Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 126 of 128
FirstPreviousNextLast
gopher27 (1020 D)
16 May 17 UTC
New Thread Idea
Does anyone know Polish History? Did The Deluge cause such material damage that it doomed Poland to economic and political death spiral, did it devastate the proto-bourgeois, densely populated Northwest at a key moment within a republic when it was fighting with the rural, agrarian South and East thus stunting an incipient movement towards urbanization and development or did it not really have any long term effect?
7 replies
Open
HQDeevejot (881 D)
16 May 17 UTC
Shrek Super Slam vs. Mr. Rogers' neighborhood
which one is the good one
8 replies
Open
HQDominator (834 D)
16 May 17 UTC
Thread Discussion Thread
In this Thread, we will be discussing other threads such as the Word Association Thread and the New Thread Ideas Thread and most importantly The Muting Thread
1 reply
Open
Technostar (1168 D)
12 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Scramble for Africa Variant - Gauging Interest
I was wondering how interested people would be in a Scramble for Africa variant. I'm already making one for my friends and me to use, so I could easily put it on the lab for testing once it's done.
13 replies
Open
Greetings Thread
Um....................... Hello? Is anyone there?
38 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1283 D (B) (B))
12 May 17 UTC
(+1)
Calhamer prototype - feedback please
Hi folks - the Calhamer prototype of Dip has been rolling around in my head and I'm thinking of bringing it to the online community. But I have some questions that I'd appreciate your input into:
3 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1283 D (B) (B))
11 May 17 UTC
Where do you post your variant map ideas?
Working on the Calhamer Prototype variant and interested in getting opinions on map design to keep it authenticate. In some cases the maps aren't clear and I'm interested in advice. Where's the best spot folks have found for posting?
1 reply
Open
webdipper123 (797 D)
11 May 17 UTC
Advertise LIVE games here
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=31095
starting in 1 hr.
classic - 5mins phase
1 reply
Open
Hypoguy (1072 D)
03 May 17 UTC
Sengoku - Want to join?
Anyone interested in a game of Sengoku Jidai? Medieval Japan. Post here if you want to join, and what preferences you have for anon, phase length, etc.
http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=27
3 replies
Open
Carebear (1000 D)
07 May 17 UTC
Online Diplomacy Championship - Second Round Signup
The deadline to signup for the second round of the Online Diplomacy Championship @ PDET 2017 will be May 19 with games starting shortly there after. Players who did not participate in the first round may join the second round.
2 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1283 D (B) (B))
20 Mar 17 UTC
Fixing the Pirates variant
With the new Lab up and running, as discussed in the DiplomacyGames podcast I'm keen to iron out the bugs in Pirates that people hate...
32 replies
Open
gjdip (1111 D)
06 May 17 UTC
Problems with World War II large map?
Is anoyone else having problems with the large map in World War II games? I get: This page isn’t working. vdiplomacy.com is currently unable to handle this request. HTTP ERROR 500.
0 replies
Open
kaner406 (1274 D Mod (B) (B))
03 May 17 UTC
I was thinking about making a second account...
Here's a few...
18 replies
Open
Captainmeme (1062 D Mod (B))
22 Apr 17 UTC
(+3)
Reminder: ALWAYS check the settings of games you join!
Hi all,
8 replies
Open
Decima Legio (1362 D)
25 Oct 16 UTC
The Exploration game, episode III
One year ago we’ve tested this special rule game based on the Fog of War format.
I have to say that it’s been a fun game with original dynamics.
Details below
95 replies
Open
Bourse development and discussion thread.
This summer, I plan to develop Phase I of four phases in a Bourse gaming system to expand the gaming experience without over taxing the game director. This thread is to discuss the phases and how the various features should be implemented.
9 replies
Open
Strider (840 D)
24 Apr 17 UTC
(+2)
Anzac Day remembrance
Waking for this Anzac Days dawn service reminds me why we should not forget WWI. With threats of agression again escalating has nothing been learnt!
5 replies
Open
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Diplomacy: Is Germany Too Weak?
I noticed that Germany is considerably weaker in Diplomacy than it's historical counterpart. In game, Germany can very easily be knocked out by England and France. However, historically Germany was able to fight competently on three separate fronts. Does anybody feel that Germany is a little misrepresented in game?
More importantly, are there any variants that address this?
Devonian (1311 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
I don't think the actual statistics support your claim.

