Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
Known World Tournament
Awhile back, kaner proposed a Known World gunboat tournament in which 15 participants would play 15 games, one with each nation. I searched back for the thread, then just decided to start a new one. I want to see if there would be sufficient interest in this to try to get it off the ground.
489 replies
Open
Mercy (2043 D)
Sun 01 PM UTC
(+3)
[New Variant] World Diplomacy X
I am in the process of creating my first variant: World Diplomacy 10 (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=129).
5 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.
2452 replies
Open
tassa (1728 D)
Sat 03 PM UTC
Interactive Map - Memory-easting Monster
Is it possible that the interactive map doesn't handle big maps well once you have a certain amount of units?
2 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1612 D (B) (B))
Thu 16 Aug UTC
Obscure group of vDip folks who love History podcasts
Ok I was just starting to pull together the files for the latest Diplomacy Games episode and was chilling to the theme song from the podcast History on Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOr0na6mKJQ ...
25 replies
Open
tobi1 (1782 D Mod (S) (B))
Sat 12 PM UTC
Sitter needed
I am traveling from August 20th to 30th and it turned out that my initially planned sitter takes part in one game, as well. Now I need your help to manage that game.
2 replies
Open
d-ice (1880 D)
Fri 07 PM UTC
(+5)
FoW padlocks
FoW variant has padlocks on all powers that have orders to give. This gives other players information about who has a retreat/build etc. I propose that these are removed so that this information isn’t revealed.
3 replies
Open
Devonian (1871 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
(+14)
1v1 Tournament Rules, Rankings, and Challenges
Official Rules for 1v1 Ladder Tournament
1650 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1612 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....
190 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
Fri 12 PM UTC
Quick Rules Question
In Classic, I am confident if an army in Portugal Attacks Spain while an Army in Spain attacks Portugal, both will fail. Would this rule still apply if the it were instead a fleet on the northern coast attacking Portugal and a fleet in Portugal moving to the southern coast?

Random Game link for Anon: gameID=35642
4 replies
Open
Docsy (1000 D)
Mon 13 Aug UTC
Our game bugged out, and mods are looking at it. What do we do and what will happen?
So basically, We were playing World War IV 6.2. It was the first time we got our community of players, both on a subreddit and a discord, to play a big 36 player game. Didn't start 100% the best the first year, some players didn't get the rules and ended up starting with 2 units instead of 3.
7 replies
Open
Strider (1255 D)
Thu 09 Aug UTC
Civil Disorders listed at bottom of game
I have a game that is telling me the country, it's size and who is CDing. Why is that a thing now? It's gunboat, fog of war and anonymous!
21 replies
Open
kaner406 (1430 D Mod (B) (B))
Fri 10 Aug UTC
(+4)
Forum etiquette
Let’s have a discussion here about what sort of forum we would like to see here at vDip. Please no name calling. Now would be a good time to un-mute members so we can have an informed discussion about this issue.
56 replies
Open
Skyrock (1123 D)
03 Jun 18 UTC
Thoughts on fixing the Classic - Economic variant
See main post below.
Skyrock (1123 D)
03 Jun 18 UTC
(+1)
The variant in question: http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=53

I love the [b]idea[/b] of playing simultanously on two boards, but I strongly dislike the execution:

1. Every home center on the economic board is bordering another one, forcing everyone into a Trieste-Venice situation.
2. It is extremely easy to occupy someone else out of their home center in an unwatched moment, locking them out of ever building units on the economic board ever again.
3. It violates the triangle design of the Calhamer map ( https://files.catbox.moe/yx9sj1.png ), and doesn't replace it with anything interesting.
4. Every space on the economic board is a supply center, without any non-SC spaces for maneuvering.
5. The board is plain boring with only walls breaking up the monotony here and there.

Ideas on fixes:

1. Re-arrange the country positions to follow the triangle model of the Calhamer map ( https://files.catbox.moe/yx9sj1.png ).
2. Make sure that every home SC is separated from each other by at least one neutral space.
3. Allow warping between the home SC on the economic board and the trade hub home SC on the Calhamer board (A - Trieste, E - London, F - Brest, G - Kiel, I - Rome, R - St. Petersburg, T - Constantinople).
4. Cluster the neutral SCs between at least three powers to faciliate negotiation (similar to Benelux, Scandinavia and the Balkan on Calhamer).

Optional ideas:

* give option-starved Italy and Turkey a few more diplomatic options such as through warp zones
* place one of the SC clusters between Italy, Turkey and Austria to give them more options and more opportunities to grow

Comments and suggestions on my thoughts so far?
Mercy (2043 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
Good points. I'd like to zoom in on point (3). I don't mind that the triangle design of the Calhamer map is broken; in fact, the thing I like about playing on multiple boards is that you can have direct contact with more different nations than you would have if you played on just one board. However, I completely agree that it isn't replaced with something interesting. Every power just having two neighbours, and England and Turkey even having just one neighbour, doesn't make the map interesting in my eyes.
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
Regarding issue #4: Are you thinking about reducing the number of SCs or increasing the number of spaces?
Regarding issue #5: I agree that I'd Like to see something more interesting, But what? I thought it'd be interesting if the corners of the boxes bordered, which would add some additional Flexibility, but it sounds like you are looking for something different.

