Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
Flame (1058 D (B))
Sat 10 PM UTC
(+1)
Mistake in Known World 901 variant
In "Known World 901" we have Principality of Kiev (short - Russia). But it's a mistake which I have fixed when I did the php-adaptation to Western Known World 901 variant. The power must be called as Kievan Rus (short - Rus). It's not Russia at all. So it must be also fixed in Known World 901 variant I think.
8 replies
Open
Enriador (1431 D (B))
16 May 18 UTC
(+2)
Classic Redrawn
I got bothered with some of the historical inaccuracies of the Classic map - like French Corsica being painted Italian green - so I went on and redrawed the entire map.
45 replies
Open
Enriador (1431 D (B))
Fri 09 PM UTC
[New Variant] Edwardian 3rd Edition
An updated version of 'Edwardian' is coming to vDiplomacy! Check it out: https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=130
3 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+18)
Winning
Oli won.
On Imperial Civilization's off-topic thread (link inside), there was a brief stint of Second to Last Person to Post Wins. Now that the thread is closed, Oli won.
6765 replies
Open
JECE (1184 D)
Fri 12 AM UTC
The variant page is down. This is what I get:
Error triggered: A software exception was not caught: "syntax error, unexpected ''Ghana'' (T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING), expecting function (T_FUNCTION)".
4 replies
Open
butterhead (975 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+11)
Advertise your NON-live games here!
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
2425 replies
Open
Enriador (1431 D (B))
04 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
'Edwardian' - A new variant
Greetings diplomats.

I present you @VaeVictis's 'Edwardian' - an upcoming jewel to vDiplomacy's glorious crown. 'Edwardian' is set in 1901, the start of the Edwardian Era, and represents the intrigue and tension of the period with a level of elegance and detail never seen before
42 replies
Open
kaner406 (1500 D Mod (B) (B))
10 Mar 18 UTC
(+4)
Bourse 2018
See below:
194 replies
Open
WWII Tournament
I would like to start a tournament. I've seen the Known World and 1v1 tournaments, and those are great fun. So why not apply it to World War II? I'm still working out the details, but I'll post some details.
311 replies
Open
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
Mon 09 Jul UTC
(+2)
You can now access the server via https...
So friends in the same network can no longer spy on your network-traffic here to gain an advantage over you... :-)
9 replies
Open
Penguin_XX7 (1029 D)
Sat 14 Jul UTC
Sitters for four games.
I need game sitters for 3 Gunboat games and one full press until July 24th. Please PM me.
1 reply
Open
Thanks to the winning thread, I lost The Game...
...and now you have too.

The perfect thread for all of us losers to post when we've lost. There can be no winners here.
7 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1633 D (B) (B))
02 Sep 16 UTC
(+7)
New podcast for online Dip games
Hi everyone

Kaner and I have started a podcast about playing Diplomacy online....
184 replies
Open
Strider (1294 D)
Mon 09 Jul UTC
Preview in fog of war
Why can't you preview your moves in fog of war? I understand that some features might need to be turned off for fog to work but it this required or just an acident.
6 replies
Open
Antiloquax (1333 D)
23 Jun 18 UTC
Why is the red box attacking me?
The red box on games with no saved moves is stressing me out! I have 2 days. What's the emergency?
23 replies
Open
Retillion (2221 D (B))
Tue 10 Jul UTC
(+1)
A thick and ugly blue box
Please read below.
8 replies
Open
Enriador (1431 D (B))
22 May 18 UTC
(+3)
New Variants (yup, plural!)
Four new variants, based on Classic, will be coming to vDip!

Some of these were directly taken from the DP Judge. Others were lost in the Variant Bank for a long while.
28 replies
Open
RVG1984 (1035 D)
Mon 09 Jul UTC
sealanes
How do they work?
15 replies
Open
Anonymous Games
Anonymous Games grant liars a shelter to do there worst, making abusive and absurd offered and generally making me passionately hate this game, which can lead to NMRs . Having to be out there means you have to have honor, and enables revenge. I have seen allies pitch in by hopping from one neutral territory to yhe next in the name of their promises. This site seems to be for the childish.
98 replies
Open
Devonian (1871 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
(+13)
1v1 Tournament Rules, Rankings, and Challenges
Official Rules for 1v1 Ladder Tournament
1601 replies
Open
Flame (1058 D (B))
Mon 09 Jul UTC
First Diplomacy game edition 1959
Who got the photo or scan of the first Diplomacy edition board (500 pieces), 1959? Please share to be used in an article.
7 replies
Open
nopunin10did (987 D)
18 Jun 18 UTC
(+2)
Replace PPSC with something rank-based?
I've put together a length proposal over on PlayDip to provide a rank-based scoring system for draws that's similar to the Carnage system used in several North American Dip tournaments today.