France can easily be knocked out by England and Germany. England can easily be knocked out by France and Germany. Whenever you have 2 against one, it should be easy. But, it's all about diplomacy and finding the one other player who will help you against the other.
A talented diplomacy player can make Germany a winning position, so no. There are no weak positions in classic, only weak diplomats.

The statistics for Classic bear out that Germany is quite a decent nation to play. I personally love it for full press classic.

Results by country:
Country Solos Draws Survivals Eliminated SCs Ø Performance*
England 32 125 93 198 5.14 2.67
France 32 154 116 146 5.62 3.05
Italy 18 113 85 232 3.57 2.05
Germany 41 117 77 213 4.9 2.85
Austria 17 106 55 270 3.32 1.88
Turkey 47 136 97 168 6.55 3.31
Russia 44 100 72 232 4.44 2.75

*Performance = (15 x Solos + 5 x Draws + 1 x Survivals) / Games
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Yea that isncorrect, however I am comparing Germanys power in diplomacy to that in the real world. I'm looking for a variant that gives germany enough power to at least stalemate with both englabd and france simultaneously. 5 starting scs for example. Sure it might seem unbalanced but I'm looking for historical accuracy. Besides, Germanys military might could convince others to join france and England against it.
As Devonian points out, 2 on 1 is a powerful combination. And when you can get a central triple going, if it doesn't look like a central triple, Germany, Austria, and Italy make one hell of a team.

Germany and Austria take on Russia, Italy and Austria roll over Turkey, France goes after England with a bit of Germany help, then suddenly when Russia and Turkey are about gone, Italy and Germany turn on France and what is left of England to wipe the board.
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Isncorrect should be: is correct
Not a valid comparison as WWI Germany is not Nazi Germany *and* both wars had more a surprise element where as this game has everyone ramped up and headed to war. Diplomacy is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a simulation of WWI. If you want an unbalanced simulation, play another game.
And remember, in WWI, Germany had the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary on it's side. It wasn't fighting alone, so there were other armies to keep Russia busy and plenty of neutral nations between Germany and England so that they really only had two fronts in that war and only one of those was theirs to fight alone - France.
G-Man (1856 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
The power of Germany is exactly like real life. Once you get Germany rolling, it's very difficult to stop. I'll take Germany anytime.

But the variant you're looking for is Europe 1939: http://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=72
Europe in 1939 is very different from Europe in 1901. Remember, the time for Diplomacy is pre-WWI and WWI. If you get a game that makes it 39 years in and are still fighting, well DAMN!
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Yes that is true as well. Thank you both
Devonian (1311 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
I'm not sure if historically Germany was stronger.

I'm not a real history buff, but I think that in world war I they had Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey on their side. In World War II they had Italy and Japan on their side.

And, I thought that in WWII the other sides entered the war in a staggered manner, giving Germany an advantage until all allied forces were against them. Russia had a non-agression pact with them, so they invaded Poland. England and France didn't react quickly enough, so they took the lowlands, and then France.

And eventually they did lose both world wars.
Smokey Gem (780 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
HMMMM..maybe I should just cut and paste the exact same question and responses from WEBDIP.forum and .save everyone a lot of time ..
Maybe it is good to get other perspectives from thos on the web dip forum. Don't be a jerk, Smokey. Not everyone here is over there.
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Yes @devonian, but in ww2 they had built up their military immensely. France and england were fighting germany simultaneously for a while before germanys mismanagement eventually helped make the nation cave in.
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Even the Americans had to intervene to stop them. Although I'm not saying the war was won solely because of them since that would discredit the superspy Garbo and many other factors in the war.
But Mitimon, this game is set in WWI, not WWII. Spring 1901 is not Spring 1939. Your original question was about the strength of Germany in the game compared to real life. It must include the time period else you could argue that with no US involved, the game is flawed (which the US was in WWI as well, so technically it is).
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
Yes Yacht, but i was responding to devos note about WWII. I have ackowledged that I was wrong with my original questions premise.
zurn (1175 D)
18 Apr 17 UTC
Allied manpower and production greatly outnumbered Germany's in both world wars. In the end the Allies could starve Germany out. It's not mismanagement, so much as just not having the extra economic capacity to outlast the Allies.
nopunin10did (1010 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
"are there any variants that address this?"

Yes, actually. You should check out "1900", a variant by Baron VonPowell. It's not currently supported on vDiplomacy, but I'm hoping to port it over.