All told, I like the map as it is. I like that the Home SCs are immediately under fire (after the first build phase). If you made enemies in the first year (everyone does), those enemies have a new front to attack you on. I also enjoy the purity of the map, reminiscent of Pure, Chromatic, or Who controls America where each player starts off with nearly identical topography (the fact the England and Turkey border an edge is anathema to this concept, but could be fixed with a wrap around).
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
Also, the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win the game, which makes it a bit like researching your way to victory in Age of Empires, not best win condition, but effective nonetheless.
Skyrock (1123 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
I would reduce the number of SCs on the economic map, mostly because I wouldn't want to completely re-do the existing shrunken Calhamer map (and it would probably also become illegible if I made it even smaller to accomodate a larger economic board).

I'm not a huge fan of Chromatic and similar symmetric maps, for the reasons detailed here: https://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/chromatic-diplomacy/
Asymmetrical maps make for meaningful choices, and triangles make for good negotiations as everyone can act with or against everyone. In Economic you could as well flip a coin whether to go left or right, and once the left and the right neighbour of X have decided to fleece X together, there is nothing X can offer to change the minds of the attackers as both can only gain from it and there is no way for one to stab the other as long as power X still stands between them.
drano019 (2172 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
(+1)
@Mercy -

In reality, only Germany actually has 2 neighbors in the Economic map, as France/Italy and Austria/Russia are separated by the impassable barriers to start. Coupled with the design of the Economic board and point #2 above, and it makes the Economic map very dull. If a player like England takes France's starting position in Barley, then England has just basically made it impossible for France to win the game. With a 24 SC victory condition, being locked out on the Economic map has reduced you to a "has-been" virtually immediately, as capturing 24 SCs on the regular map when you have little way of getting additional builds on the economic map would be close to impossible, especially considering your rivals would be gaining builds from the economic map still.

@Caerus -

While the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win, the layout of the map, and the easy ability to blockade people makes that nearly impossible. I mean, taking all but the far right or far left column? With the way the walls are positioned, it's quite simple to stalemate someone somehow.

I think part of the problem I see is that it seems like building in the Economic map in the first build season is a necessity. If you don't, it's quite likely you'll lose your only build center, or at the very least, will be at a severe disadvantage, and will see your ability to win greatly diminished.
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
@Drano
I agree that winning by those means is not a realistic possibility with the current rules. It is simply a technical possibility that I find interesting. I should never have called it effective, that was a poor word choice. I agree there are a number of decision that are taken from you, (i.e. building in Econ on 1st build) which is why i'd like to see some improvement. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.

@Skyrock
I don't disagree with your preference toward asymmetrical maps. What I found interesting with this map is the juxtaposition between the classic asymmetrical map and the symmetrical Econ Map. I agree the Econ map could use a bit of work (something to make it more dynamic), but if it is instead replaced by another asymmetrical map (especially if troops can travel between them), you are really just extending size of the classic map (something that First Crusade and many others already do to great effect). I am not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, and If you were to make an Econ2.0 map that had 2 asymmetrical connected maps, you can bet I'd play it. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
Is it possible to make part of a map Build-anywhere and the other not? Would it be possible to set up the variant such that you could build in any SC in the Econ map, and still only the home centers of the Classic map?
Skyrock (1123 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
@Caerus:
I don't mind to hear opposing preferences and opinions - that is why I reach out first, rather than to put a lot of effort into a modified Economic variant only to miss the mark.

It would be technically possible to declare every SC on the econ map as a home center for everyone, effectively turning it into partial chaos map. I generally prefer non-chaos variants, but it would only take minutes to also create a partial chaos version if there is popular demand for it.
Sky_Hopper (829 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
@Sky: How would that work, exactly?
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
I was suggesting it as an option to avoid the instant "has-been" status that Drano was talking about. being able to build from any of the Econ centers would allow you some comeback potential if your starting SC was taken. I don't personally like the idea either, but I had it, so I thought I would throw it out here to see how feasible it was.
Caerus (1650 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
oh... that was to Skyrock. My apologies.
Skyrock (1123 D)
04 Jun 18 UTC
@Sky Hopper:

How would what work? If you mean turning the econ map into a chaos map, Webdiplomacy (and by extension Vdiplomacy) allows to flag initially owned centers and home centers separately, and the same SC can be assigned as a home center to multiple powers. South American Supremacy ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=24 ) would be a mild example of this, where Maranho (among others) is flagged as a home center for Brazil, but not as an initially owned SC. Classic - Build anywhere ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=5 ) would be an extreme example as every SC is flagged as a home SC for everyone, but the powers still only initially hold the standard provinces.
Sky_Hopper (829 D)
06 Jun 18 UTC
@Sky: Oh. I thought you meant having everyone possess every single center on the econ board at the beginning of the game.
Skyrock (1123 D)
Sat 11 Aug UTC
I have done some more doodling and pondering, and have decided that the Economic map should turn the Triangle design of the Calhamer map by 90° by faciliating the Northern Triangle (E, G, R) and the Southern Triangle (A, I, T) - both of which are usually secondary theatres to the main action in the Eastern (A, R, T) and Western (E, F, G) triangles.

