Anyway I'm up for a replacement spot.

Well, yes, but depending on how it happens they might get the Nazis and Soviets fighting, which would allow them recovery time.

ok we need 1 more player to join - I'll give whoever it is one more day then invite LoveDove to take the position.

Did this game kick off already?

yep you're dead right =D

Link to game please?

gameID=2500

if you guys dont mind, id like to observe this game to see how well it work and maybe come up with ideas for future team games, id like to try one on a world map with similar factions

I'm highly offended.

Extremely.

...but seriously, go for it, lol. Just don't get too excited yet, Italy is quitting from the looks of it so we might have to restart.

Wretched Italy...

see I was thinking a cold war turned hot on the small world map, with Nato, Warsaw Pact, and third world countries as factions

That's not a bad idea...

im still trying to figure out balancing though for the Western Hemisphere, i know Nato for sure would have United States, Europe, and Australia and I'd lean towards Warsaw Pact having Russia, Pacific Russia, and Near East, and I would put China in the neutral/third world category since historically they weren't allied with the United States, but also had frosty relations with the Soviets during parts of the Cold war

I would stay away from the World Wars and Cold War on WWIV map (ironically) -- all three of those wars had heavy European participation but the WWIV map is really awkward for that.

I'd instead recommend simply taking the modern scene, with these alliances and small tweaks:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Canada, Quebec, California, Texas, United States, Illinois, United Kingdom, Catholica, Germany, Turkey, Japan, Australia, Philippines
South American Defense Council: Colombia, Amazon Empire, Brazil, Peru, Argentina
Peace and Security Council: Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Congo, South Africa
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Russia, Central Asia, Sichuan Empire, Song Empire, Manchuria, Iran, India, Cuba
Neutral/Unaffiliated: Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Oceania

Same concept as the WWII team setup -- you have your main factions in NATO, SADC, PSC and SCO, and a few minor unaffiliated powers to woo. Neutral powers still can wing it solo, but unlike in WWII, they're allowed to join the major factions if they so choose. The reason for this is because the WWII game was designed to play out a balanced game of what already happened; we knew Turkey would stay neutral throughout because it did in WWII, so we made it stay neutral. Here we're playing from the present into the future, so we obviously don't know what the different powers are going to do. Thus, neutral powers can join the major factions. Once they join, though, they are permanent members (to keep the spirit of the team game intact).

The faction names are great ~ And in fact will this work in the World IX map?

The World Diplomacy IX map might be even better for this -- the existence of a Pac-Russia instead of a giant void in Siberia means Russia can be a viable independent power and alliance broker.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Western Canada, Quebec, USA, Europe, Oz
South American Defense Council: Brazil, Argentina
Peace and Security Council: Libya, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Russia, Pac-Russia, China, India, Near East
Neutral/Unaffiliated: Frozen-Antarctica*

*: Per the Antarctica Treaty System, Antarctica is not to be used for military purposes. Unfortunately this is impossible to implement completely because FA has to do something and SA has a base there. But this has to be implemented in SOME form; after all, mankind got the Soviets and the Americans to agree to it, for goodness' sake, that's pretty important, am I right?

Alternatively, <Insert Conspiracy Theory Relating to Martians on Antarctica Here>, so FA is its own entity of Martians hellbent on destroying mankind.

I should also note, the names aren't mine. They're the actual names of the current major alliance systems.

oops sorry it seems that I lack some common sense :(

I like the idea on a small world map, I dont think it would work too well on the big one, namely because people like Sichuan and Illinois would have nothing to do

i'm in for the big thingy with the world map

Agreed, Shep. Only thing I wish we could change is to have China be a bit stronger in World IX. Then we could actually afford to have a separate Chinese power group.

WWIV would be fine if we had a stronger Russian-oriented power in Siberia.

We could make this a 2 team game:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Western Canada, Quebec, USA, Europe, Oz, Brazil, South Africa, Ghana
Peace and Security Council:
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Russia, Pac-Russia, China, India, Near East, Argentina, Libya, Kenya
Neutral/Unaffiliated: Frozen-Antarctica*

and make Shanghai the Warsaw pact

quite good, at least it is more balanced than the four-team version I suppose ~ you know, with only Brazil and Argentina in a team that may not be too good ...

But then having 8 on each team means that there will/have to be more cooperation and communication between nations, which I think will in return call for a game of a longer phase such as a 2- or even 3-day one. What do you guys think?

Good idea, but i think some more alliances than only one would be better because then there will be also alliances between the alliances.

Agreed, GOD, with more than 2 teams there will be backstabs and such, which I suppose is one of the essence of the Dip game ~

How about stop discussing and start a game ?

The whole point of team games is so that the alliances are fixed and there is no stabbing, at least that is what I thought the purpose of them was. To limite diplomacy and increase the strategy elements of the game.