https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57975#p951166
Page 4 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
nopunin10did (987 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
If the points disappear after the game is over, and they have no connection to other games, then what would be the point of implementing them?
JECE (1184 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
Mercy: drano019 never replied after I offered him the additional information, so I'm not sure how drano019 speaks for you. drano019 also never replied at all to some of the "other (albeit bad) reasons to play PPSC", as you call them. For example, do you have an answer to how WTA games encourage players play like draw-loving chickens or how WTA games discourage players from taking over positions in CD?
Personally, I prefer unranked play which also has no points. So a new points system wouldn't affect me at all.
drano019 (2179 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
@JECE -

After reading what appears to be your main argument in the webdip threads, I have to say I do not agree with it. The main thrust of your argument is that basically in a solo situation, the smaller of the big powers should actively make it so the minor powers can grow or give them security (points-incentive and front-line placement I believe were the terms you used) while maneuvering to make a solo bid of his own in the future.

While this works in theory, it does not hold up in reality. Often, and I would wager even most of the time, parts of the board are locked up in a solo push. We all know the SW-NE stalemate line. Many times we've seen Munich to St. Pete locked up, with the only action remaining in the Mediterranean/Iberia.

Imagine the following situation:

Austria holds 16 SCs (Warsaw, Moscow, Sev, Anatolia, the entire Balkans, Italy).
England holds 14 SCs (St. Pete, Scandinavia, Germany, Home SCs, Bel, Hol, Paris, Brest)
France holds 4 SCs (Tunis, Portugal, Spain, Marseilles).

During this situation, in a common occurrence, St. Petersburg and Munich have been stalemated and Austria is advancing west through the Mediterranean in a solo push.

Now, in WTA, logic dictates that England stops any and all aggression against France, and goes for a draw, as otherwise France easily throws a solo to Austria.

The problem becomes, in PPSC, England now has a *points-incentive* to throw the game to Austria. Given that a large chunk of the board is stalemated, England cannot count on changing the situation from Munich to St. Petersburg. That means he has to look at what's left, and he sees that using the chart you posted in the webdip threads, a 3way draw would net him 2380 points. However, if he were to attack France, he might gain another couple SCs before Austria soloed, netting him anywhere from 2940 points to 3360 points depending on what he took.

Austria has every reason to encourage this, and England has literally *NO* points-incentive NOT to attack France. There's little flexibility left in the game, and now PPSC is telling him to take the max number of points - which means stab France and let Austria solo.

What can France do about this? Literally nothing. Austria wants to maximize points by soloing, and England wants to maximize points by getting the most SCs, so he can't play them off on each other. In the end, PPSC dictates to England to throw the game.

THIS is the situation people think of when they dont' like PPSC. Simply hand-waving it away by saying "avoid stalemate lines" or something like that isn't a valid response. Sure, it can be done - sometimes, but let's be honest, people seek out the stalemate lines for security. And saying someone should avoid playing a certain way just to make a point system valid isn't right either. If you have to avoid a certain style of play just so a point-system works when you approach the end game, I'd say the point system needs adjustment. And this is what we get with PPSC and stalemate lines.
Caerus (1650 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
My apologies, @Nopun. The proposition was the introduction of your third Scoring system and allow it to effect the current ranking systems just as the other two do, rocking the boat as little as possible (an idea you offered as early as page 1). This wouldn't remove PPSC, wouldn't recalculate rankings, wouldn't abolish points or ranks. It would allow us to treat them like seperate games (as Mercy pointed out on page2), with different goals and the outcome can be allowed to effect our ranking on the website just like any other scoring system. My question becomes how many people would be opposed to this solution.


[Is comparing the rank of someone who plays only WTA and only PPSC comparing apples to oranges? Sure, but so is comparing a solo on Chromatic with a solo on Gobble Earth regardless of the scoring system used.]
G-Man (2365 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
@ Mercy: I'm ok with PPSC being an option, and used to create and play PPSC games in a series of games I run where we explore new variants with a cast of returning players from the most recently played games in the series (occasionally adding new players when large variants call for them). I had hoped PPSC for light buy-ins would keep players who weren't winning from bankrupting themselves in the series (as they would in WTA), and thus not return for future matches. Ultimately though, I foundmany players playing for a survive over a draw, which just went against the major tenets of Diplomacy, so I switched back to WTA.

So yes, PPSC and WTA really are two different games and I think the confusion could be eliminated by simply calling PPSC something like Points-Based Diplomacy (for lack of a better term right now) vs. Diplomacy, and having the objectives outlined and differences in strategy between the two highlighted in a Points-Based Diplomacy game description, essentially a variant, but now an identified one. Then players wouldn't get confused and we wouldn't have people playing the same game with different sets of victory conditions that we see now. We could still have the same basic scoring (Win, Draw, Loss) that Kaner proposed, just for each game, without the need for a rating system, which IMO, also dramatically changes gameplay and insights a lot of headhunting for factors outside the game, which I also really don't like.
Enriador (1431 D (B))
22 Jun 18 UTC
1) I support @G-Man's proposal. We really need to better show how WTA & PPSC differ. Not sure we have to change names, but a better explanation is far better.