Rules:
http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Online/variants/1900.html

Example Starting Map:
http://imgur.com/9oHqbUK
Murcanic (1214 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
(+2)
^ That is a cool map! I wouldn't want to play as italy but it looks like a cool map to play on :)
zurn (1175 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
Having played Italy in 1900... yeah, wouldn't be my first pick. I think overall compared to Standard, Italy has a little more of a shot at victory in 1900, but also more of a risk of early catastrophe.
G-Man (1856 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
Note that vDip has Abstraction III, which I think expands slightly on 1900:

Abstraction III
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=67

And Europe 1939 looks like it adapts and expands on 1900 for the different time period as well.
RUFFHAUS 8 (1000 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
Italy is perfectly fine in Standard Diplomacy. The problem with Italy is that most players are either unreasonably intimidated by the difficulty of playing Italy, or simply just do not understand how to play it. Much of this comes from the mistaken concept that the Lepanto/Key Kepanto are particularly good openings. Italy is extremely versatile, and far too many opportunities are pissed away by players determined to kill Turkey at all costs. Many others are ruined by stab happy fools who think punking Austria for one dot is a clever move. Italy more so than any other nation requires players who can thin beyond the present turn, and put aside the constant worry of where their next build comes from.

Italy and Austria on the linked 1900 map look pretty hard done by, not only because they remain on three starting centers, but also because the perks provided the other surrounding nations.
Unstupid (732 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
Yeah, on webdip I just won a game as Italy - in standard dip it is so powerful once it hits 8/9 SCs - it's just getting there that is the problem
vallk (1013 D)
20 Apr 17 UTC
Was Germany not the backbone of the central powers in WW1? I wasn't aware there were people who disagreed with this. It took British and Russian support to stop France from folding in the initial stages of the war. The idea that more centers would more accurately reflect German power isn't flawed.
WWI was a united German/Austria-Hungary offensive. After all, it was the Austrian Archduke who was assassinated.That is already reflected in the game.
vallk (1013 D)
21 Apr 17 UTC
Of course, but I think Mitomon's point was that Germany was probably individually the most powerful country in at the outbreak of WWI and that it might be fun to play a variant where Germany has extra centers to reflect that
Then everyone would gang up on Germany and, as he doesn't have an edge to protect himself like Russia, he would end up being eaten alive.
Remember, there is no technological advantage in Diplomacy like there was in both WWI and WWII for Germany. More centers makes you a target without the individual boost each unit would get from better technology.
nopunin10did (1010 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
"Having played Italy in 1900... yeah, wouldn't be my first pick. I think overall compared to Standard, Italy has a little more of a shot at victory in 1900, but also more of a risk of early catastrophe."

I just pulled down PlayDiplomacy's stats for classic-style games of 1900, and Italy is actually one of the best in terms of overall performance. It ranks 2nd in solos (behind Germany) and 1st in not-losing (where Germany is ranked 2nd).
nopunin10did (1010 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
Correction to prior comment:
Italy is solidly the 2nd place in both categories mentioned. Germany is the leader-of-the-pack in both draws and solos for 1900.
zurn (1175 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
That wasn't what I saw from Powell's (the designer) roundup of 1900 stats, but that was admittedly from a while ago. Do you have a quick link to the PlayDip stats, or is that a pay only thing?
nopunin10did (1010 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
Powell's stats for 1900 are mostly from Play-by-Email games, which definitely impacts the data. It's not as reflective of the web-style of Diplomacy play. PD's stats are more likely to resemble what you'd hypothetically see on sites like vDip.

PD maintains an archive of all of its finished games, and you can get the statistics if you have a web scraper and are handy with Excel.

The following are a quick summary of stats for samples from 1900 and Classic, only looking at full-press games run without extra variants. GPR is calculated on a 180-point basis (180 for solo, 90 for 2-way, 60 for 3-way, 45 for 4-way, 36 for 5-way, 30 for 6-way, 0 for 7-way or loss).

There were 232 completed games of 1900.

