Forum - vDiplomacy

Page 67 of 160

Rancher (1275

)
24 Jun 12 UTC

webdip problem?

can't log on

9 replies

Open

Wolfman (1230

)
03 Jun 12 UTC

7 Powers of the World (Team Game Concept)

This would be a team game concept. I would like to see how fun it might be. Along with getting, others input as how to make it even better.

Page 2 of 4

Wolfman (1230 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

Now we are up to:

1) Wolfman
2) Fortress Doerr
3) DEFIANT
4) Guaroz
5) Imagonnalose
6) keess
7) kingwar59
8) cypeg
9) GOD
10) ezpickinds
11) kaner406
12) Tristan
13) Ender Wiggen

@ FD : I guess I am confused as to why anyone would want to join, put in points, and then ask to be eliminated by their teammates. Either way the team as a whole is at the same number of centers and no advantage can be gained by it. Then you add in the possibility that for some reason a team has a member they dislike (if we go with Random). The other four could say he agreed to be taking down and yet the one being eliminated is claiming that he never did. This only opens up a argument and only the mods could open up messages to see who is telling the truth. Which would either have to stop the game in order to properly investigate and find the truth or go on with the game. Him get eliminated then find the truth out and have a bigger problem in how to get back to that point where his team went rogue on him. That would not make the game very fun for anyone that has joined, in my opinion. It all comes back to WHY would anyone chose to join and asked to be taken out. If his units are a part of the teams then even with one he is a force and the alliance still has the unit to use at their will.

Maybe I am mistaking but seems you are making the point as he is being attacked and cannot stop the attacker. Asks his team to take his center instead of it falling into enemy hand. (SEEMS NOBEL ENOUGH). However, if a team member can take him down. Doesn't that mean he has 2 unit adjacent his comrade's last center or at the very least 2 member are adjacent to his center. How helping him hold it is any different then giving it away to them, is where I am confused. No benefit for the alliance would come and why would you wish to quit and forfeit your points you put in.

I am totally open to changing that rule. If others feel that FD's request is a valid one to make the change. Please give input.

@ cypeg and gopher27 : True the UEA (United European Alliance) has a challenge that no other alliance would have in Germany being surrounded. Let me see if I can give you an example of how it could work or one idea of how to get it to work. Lets say UEA agreed with the UCA (United China Alliance) to have a NAP. Agreed to join forces with the UCA (United Central Alliance) (just realized they have the same letters, this will have to change so not to confuse anyone) to attack the UNA (United Northern Alliance). I think one mistake is coming in as I am saying Germany (or any country) cannot move into a center that any of his team member have owned or do own. That is a misinterpretation to what is meant. With this scenario I have set up. The UEA could decide to have the UK and Germany as the fleets in the team. This makes Germany owning MUN and PRG unnecessary as he cannot build fleet in these centers. Of course starting out he would have to build armies. Those could be used to help the ground units move toward which ever target the ground forces chose to move in, as a team. However, him taking coastal centers in Europe would be his most logical needs to become a fleet based force. Using those ground unit to do so would most likely be the first steps. Now back to the example, Russia is a ground force member. Having Sweden or Warsaw is not as important to him. The team could decide that Russia will end up with MUN and PRG and Germany will own SWE and WAR so he can build fleets.

Exchanging centers is a big key that some my not be accustom to doing. That is where the 5 minds working as a unit can be a huge advantage or disadvantage depending on rather or not you team works well together. I AM NOT saying attacks or planned attacks against your members are not allowed. As exchanging centers should and will most likely need to happen. Forced dislodges, to help in disbanding one type of unit, so that the member could rebuild a unit of need, is going to be needed at some point also.

The fact is, that is why I chose this variant to try this on. Movements are NOT LIMITED to a location at all. Germany does not have to be located in Europe at all to still be an active player on the board. The opportunities are only LIMITED by the non creativeness of the team members as a whole

Don't look at it as a normal board of diplomacy. Where the spreading out is the only way to expand. Instead think of it as 5 member with the ability to be as creative as they like to accomplish which ever goal they choose to take on first. All center, still in your possession, will be home centers to you. As a team, the ability to move one direction as a whole, if chosen to do it that way, is even a possibility. Leaving your old centers in a wake behind you if chose. There are a number of possibilities, and the team will be a collective group, that should decide together, which centers each should have, abandon, and protect for their said alliance.

I hope this helps in envisioning the concept a little better.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 : Which rules do you need clarification on?

