Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: which rule set is this?
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Set B; However I don't understand the rationale behind forcing 2 of the FUK to NMR.
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Florida, Cuba, and Mexico. REALLY?!?!?! Atleast I know all the spaces by now :P
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Texas, Florida, and Peru. REALLY?!?!?!
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Haha, but im slightly more concentrated than you are.
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Under Siege- When the Capital of the United States is threatened by a unique enemy, a strong bond forms between countries that nobody thought would ever work together... the International Committee of Unity and Peace(the ICUP) consists of California, Mexico, Quebec, Heartland, and Cuba. They have a plan to unite the entire Continent under their power, by taking control of D.C from the newly formed, and very unorganized, Federation of Unknown Kinship(the FUK) which consists of New York, Florida, Peru, Texas, and British Columbia... There is one special twist to this game... The FUK, being new and unorganized, has 2 powers that may not move in the first Spring... the team itself gets to decide among themselves which 2 players that is, and they do NOT have to announce it out loud...
16 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Team 1: Quebec, Heartland, Cuba, California, Mexico Team 2: Peru, British Columbia, New York, Texas, Florida
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: @Gobbles, the rational is that the ICUP is supposed to be strike attacking before the FUK is ready to defend, therefore, the FUK is unprepared... also... Cali, Quebec, and NY... and WHY DO I KEEP GETTING ON THE TEAM WITH BC!?!?!? I am allied with BC all 3 times...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Wouldn't that tilt the game in favour of the ICUP?
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: not necessarily... the FUK can make up for that by having a slightly more centralized team... I mean, besides BC, they are all fairly on the same half of the map, but ICUP has 2 team mates clear across the map, therefore not having as much support... also, the game is meant to have both teams start with slight advantages and disadvantages... also, why do you think this was the last of the three variants to start? not as many people liked it... Hell, it was my least favorite of the 3, and they were my ideas...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: im a french canadian! also im surprised you didnt go with a USA vs CSA type thing with this as a D set up
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Well I am currently thinking of a D set up... so, I will take that into consideration for a D...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: I am also open to all suggestions for a D set up... or, this could be the last of this Set, and the next set could be the Mate against Mate map, or Japan(even though I despise it) or another non classic map...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Oh thats interesting. Cali/Heartlands/Texas/Florida/New York vs BC/Quebec/Peru/Cuba/Mexico
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: what about Fantasy World Diplomacy? we could make a pretty intense series of games with that map I think...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Yea, I agree. Fantasy, Modern, Japan, and if we get desperate maybe World Diplomacy (but i dont recommend it)
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: haha, yea, I'd prefer to keep it at 7-12 players... so Fantasy, Modern, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy, Colonial, SA Supremacy...
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: yeah I can see a D and E for this map USA vs. CSA USA vs Mexico/Canada/Cuba/Peru
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: hello... this is actually my first time as BC :D
17 Aug 11 UTC	Spring, 1999: Congrats BenGuin... I still can't believe I am on BC's team AGAIN(although with 5 players on each team, I guess the odds were pretty high I would be this time)...