Wasn't @Oli planning on reworking it all a while back? Someone here even made some nice summaries (about press types?).

2) Headhunting also happens in games that only use Win/Loss ratio as indicative of performance. Eliminating points, it must be said, won't remove these guys.

The prominece of GhostRating on webDip also shows how strongly attracted people are to rankings and stuff. Same thing could happen here.

3) "Survival" is a conceptual abomination. There is no "Survival" in games ending with a victory. The correct term is "Defeat".
nopunin10did (987 D)
22 Jun 18 UTC
I think “Survival” is fine, but it’s a poor goal in the context of someone winning via solo. Survival until the end to be included in a draw (whether an equally-shared draw or otherwise) should be rewarded.
Mercy (2043 D)
23 Jun 18 UTC
@Caerus: Ranking systems should be based on scoring systems; whatever gives you a higher score in a game should also be good for your ranking. So I don't think it makes sense to change a ranking system without changing the scoring system.

@JECE, drano019: I agree with drano once more.

@G-Man: I know. In fact, I remember you having invited me to play a game in your series a few times. (I had never time to actually play a game in it, though.) The first time you did, I noted that I found it a bad idea to have PPSC scoring while wanting to play as if it were WTA. You didn't see the problem back then. :p
I still think the most clear way to differentiate between WTA and PPSC is by having different scoring systems.
Enriador (1431 D (B))
23 Jun 18 UTC
Yeah @nopunin, but survival in a Draw is not a vDip "Survival". Draws in vDiplomacy always include all survivors, which means you have "Drawn", not "Survived".

The "Survival" thing in victories is the aspect that annoys me.
JECE (1184 D)
23 Jun 18 UTC
drano019: I'll take a look at your specific scenario later, but let me address this:
"And saying someone should avoid playing a certain way just to make a point system valid isn't right either. If you have to avoid a certain style of play just so a point-system works when you approach the end game, I'd say the point system needs adjustment."

I'm actually saying that players should avoid stalemate lines because stalemate lines lead to draws. Hence, I would frame your analysis of the point system in the opposite way, that the point system encourages a play-style of avoiding stalemate lines, which in turn encourages playing for the solo.

And this leads me to clarify that "[my] main argument" is actually not an argument for PPSC scoring at all, but rather merely a rebuttal to a common criticism of PPSC scoring.
G-Man (2365 D)
23 Jun 18 UTC
@ Mercy: Yeah, I didn't think anyone would actually sacrifice a draw for a survival, and that points would just be a bonus for playing hard to the end back when I first started this series of games here. Clearly I was wrong (and also likewise disappointed to find many players would choose targets based on outside rankings having nothing to do with the actual individual game being played).
kaner406 (1500 D Mod (B) (B))
Sat 07 Jul UTC
(+2)
Me and Amby discussing this tune into 55mins and 43secs:

http://diplomacygames.com/diplomacy-games-podcast-episode-33-shownotes-mud-throwing-dip-style/


103 replies
Enriador (1431 D (B))
Sat 07 Jul UTC
[New Variant] Machiavelli - To the Renaissance
New (official) subvariant of Machiavelli coming up on vDip. Not a single case of adjacent home centers - praise be God!

http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=115
0 replies
Open
Enriador (1431 D (B))
25 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
New Variant: Crusades 1201
Hail diplomats,

New 11-players variant coming up, set in the High Middle Ages.
44 replies
Open
gremlin (1000 D)
02 Jul 18 UTC
New Variants
Just curious, what is the process for creating new variants?
1 reply
Open
WiJaMa (994 D)
26 Jun 18 UTC
Looking for game sitters
I'm looking for a game sitter for three games while I'm out from 1 Jul to 22 Jul. PM me for details.

Also, is there supposed to be a thread for these? I can't find it but the help page says there is one.
2 replies
Open
ubercacher16 (1068 D)
25 Jun 18 UTC
Strategy - Hold Order
See First Post
16 replies
Open
nopunin10did (987 D)
12 Jun 18 UTC
(+2)
At long last: 1900
With some help from Tobias & Oliver, my implementation of Baron VonPowell's "1900" is finally live.

64 replies
Open
Looking for someone to take over my country (Not in a bad position)
Currently 13/35 countries remain and my country, Brazil, is in 8th place after some set backs with NMRs. Currently allied with the 2nd place country, Argentina, as a fight between the two of us will ultimately be the doom of our existence. Argentina has said that a substitute will not charge the alliance between our two countries.

Reply if interested in taking over.
3 replies
Open
RVG1984 (1035 D)
21 Jun 18 UTC
convert fleet to army
How do I convert a fleet to an army and the other way? I see people do it, but don't see the option on the dropdowns.
12 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top