I agree with Raro, this will be an interesting game

but you weren't back yet! I would have if you were

well that's why telepathy exists...

we have 10, anymore takers?

With 10 we can play Modern Diplomacy II, Fall of the American Empire IV, and Youngstown Redux.

With 10, War in 2020 also.

Some consideration about which could be the best.

1) Being "Prestige" basically a Tournament where each game gives you a score depending on your win/draw/surv outcome, every result should be possible, in a game.

2)Since War in 2020 and Youngstown have a map with an odd number of SCs, 2-way draws are impossible. I'd exclude them.

3) F ot AE IV and Youngstown got a VC different from half+1. I'd exclude them unless we set VC=half+1

4) If we're going to play only 2 or 3 games, skip this. But if the Tourny is longer maybe we should choose a map that has good chances to provide us a reasonable time for each game. Every result should be possible, but no endless games, please. So, being the average duration of a game strictly connected to the Territories/Player ratio, I believe we should choose a Map as close as possible to Classic's T/P ratio. This is the situation:
Map.............................Terr per Player
War in 2020.......................2.6
CLASSIC.........................10.7
Modern Dip II...................14.1
F ot AE IV.........................16.1
Youngstown......................18.3

So...if you don't want to add anything... how about a Modern? It's the one that better meets all the requirements.
Thoughts?

As the designer of Youngstown Redux the whole idea is based on solos not draws. The biggest issue (according to Richard Sharp at least) was Youngstown was a game where players drawed all the time

My understanding is that this "tournament" would span over multiple games. Is that not the case? If so, we'll end up playing all of them no?

I think if we get enough, we'll either be in brackets or play round robin style, so we would only play one game a round.

Airborne, I copied what's following from somewhere else in the web, in defense of draws:

"Diplomacy is a game about communication. Communication between people you trust, people you don't, people you call ally, and those you call enemy - and that is the heart of the game. It even says so in the Diplomacy 4th edition rulebook, though in different words.

The game of Diplomacy is what is being questioned here - the site follows the rules of the game as well as it can, but draws are an integral part of the game. Many of the best players, including the man who created the game, argue that all games of Diplomacy should end in a draw. Draws are given in the rules, and the site follows the rules, so naturally, draws are included.

The point you make about causing it to be higher levels of play is possible, but that's ultimately a matter of opinion. What takes more skill - forming a solid 3-way alliance to force a stalemate against the game leader who is at 16 centers, or betraying those two allies and (somehow) getting all their centers to get to 18? That's a matter of opinion. I personally find no greater thrill in Diplomacy than rallying nations together to beat a juggernaut nation or two who are on the brink of winning." -

So airborne.... if you like playing for solos and you want to encourage this attitude in a game, you can set it as WTA in gamecreation. Or you can set up a "special rules game" (like no-stab or team games) and call it "no-draws" in which players commit themselves in not voting a draw unless there's a stalemate (as in the previous examples they commit to not stab or not betray their team). Or, again, you can set up the VC=half-1, so no 2-way draws. There's no need to have an odd number of SC.

Personally, I like maps where 2-ways are possible. If every result is possible then every strategy, whether diplomatic or tactic, is possible. Everything is possible! And the game is more... rich! More funny!

So creating a map with the explicit purpose to make a result impossible... it's a mistake I believe. It ruins the map. Draws are part of the game, map creators should leave to players the choice between allow all or forbid something. If you create a map with an odd number of SCs your diplomatic possibilities are rather limited (you don't promise a 2-way to your ally because you can't: you have no choice) and the games... will be missing something... will be less complex... and therefore it will be less funny.

I m in if there is a space in your Tournament!

Diplomat's in? There goes the neighborhood... :p

what? Why Are you leaving? I am not Diplomat33! ..Everyone just make fun of him I suppose....

Shep
Butterhead
TT
Guaroz
Airborne
Drano
KA
Ezpickins
Raro
Gopher
Diplomat

Ok, time to argue over the 11 player variants.
but in all seriousness, we need just 3 more for 14 which would allow us to get two sets of classical (or equivalent) running.

"YOUNGSTOWN

The ten-player Youngstown Variant was formerly the most played of the ‘big’ variants, but has recently been eclipsed by Mercator. Designed by Rod Walker, it is named after the American town where it was first played. It includes China, India and Japan in addition to the usual seven players; special features include off-board boxes (the use of which has caused games-masters some headaches) and three ‘colonial’ fleets — an English one at Johore, a French one at Saigon and an Italian one at Mogadishu — to enable countries which might otherwise be uninvolved in some areas of the board to have a stake there.