F: 17 solos, 170 losses, 24.69 avg GPR
R: 13 solos, 170 losses, 22.27 avg GPR
I: 20 solos, 163 losses, 28.19 avg GPR
G: 29 solos, 61 losses, 38.04 avg GPR
A: 15 solos, 169 losses, 23.72 avg GPR
T: 10 solos, 180 losses, 18.22 avg GPR
E: 16 solos, 171 losses, 24.10 avg GPR

For comparison, I took a sample of 178 recent classic games from PD before my scraper allowance ran out:

F: 18 solos, 121 losses, 32.19 avg GPR
R: 24 solos, 123 losses, 35.39 avg GPR
I: 5 solos, 146 losses, 14.66 avg GPR
G: 10 solos, 125 losses, 25.20 avg GPR
A: 8 solos, 141 losses, 17.70 avg GPR
T: 11 solos, 126 losses, 25.37 avg GPR
E: 14 solos, 125 losses, 28.48 avg GPR




nopunin10did (1010 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
Expressed as +/- % as compared to the overall average:

1900 stats:

F: -0.8% solos, +2.1% losses, -3.6% GPR
R: -24.2% solos, +2.1% losses, -13.0% GPR
I: +16.7% solos, -2.1% losses, +10.1% GPR
G: +69.2% solos, -14.7% losses, +48.6% GPR
A: -12.5% solos, +1.5% losses, -7.4% GPR
T: -41.7% solos, +8.2% losses, -28.8% GPR
E: -6.7% solos, +2.7% losses, -5.9% GPR

Classic sample:

F: +40.0% solos, -6.6% losses, +25.9% GPR
R: +86.7% solos, -5.1% losses, +38.4% GPR
I: -61.1% solos, +12.7% losses, -42.7% GPR
G: -22.2% solos, -3.5% losses, +1.5% GPR
A: -37.8% solos, +8.8% losses, -30.8% GPR
T: -14.4% solos, -2.8% losses, -0.8% GPR
E: +8.9% solos, -3.5% losses, +11.4% GPR
zurn (1175 D)
25 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
These are the stats I mentioned, looks like they're from the DPJudge:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160207110707/http://diplom.org/Zine/F2014R/Powell/france2.htm

Bad cut and paste:

GREAT POWER GAMES POINTS GPR SOLO 2-WAY 3-WAY 4-WAY 5-WAY 6-WAY LOSS
GERMANY 206 7335 35.61 25 3 27 13 10 0 128
RUSSIA 206 5520 26.80 19 3 18 12 5 1 148
BRITAIN 206 5505 26.72 16 4 20 15 10 1 140
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 206 5049 24.51 15 6 19 7 9 1 149
TURKEY 206 4710 22.86 15 3 18 10 5 1 154
ITALY 206 4635 22.50 13 4 22 9 5 1 152
FRANCE 206 4326 21.00 14 1 20 6 6 1 158
nopunin10did (1010 D)
26 Apr 17 UTC
Yep. Combined, those two samples paint a pretty rosy picture for 1900's balance. Even considering how strongly Germany leads the pack, it still tends to be a more even contest than Classic.

DPJudge was used primarily to adjudicate email-based games, however, so I do think that some consideration should take into account the difference in email v. web playerbases.
zurn (1175 D)
26 Apr 17 UTC
(+1)
It's probably about as balanced as Standard. Germany definitely sticks out more in the lead in 1900, but everyone else is a little more even. Being about as balanced as Classic is pretty good, most variants fall well short of this, at least going by vdip stats.

Interesting that among the two sets of 1900 results, each of about 200 games, you get a decently different ordering of nations: GIFEART vs GREATIF.

I've seen quite a difference in the stats for Classic when comparing no-press to full press games. I wonder if varying levels of communication and game speed play a big part in the difference between communities. Also, Powell suggests in the article that 200 games is too small a sample... but it's better than nothing.
nopunin10did (1010 D)
26 Apr 17 UTC
I think that, were there a whole lot more 1900 games on record to go by, the pattern would match pretty closely to what we see here. Germany would be in a solid lead, and the other 6 would be fairly close to equal.

That's a pretty stark difference from Classic games, where you have 3 approximate tiers of powers, even at high sample sizes:

-Russia & France
-England, Germany, & Turkey
-Austria & Italy

With an asymmetric setup, there's always going to be some unevenness, and the hope is that players will do some self-balancing as clear frontrunners appear.

If one is to compare the balance across variants, though, it's probably best to do so using the standard deviation of the seven powers for whatever you're measuring (solos, GPR, or some other holistic score) as a percentage of the mean.

In that manner, using similarly sized samples, 1900 does frequently edge out Classic for better balance overall.
David E. Cohen (0 D)
26 Apr 17 UTC
(+2)
I said this in the sister thread over on the webDiplomacy site, but it bears repeating.