@ EVERYONE : I think we have a good group interested, or enough to at least create the game. Only thing we would not be able to iron out once I create the game. Would be the issues of rather we are going to go with Randomly paired into teams. Or chosen to make captains to chose 4 other member to be on their team. If we go with making your own team then we will have to draw for the alliance among the captains. I could make it a password protected game to join until that is accomplished. However, I need EVERYONE to vote or we take a majority now and go with that.

Second and third thing that cannot be changed after I set it up is the phasing time and point buy in. So far it seems most agree on the 2 day 2 hour phasing is enough time. Also seems 10

seems to be a good buy in for most.

Please if your name is above as for sure interested in playing. Please add in your vote on which way to go for the set up. If your just deciding to join, please add your vote to these also. Thank you.

1) Pick your team or Randomly selected (Password it if you would rather discuss it more)
2) Phasing length you prefer
3) You ideal buy in

gman314 (1016 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

Guaroz: If you look at EW's non-gunboat games, you'll see that most of them are 2 player games. There's not much talking required there. The only other is a 3 player game which could be a cause for worry or not, depending on your point of view.

Also, I'm interested. But I think that Ruffhaus might have muted me, so it can only be one of us.

kaug (1220 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

Count me in. Would like to propose a longer phase length. 3 days would likely play out nicely, maybe even longer to avoid pauses. It will be an extremely long game anyway, so if anyone is in a rush, they should not join.

Guaroz (2030 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

"The opportunities are only LIMITED by the non creativeness of the team members as a whole"
It looked clear the first time I read this thread. I fully agree with your vision of a team game.
Since you're asking again, I have to point out that I think that Random is necessary. Pick Up Your Country (or your team) would be much less interesting, for me.

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

I'm Interested, but I think that KISS applies here. Keeping it simple is better. It's a team game/alliance game. The goal is to thave the team win. If the team wins all players on the team win regarless of center totals and/or survival or elimination. Why make silly rules about who can attack who. All issues you raise are dismissed if you simply take that approach. As for the other issues:

1) No random teams. If I'm going to have teammates, I want to select them.
2) Phasing 2 days is fine. Anything longer gets out of control with people taking the entire period to submit retreats and builds/disbands. It's too bad that no one has figured out ho to make retreat phases shorter than movement phases.
3) 10-20

per player buy in sounds fine.

I have not muted anyone to my knowledge.
3)

Wolfman (1230 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

@ gman314 : if that is true about the mute. You are totally right. Ruffhaus said he would be interested if some rules were clarified. To me this means a maybe is still for him. You said your interested. So your in.

@ Ruffhaus : still waiting to find out what rules you need clarified, but if you want to play then you cannot have a player in the game that is muted or you will not be able to communicate with a possible team member or fellow NAP'ed Alliance member of another alliance. Most likely you cannot see his post. However, gman314 does want to play and thinks you have him muted. So if you chose to join you will need to unmute him to play in the game.

@ Guaroz and Everyone: As I too think Random selection is also the best way to get new ideas. The players you are more familiar with and have played along side as allies in other games. Will not be as meaningful to learning new techniques. Most likely you would have members that you already know what the others think. Bringing down the possibilities to being creative. The idea would be to think out side of the box at a more interesting twist to advancing and expanding.

@ kaug : I too think 3 days or more would be needed to insure everyone has a good chance to weight in and give suggestions to the team.

gman314 (1016 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

Before Ruffhaus posted, only I had commented about him having muted someone. Since he responded to that message, he hasn't.

The reason I wondered about the mute was because I tried joining a game but was told that someone had muted me or I had muted someone. I haven't muted anyone, so I guessed. The only reason I could think of for someone muting me is the debate Ruffhaus and I just had over WWIV. I guess that wasn't it.

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

I'm not going to mute you because you disagree with me on something. While I can see the use for such a feature, I let my play speak for itself. Player deserving of muting and/or blocking will be stomped in the games. :)

Wolfman, there's an tire thread of conversation here with nothing very definitive about what's been decided. From my standpoint it looks like this is where I shake down on the 13 bullet points raised in your initial information:

1) Why? Is this rule necessary? What does this accomplish? If such action actually benefits the team, why not allow it? To overcome any perceived complaints, simply award points to all members of the winning team whether they survive or not.
2) Why? This is a matter of individual team strategy. If you want to encourage it, then set victory conditions that reward teams that survive the game with all members alive, but do not mandate it.
3) Does this really need to be said?
4) " "
5) " "
6) This partially mitigates the situation created by #1 above, but what even have the rule here. Once again by awarding all team member the same number of points for their team's performance, removes any need for this as does awarding a bounus to teams finishing withe all nations alive.
7) Does the really need to be said? If a solo ever actually occured, the points would just be shared by all players of that team.
8) Draws should only be declared by mutual consent of all players (or teams). I suppose electing a team leader for such voting purposes would make sense.