Many games of Youngstown have been played — there was one extreme case in which ten players started a postal tournament of ten simultaneous Youngstown games, each of them playing each country once, but I do not know what happened to this unlikely experiment. The trouble seems to be that few of these games have led to an outright win: Youngstown is definitely a ‘drawish’ variant. China is massively strong, and a very frequent result has been a draw between China and one or more of the European countries. In Britain, at any rate, the consensus now seems to be that Youngstown is a bore, and its day seems to be over."

@airborne and Guaroz- you know there is now an easy way to set up games that have odd numbers of SC's so it is possible for a 2 way draw right? with the win condition option, just make it half+2 instead of +1 that way one player can have one more center than the other, and they can still draw 2 ways...
and your mind just got blown ;)

Given that crowded is the only 11 player map and Renaissance and Fantasy are the only 12 player maps, I will have to bow out if we are going to go over 10. I had yet to play Youngstown and thought this would be a fun group to try it out with. I am one of the people who had to plead business when Shep tried to organize a bit ago. My life is still a little busy, but not as bad as is was for the month leading up to last week. I'd love to join y'all for a non-anon, full press, pick your power Youngstown game, but I can too easily see us marching on to Haven should a line not be drawn pretty much now.

Isn't there now an option to change the winning conditions on games, so that you can make a 2 way draw sustainable?

I agree, I don't see this working if we let too many people in one game, It sounds like shep intended multiple games at once, each with a different set of people. hence the bracket. Things should even out if we reach 14

@gopher- isn't the whole win condition thing exactly what I just said ;)

A draw between China and one European country? So once it had an even number of SCs? So there were more possibilities. And they call it a bore. Now that Redux reduced the possibilities, how should we call it?
I'd have tried to increase the possibilities, instead. Perhaps making a weaker China?

If players who hate draws want to avoid them, they already have their options: set WTA - set a low VC - set special rules. There's no need to ruin a Map.

You (and kaner) are my favourite Variant creators. When thinking on a Map, please keep all the possibilities open. This way players will be free to either set those additional rules that match their taste... or not. Let them choose what they want!

@butterhead you're absolutely right my friend. You Genius. It's a good solution unless there's a way to stalemate someone and stuck him at half+1 (rather disappointing being forced to a, say, 5-way draw having the majority of SCs), but it would be rather rare, I guess.
However, this doesn't change the fact that I don't see any reason to make an odd-SCs-Map.
Sorry all for my off-topic posts.

I think the point of odd supply center maps is to try to avoid those people who say, turn 1 as soon as the game starts, hey lets ally together and no matter what happens we will draw 2 ways, even if one of us reaches one under the win condition and the other one is nowhere near half way there... that's just my theory on it though...

Youngstown looks like a good map but I do agree that more sc's should be needed for solo victory. Half +1 seems to work just fine. Is it not possible to set it at that with the new feature? I think that would maintain the best draw/solo ratios and probablities, also one most of us are used to.

Draws and alliances are an important of Diplomacy, and many games should end in draws, but only good draws! I don't like drawing with more than half of the players. In other words, I like aggressive play but not necessarily cut-throat and 'non-diplomatic'. When there are several players (over 10), games get boring if everybody's afraid to attack a player if someone is at risk of an early win (this may be the case if the victory condition is set too low), and it is why such games would end in many-player draws. I think solos should be attainable, but very difficult to attain.

From the first ideas about the game, it sounds like Shep is encouraging some quality competition by offering more *prestige for a solo than a draw. *Prestige is a pretty fancy word- I'd like some *prestige; however, it shouldn't be gobbled up in easy solo victories, or handed out to 80% of the players. It should only be won by an incredibly tough solo, or a quality (<4) draw.

from Guaroz' earlier comment:
"if you like playing for solos and you want to encourage this attitude in a game, you can set it as WTA in gamecreation."

I disagree. I think that WTA usually encourages more draws (but better ones). However in this case, the *prestige awards take the place of a high points pay-out, so I don't think its a good choice for this game.

@butter What would be wrong with that?
I was thinking exactly that, when I said I like have more possibilities. If A & B make a treaty like that, 4 things can happen:
1) A stabs B
2) B stabs A
3) A & B stab each other (always, when I ally with titanfan1717. LOL)
4) Nobody stabs the other.

Four more possibilities, four more ways to have fun. Why should we deny ourselves some more fun?

I agree and understand with yourpoint of view on draws. However, I'm firmly within Richard Sharp's philosophy that long term alliances are boring, free-for-all sort of games are the best and that solos shuold be encouraged.

and remember we could also set the victory condition to half +1 on maps like youngstown that don't have that victory condition

I have a headache from reading all of this....

I'd honestly prefer to have 7-10 per map, so since we are at 11 lets see if we can get a few more players and create another bracket (especially since we get into more unbalanced maps when we get into things like 11 or 12 players)