Those of you bemoaning the fact that Diplomacy does not reflect the tactical situation in Europe as of World War One are missing the point. No, Germany does not start with five armies. No, England does not start with five fleets. There are many war games which do a much better job of reflecting the tactics of World War One. But Diplomacy is not meant to be historically accurate in that way.

Diplomacy is meant to evoke the Great Power interactions of the era, on a grand-strategic level. It does this incredibly well, far better than any other game out there, using elegantly simple mechanics.

Thank you, Mr. Calhamer.
RUFFHAUS 8 (1000 D)
27 Apr 17 UTC
Amen, Dave. Its also set in 1901, not 1914. While both strategy and tactics are factors int he game, it's called "Diplomacy" for a reason. Creating a variant that seeks to accurately reflect WWI may as well be a two player experience, which is not really Diplomacy, only the movement mechanics.
nopunin10did (1010 D)
27 Apr 17 UTC
"Its also set in 1901, not 1914."

To be fair, it's not terribly historically accurate to either date. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as historical accuracy isn't as high a priority for Diplomacy as it is for other games.

Dip has the European borders that approximately reflect 1914 and is nominally set in 1901, but it represents the relative military strengths of the great powers for neither period.

Again, that's not automatically a bad thing, but the "it's set in 1901" argument doesn't really hold water.
RUFFHAUS 8 (1000 D)
27 Apr 17 UTC
It's a game, not a history book or an order of battle. There's no artillery, aircraft, or mustard gas either. The game is not seeking to be an accurate reflection of military strength, but an exercise in diplomacy, of which military power is a factor. The game is not meant to establish or prevent the WWI alliances the need to provide equally playable starting positions was created. The map takes a great many liberties for playability purposes as well. The game refers to England rather than Great Britain as a major power. You can nitpick till the cows come home if you want to. This thread started up on the premise that Germany is too weak, which is false. The intention has never been to capture absolute historical accuracy, but to present seven nominally equal playable positions.

The argument holds water in that the point is the entire conversation is silly.


42 replies
Mitomon (953 D)
17 Apr 17 UTC
What is your favorite board game?
I heard you guys like to play Risk.
48 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1283 D (B) (B))
19 Apr 17 UTC
Feedback for 1v1 Cold War on WWIV map
Hi folks, some of you may have heard me talk on the podcast about bringing the WWIV map to a Cold War circa 1984 1v1 variant. Interested in your thoughts about whether I use the standard WWIV map, the v6.2 version (is there any actual difference in the map itself?) or whether the sealane version would be better. Thoughts?
17 replies
Open
The Problem Thread
This thread is if you have a problem you post and then everyone will try to help you with your problem.
57 replies
Open
Happy Rome Day
since today (April 21) is Rome's 2770th birthday, I thought it would be nice to fill this thread with stories of the glory of Rome:
5 replies
Open
The Muting Thread
This is the thread that everyone mutes.
9 replies
Open
Captainmeme (1062 D Mod (B))
01 Apr 17 UTC
(+4)
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ON VDIPLOMACY'S FUTURE
Please see within for details on the vDiplomacy Referendum.
66 replies
Open
GOD (1369 D Mod (B))
28 Jan 16 UTC
(+1)
Can't stop the Trump
Does anyone here has a clue as to why Donald Trump is boycotting the latest republican debate? Seems to have only downsides and risks without a real gain to me. Enlighten me please.
296 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
09 Apr 17 UTC
KING OF GUNBOAT
gameID=30786 2 day phases 100pt bet WTA Anon gunboat
2 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1245 D)
15 Apr 17 UTC
Seeking replacement for Shift Right variant game
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=30376#gamePanel

Looking for a replacement for Italy (me). The current position is pretty stable. I'm looking to eliminate all of my press games due to time constraints.
4 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1283 D (B) (B))
08 Mar 17 UTC
Live video feed podcast?
Hi folks - Kaner and I are getting together this time next week for another boozy Dip chat.
27 replies
Open
Captainmeme (1062 D Mod (B))
11 Apr 17 UTC
The Original Diplomacy Variant
As many of you know, the Calhamer estate is being liquidated and the very first self-published Diplomacy board sold for just over $5000 last week. Well, something else interesting from the same sale - a bunch of prototype maps, these likely being from several years before the game was published.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/262922746919
21 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (0 D)
29 Mar 17 UTC
Calhamer Estate Sale
See below.
30 replies
Open
Page 126 of 128
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top