and the second batch of items:

1) Players could be open or anonymous. However team members should probably know each other's identities in either case or the entire point of the game is somewhat being lost. My opinion on this is echoed in comments on item 2 below.
2) No to random teams. Allow players to form their own teams, except where necessary to fill space on incomplete teams.
3) 1-2 days turns
4) Allow teams to replay CD positions if they want/can, otherwise make it first come - first served.
5) 10-20

invested per player

cypeg (2619 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

IWolfman all these questions is it because you suggest to make a new variant?

What I understood is that : create WW4 scenario, pick countries, work with my team against all others as normal, share a draw either as the last team to survive or stalemate draw with another team

Tristan (1258 )
04 Jun 12 UTC

1) I'm not fussy about it being random or not, but if we choose our teams, I'm sure I would be able to fill out a team with just my friends
3) 10/20 bet is fine
2) I'm not keen on games that drag on FOREVER, so could it be no longer than 2/3 days please, or it could become a little frustrating

sorry I did those in the wrong order :P I have a question: would it possible to make it possible for all team members to chat at once in game, rather than to either just everyone or only one person at a time? that would be super awesome and convenient

Fortress Doerr (978 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

i would perfer random, simply because it makes things a bit more interesting. It is fun not knowing who you are about to be allies with

2. anywhere between 5-20 is good for me, but 5-10 being the best

3. I would say two days

and Tristan, no, no it would not be possible ;(

Wolfman (1230 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

@ RUFFHAUS : Not sure of your age. So I hope you don't take this offensive for any reason. Over my life time I have come to learn. That there are some people out there that will try to break or bend any rule they can to gain more. You would thinks some of the rules should not be said and would just be understood by all. There is always one butthead out there that says, " Well there was no rule about not doing that. "

Next, I am not a mod of the site nor a creator of any of the Variants. The only way 5 people share the pot is if all 5 are still alive. Eliminating one of your team mates eliminates them from every getting any of the points. Sorry, that just the way the game is set up. So all the rules on not taking them out is to ensure each and everyone that they are a team and go down together or survive together. Again something you would hope everyone get and abides by as a team concept. However, I just wanted to cover it just in case someone tried saying the No Rule reason.

@ cypeg : no not a suggested new Variant. You hit it right on the head with what your thought. When you made the comment, " I mean that if I am Germany I will play the game as normally do, with the exception I cant attack my fellow europeans. " I wanted to include you in on the explanation about the creative way Germany could be played. Also to cover that it does not imply you cannot attack a member. Dislodging for replacement units of a different kind or just for a differ locations. Is reason to attack a team mate. Taking there centers as trades to help you build might also be needed. I would even guess that it will and could be a must for some teams. It was mostly directed to gopher27. I just thought I might be able to show a different way to play Germany other then the way you mentioned. Sorry I was just trying to save time by adding you to it also.

Wolfman (1230 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

Ok, it is set up. Join if you wish. Can't wait to see who I get to work with.

Wolfman (1230 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

opps, sorry. The password is " team "

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Ha! I'm OLD enough, that's for sure, and old enough to know that the more rules you write, the more people will look for ways to break them. However, I see now that you cannot modify this into a new variant, which creates dome difficult challenges because as Cypeg has illustrated there are numerous times when you need to "attack" your allies.

I htink rather than write a rule saying that you cannot do so, it's better to suggest that everyone playing the game understand and embrace the team concept. However, there may be situations where the team ultimately benefits from a member's elimination. And since you yourself have mentioned that you cannot officially change the rules, why write new ones? How will they be enforced. This is clearly a situation where we're going to have to TRUST our teammates not to screw us. Because in the end unless the system can implent this concept, we're still going to have people grabbing dots and running for the highest amount of points regardless of team. Furthermore the "win" will be an unofficial title since the game cannot keep track of the team structure.

This isn't to say that it will not be fun, but your rules should be called guidelines, and noted as to suggested play within the spirit of the game rather than absolutes. I say this because you cannot enforce the rules in the first place, and because there are too many unconsidered loopholes.