The northern triangle would get a moderate amount of neutrals to divide among them, and the southern triangle a greater amount (as they are among the weaker powers on the Calhamer board, either at risk of early elimination (A), suffering from lack of options (T) or being outside of the decisive Eastern and Western triangles and often reduced to sitting duck kingmakers after securing Tunis (I)). - This might possibly unduly strengthen the Eastern triangle (as 2/3 of the Easterners are also in the Southern triangle) and weaken Russia too much, but it seems to me like a risk trying out. I might have to fine-tune a v2 if it warps the power dynamics too much, but only actual play can tell.

France would take the role of Italy, as an in-between between the two major triangles with only one guaranteed build (similar to Tunis for I on Calhamer). France is generally the strongest power with both the best victory and the best survival record, so I think they can live being a second stringer on the secondary map, especially as they still get to be powerful on the main map, and can translate this power into units transferred to the Economic map if they desire so. - On the other hand, Italy could use its stronger position on the Economic map to transfer units from there to the Calhamer board, and have a stronger hand in the outcomes there if it desires so.

I am undecided yet on if I should leave every power at 1 starting SC+unit, or if I should up it to 2 SCs+units.
Another interesting option could be to leave all powers at 1 starting SC on the economic map, but give them extra units in the first year for additional early movement options in the first year. (I have seen something similar done in a Diplomacy variant about the invasion of Germanic tribes into falling Rome a few years ago, but am unable to locate that variant.)
Enriador (1491 D (B))
Sat 11 Aug UTC
(+1)
>Diplomacy variant about the invasion of Germanic tribes into falling Rome<

Is it Imperium? https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=13

I found a couple of variants in the same setting (Migration Period) over at the PlayDip forums, I think I still have the screens.
Skyrock (1123 D)
Sun 12 Aug UTC
Yes, that was the one!


17 replies
badivan1 (1232 D)
Sat 11 Aug UTC
badivan1 new games thread
looking for opponents for the following 1v1 maps:
Fall of the American Empire: Civil War! : https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35667 ;
Cold War : https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35668
2 replies
Open
CptMike (1063 D)
Sat 11 Aug UTC
Cold war map
I have a interface problem...
4 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.
6808 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (829 D)
Tue 07 Aug UTC
(+1)
La Resistance
Has anybody noticed the behavior of Enriador recently? He seems to be rejecting and muting anyone with conflicting ideas. (See Classic Redrawn)
17 replies
Open
GOD (1711 D Mod (B))
Sat 04 Aug UTC
Live Messaging
A friend of mine and me would like to play a game of diplomacy where all player connect on Facebook or WhatsApp to communicate. We would set up a gunboat game here and then it's a regular game, just by different means of communication. Anyone interested?
17 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 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.
243 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
20 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
[New Variant] Edwardian 3rd Edition
An updated version of 'Edwardian' is coming to vDiplomacy! Check it out: https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=130
17 replies
Open
CptMike (1063 D)
Thu 02 Aug UTC
Live 1v1 - Fall the American Empire: Civil War
Hello,

Is somebody interesed in playing a live (10' / phase ) on this map :
* https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=33
0 replies
Open
Flame (1058 D (B))
29 Jul 18 UTC
Territory Diagram
I wonder why VDip is not using Territory Diagram to reveal the dinamics of territory occupation in time. Now it's working rather good. But for maps with neutrals it still has several bugs. We use this module on Diplomail. Please check: https://ibb.co/mFZF3o
5 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 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
44 replies
Open
polaris (1272 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
Known World 901 question re rebuilt armies
The variant page says that "This map is build anywhere and has neutral standing armies that disband when dislodged, but will be rebuild if the relevant Home Supply Center is vacant and unowned during the build-phase in autumn." but looking at completed games, I don't see the standing armies getting rebuilt. Does this mean I need to always occupy my own SCs in the fall or else they turn back into neutral standing armies? Can someone explain this to me?
4 replies
Open
Flame (1058 D (B))
23 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
1898 - Civilization in Diplomacy
Variant "1898" by Randy Davis is very cool. One unit for each power at the start on the classic board.
It's already avaliable to play... but...
17 replies
Open
Flame (1058 D (B))
21 Jul 18 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.
15 replies
Open
JECE (1184 D)
20 Jul 18 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
kaner406 (1430 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
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top