as a potentially valuable ally.

I'll Play then, it sounds good to me

Only one left now to complete

1 more needed - 20pt game WTA (forced draw for teams!!!)

Modern (WWII):

AncientMemories
kaner406
President Eden
fasces349
SacredDigits
Catch23
Puma
Lukas Podolski
R4p

?(tobi1)?
?(LoveDove)?

Oh how about putting Poland into the Soviet team? That will lead to more balance I suppose? Or have I mistaken?

And yes I will definitely agree to the duration of 36 hours.

I will play, if everyone accept that we have to pause the game in a few weeks. But I think, this isn't a problem. But badly I have spent much points in the last days, so a 20pt game would be too much for me (maybe a 10pt game). Don't know how it come. :)
So I think we are 10. Hopefully you agree to only 10pt.

I am absolutely fine with 10.

Ok so that means there is enough people now so who'll create the new game?

Kaner maybe? He's the first person on the list ~

If someone falls out I will play. Sorry for the delay; overlooked the thread.

thx

I have a question about the Soviet Team, can they work with both the Axis and the Allies at separate points? Ex. Help Germany invade Poland like they did historically, would they be stuck on the Axis team or would they still function separately?

Good question, I would guess that the team would decide while playing.

Also could the person who creates the game post it on this thread.

Oh... Forget that last part didn't read my messages

@Shep: You bet they can. In fact, in THEORY the Axis and Allies could collaborate against the Soviets. In practice I'm not expecting to see that, but it's conceivable.

The idea is basically that there are three teams jockeying for control (with a wildcard thrown in to ensure the natural 3-power balance doesn't lead to an early stalemate), just like in reality -- the West, the Axis, and the Soviets.

As for Poland, the balance should be fine as it is, I think. The Soviets have a very comfortable corner position to make up for the lack of resources. The main issue is that the Allies have a considerable advantage with two amazing corner positions -- which is part of the motivation for why if Britain falls then Egypt turns. It's historically accurate (Egypt did NOT like their British overlords but had no choice but to fight for them, and independently sought out the Axis Powers for assistance), but it also helps to correct the imbalance that might occur from having four countries, two of which are corners. (It's also somewhat balanced by the fact that the other two members, France and Poland, are surrounded by potential hostiles.)