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

With all this said, I appreciate what you are trying to do, even though I think that the simpler you keep it, the better off we will all be. I'll give this a try as a trial run if a can pick my own teammates

Guaroz (2030 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Sorry Ruff, I'm missing something in what you're talking about. Rules say:

1) Alliance members cannot eliminate a player on their team.
7) No individual member can win outright or solo. If a member of an alliance is getting close, then handing over of centers to another member of the alliance might be necessary to equal out balance and to ensure that the game ends with a draw among one alliance.
8) Game should draw once there is only one alliance power left. However, if there is stalemate lines or all members of two or more alliances wish. A draw between 10 or more members is permissible.

You say:
"This is clearly a situation where we're going to have to TRUST our teammates not to screw us. Because in the end unless the system can implent this concept, we're still going to have people grabbing dots and running for the highest amount of points regardless of team."

Uhm. Your ally can't eliminate you. If someone's wasting time attacking an ally rather than an enemy, he's screwing the whole Alliance, himself included. Grabbing dots is pointless because D-points are equally splitted among drawers, so if the pot is 350

and the Northerns win with:
California 1 SC
Canada 1SC
Illinois 1SC
Quebec 1SC
US 240 SCs
They would get 70

each.

I'm sure I've missed or misinterpreted something in what you're saying. Can you please explain?

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

I withdraw my interest from this experiement.

drano019 (2710 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Im surprised no one has pointed out a major flaw in this setup: by allocating teams by geographic locstion, some teams are virtually invulnerable. There are so many stalemate positions in this map, that grouping 5 people together is a recipe for a huge draw. I dont see how anyone will eliminate the north american alliance, or the european one or the china one. They all have enough neutrals to grab right away that theyll be abke to blockade their scs if theyre even halfway decent. The island nations should be able to pump out enough fleets to control their territorial waters within a year, making them impossible to destroy, and the africans can put a unit on every coastal territory if they want and be invincible. What fun is a game where most enemies cant be defeated if they have even half a brain?

ODaly (1080 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

drano makes a great point. Perhaps modeling alliances roughly on historical/real-world power blocks?

Commonwealth:
UK
SAfrica
India
Australia
Egypt?/Canada?

Communist Bloc:
Russia
Cuba
Sichuan
CAsia?
Thailand?

Spanish Empire:
Catholica
Mexico
Argentina
Philippines
Colombia?/Inca?

gman314 (1016 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Russia and Central Asia on the same team is a juggernaut. We discovered that in the previous WWIV team game. They didn't even have to care about the rest of their team.

That being said, the Commonwealth team seems like a good idea and so does the Spanish Empire.

Guaroz (2030 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Yes, drano made a good point. But that's what alliances between alliances are for. If you look at the starting map as if it was 7 countries of 15 SCs each, I believe that no team is safe if the others gang up on them. It's not a gunboat.
Also, I bet that, in 35 players, it's inevitable that some half-brain will be there. In a team-game, the weakest ring makes the weakest chain.

I believe that trying first the way Wolfman drawed the alliances is worth the effort. Thoughts on it?

(Then, if we see it really doesn't work, next time we could try to draw alliances in a different way. I like the Historical idea. Or perhaps picking up a Country from each Continent or something, in a way that 2 Countries in the same alliance never border.)

gman314 (1016 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

I have a team idea.

I took the players and divided them into 5 semi-geographic groups of seven each. Then, I alphabetized each group and gave the first member of each to team one, the second of each to team 2 and so on.
The alphabetized semi-geographic groups are:
1: California, Cuba, Illinois, Quebec, Texas, USA, Western Canada.
2: Amazon, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Inca, Mexico, Oceania.
3: Catholica, Central Asia, Germany, Iran, Russia, Turkey, UK.
4: Australia, Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa.
5: India, Japan, Manchuria, Philippines, Sichuan, Song, Thailand.

So, the seven teams are as follows:

Team 1:
California
Amazon
Catholia
Australia
India

Team 2:
Cuba
Argentina
Central Asia
Congo
Japan

Team 3:
Illinois
Brazil
Germany
Egypt
Manchuria

Team 4:
Quebec
Colombia
Iran
Indonesia
Philippines

Team 5:
Texas
Inca
Russia
Kenya
Sichuan

Team 6:
USA
Mexico
Turkey
Nigeria
Song

Team 7:
Western Canada
Oceania
UK
South Africa
Thailand

The only problem I can see is Indonesia and Philippines on the same team. We could probably fix this by switching one of those two with someone from a third team.

gman314 (1016 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

*Just a second team. Not a third.

gman314 (1016 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Guaroz: Drano's point is that there are stalemate lines. If the African players take all the African SCs and then stick a unit on every space along their coast, all they need to do to be invincible is put in the right support holds.

Tristan (1258 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

can we just try Wolfman's teams as a first go, and if it doesnt work, fine, we'll try again with different teams - but you should try something first before you judge it

Guaroz (2030 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

@gman. My point is that setting up a stalemate line requires time. If I'm in the Southern and my team decides that the Africans are enemies, I'd suggest to Argentina to forget Uruguay and Falklands, build 2 fleets and make all speed towards Africa. Europeans could do the same from Cathol and/or Turkey.
Classic has a lot of SLs... it's a matter of time...
I still believe that the current setting is worth a try.
_____________
(btw, nice setting you made: that's what I had in mind. Swapping Indonesia and Sichuan could solve the Ind/Phil issue. Now we need different victory rules for this setting, because it's unthinkable that all the 5 members of an Alliance may survive. Or it'd happen quite rarely)

G-Man (2466 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Having played in a WW IV team game with Drano, where teams of 7 were hard to balance, I think the teams of 5--as you have them now--will work out much better. Please let us know how this works out, as we need a good, solid format for team games. Cheers!

drano019 (2710 )
05 Jun 12 UTC

Guaroz - Even if you did what you're saying, 2 fleets isn't going to collapse an entire continent. Yes, perhaps if EVERYONE ganged up on one continent, that group could be defeated, but remember that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So, if you as a Southern player attack Africa, now N. America and Central America are pretty much invincible (Central only being vulnerable if N. and S. attack together), along with Europe and the China group. To be perfectly honest, I don't think ANYONE can stop the N. American's from being basically invincible. By the time people could get the required units in their area, they'd have sufficient defensive forces barring NMRs and CDs (and setting up a game where NMRs are needed to beat a team is a bad setup). Same goes for Europe. Look at the map. Europe has well over 10 free SCs with absolutely NO danger to them. The only person in the slightest bit of danger is turkey, and he can easily be propped up by allies. Same goes for N. America.

Basically, while I think it's a good idea, I think the implementation is poor. Games should be designed so that they're competitive assuming semi-competent players. This game is only competitive if we assume some players are not competent. If we have competent players, this game will assuredly end in a 25+ player draw, and anyone who doesn't see that is willfully ignoring basic strategy and tactics.

Guaroz (2030 )
06 Jun 12 UTC

Well drano I'm not saying you're not right, I'm saying that plans can be tried (and I won't go deeper into it, because I want to demonstrate it with fleets, not with walls of text).
Will those plans be successful? Will the game end in a 35-way draw? Who knows.
In each Classic I've played there was always at least one semi-competent. In a WWIV they should be, averagely, at least 5. I mean that there are many maps where if all the players are equally-competent the game can end in a large draw. If large-draws are rare it's because players are usually differently-competent.
Who knows what will happen. It's worth a try. It looks funny.

What's wrong with this? Let us play. Aren't you curious to see if armies & fleets confirm you're right?

Then, if the experiment fails, we'll find a new setting. gman314 is already working on it and I like his job until now.

Page 2 of 4

108 replies

airborne (970

)
20 Jun 12 UTC

Europe 1815

Thoughts and comments
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=672&p=4938#p4938

12 replies

Open

BosephJennett (1204

)
22 Jun 12 UTC

Request for Mods

I submitted something to the Forum this morning and haven't heard back yet. Just want to be sure it didn't slip through the cracks. Thanks!

0 replies

Open

adalephat (733

)
17 Jun 12 UTC

Manipulations Testgame

I'd liek to organize a testgame for the Manipulations Rules (see links inside)

3 replies

Open

adalephat (733

)
16 Jun 12 UTC

Manipulations Game

A set of auxilliary rules which I want to test: see in the discussion.

11 replies

Open

butterhead (1272

)
02 Jun 12 UTC

butterheads classic series concluding:

Well, as some of the games start to come to an end, I figured I'd post results here for those of us(like me and Leif) who were interested in the results of all games. so here we go with the finished games(ordered from person with most centers to least)

12 replies

Open

Jonnikhan (1554

)
19 Jun 12 UTC

No Map! Admin?

Oli, please help! gameID=7079 has a bug - the map isn't loading at all for anyone. Please help!

24 replies

Open

King Atom (1186

)
17 Jun 12 UTC
(+4)

GRAMMAR!

To, too, and two. GET IT STRAIGHT, PEOPLE!

12 replies

Open

Grand Admiral Thrawn (1207

)
14 Jun 12 UTC
(+4)

Daily +1 Pyramid Thread for vDip!

The rule is simple and laid out by Diplomat33; you must +1 everyone who posts before you. Enjoy!

13 replies

Open

javidtl (976

)
16 Jun 12 UTC

Join this game

We need 2 more players to start this game. It's going to be fun.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8677

0 replies

Open

King Atom (1186

)
14 Jun 12 UTC

Look! It's a game...

gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667

8 replies

Open

gman314 (1016

)
13 Jun 12 UTC

Maybe I'm playing Gunboats wrong...

But when I start a gunboat, I generally choose a target very quickly. This then becomes either a fantastic success getting me to a draw, or a horrible disaster getting me eliminated. What's a better tactic?

13 replies

Open

gman314 (1016

)
05 Jun 12 UTC

Strategy idea: What could a unit be doing?

An article. See inside.

16 replies

Open

butterhead (1272

)
30 May 12 UTC

Blind Diplomacy- see explanation inside...

And don't try to be like, well where is it, or anything like that, because it is coming in a couple minutes.

50 replies

Open

Captainmeme (1400

)
13 Jun 12 UTC

My 1st 1v1 Win!

gameID=8627
Ironic name :D

29 replies

Open

GOD (1830

)
12 Jun 12 UTC

JOIN!!!

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8572
only two more players needed!

1 reply

Open

King Atom (1186

)
28 May 12 UTC

My Idea for a Crusades Variant

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=844&start=20

I have some work to do on it, but I would like for some feedback for improvement.

31 replies

Open

ezpickins (1659

)
11 Jun 12 UTC

Sitter on WebDiplomacy Needed

Greetings Gang, I am in one game on webdip, and seeing as it is a gunboat, I was not able to get a pause, if anyone is willing and able to do it, would you please pm me for details

0 replies

Open

King Atom (1186

)
09 Jun 12 UTC

Honor ₧. Open for Business...

Join up and get all the Honor to your hearts' content!

gameID=8588

6 replies

Open

TheWorst (1023

)
08 Jun 12 UTC
(+1)

Greek Diplomacy

Anyone up for it?
gameID=8558

6 replies

Open

butterhead (1272

)
30 May 12 UTC

A suggestion for a good read:

This thread is for people to suggest good books that they think others might be interested in... If you think someone else might enjoy it, feel free to post it! I will start off by suggesting The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. I recently read the series and it has become a new favorite of mine. who else?

80 replies

Open

~ Diplomat ~ (1036

)
10 Jun 12 UTC

I am back Guys!

Thanks for waiting for me! And Thanks to Facses369 for continued support!
I will be regular from now on!
Thanks again

4 replies

Open

sqrg (1186

)
29 May 12 UTC

The North Sea Wars Feedback and Comment Thread

I'm very interested in your comments.

30 replies

Open

canaduh (1293

)
06 Jun 12 UTC
(+2)

Page forward and back buttons on the forum threads.

Does anyone else get frustrated with reading through a whole page of fascinating discussion, only to have to go all the way back to the top to see the next rivetting installment? It must be possible to put the forward + back + first and last page links at the end of the thread as well.

10 replies

Open

Scordatura (1396

)
09 Jun 12 UTC

American Conflict Issue

I don't have the option to move my fleet in South Caribbean to South-West Atlantic. gameID=8465

Oli, could you please fix this?

1 reply

Open

cypeg (2619

)
09 Jun 12 UTC

Repeat moves button

There are times when in a big variant I want to press a button that will issue my previous moves b) if that button could also be set as a repeat it would remove the problem of nmr when i.e. im away abroad or whatever and cant access the net for 2-3 days.

1 reply

Open

Firehawk (1231

)
09 Jun 12 UTC

Bringing Balance to Youngstown

Having looked through the statistics and a couple games as well as playing the map myself I have come to the conclusion that this game is one of the most balanced out there. However there is one nation that will probably never win... France.

1 reply

Open

Spartan22 (1883

)
08 Jun 12 UTC

6-Player variant series

I was looking at the variants and thought the 6-player ones would be interesting to play (as I haven't played them all before) so I decided to make a mini series out of them. They are all 1.5 day phases WTA with a 5 credit buy in. Join as many as you want if you are interested!

4 replies

Open

Wolfman (1230

)
08 Jun 12 UTC

Sitting

Wasn't there some way to hand over games for sitting?

2 replies

Open

Page 67 of 160