Or, we could make it a 1 point game
:)

oh thats no fun. 35 pot game? common we gotta make it alittle higher than that. Say 2 point game?

that doesn't sound bad to me.

I don't think it possible to only do 1 point for that is it? plus, it won't be intertaining unless it's a 3.5 pointer...

yeah yeah - but I thought it was about the game & not about the points...

it is!! whatamap!

I know - I thought you were making fun of my points... grrr.

:)

Don't worry, everyone is making fun of everyone's points
for instance, we could make it a 20.01 pointer
;)

I would favor a 16 poi- waaaaaaaiiiiit

haha, It could be an 84.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 point game??

That last one hurt, deeply inside
*sniffles*

good. >)

Is there a way to set the start time? Something I've noticed about BIG games is that you have to set a long time window (10 days or so) for joining, then the game starts after 3 days and 3-4 show up late. With 35 players, there will be enough NMRs inherent in the structure.

Maybe a solution would be to wait for all players to enter orders in the first turn...

I wish i knew how do code. Cause then i would offer to look over it since I have SOOO much time to kill on my hands. Have you started yet Oli? Maybe someone on here who knows what to look for could overview the old code or do whatever needs to be done.

Interesting enough I used most of the special-code in different variants already. And the few new tricks I managed to do already. So it's not that hard, but it takes some time. And we need to solve the problem with the game-start. A solution for all large maps would be preferable. So post your suggestions.

Maybe the first turn could be double the phase length as the other turns?

Oli what about a check system of sorts. Like after all players join the game there is a time where all players do nothing except click READY to show that they are present at the start of the game. They can only click it after all players have joined and once all players have readied up the game begins. The only problem i can see from that is there would have to be a time limit because if someone is gone for 10 days nobody wants to wait that long and then players who have readied previously may not be ready now. Thoughts?

I agree with both last 2 proposals, they seem reasonable and I think not too difficult to implement..

Once I suggested that if the first phase ends and there's someone with NMR, then the game pauses automatically, and, with a time limit, the other players can vote if they wanna continue the game, if they wanna wait for the player, if they wanna open the game again so that another player joins, or if they wanna cancel the game. After the time limit ends, if there's not unanimous consensus, then the game cancels automatically, and you'd have lost a pair of days but you wouldn't be forced to play a game you don't like

Another question: What should be the target SC's?
It must be a pain to put orders for 100 units using our current interface.
(And keep posting suggestions on how to solve the game-start problem.)

Nots sure, but if we make it too low, it will be a much smaller map for an individual player, with some pretty scenery. Perhaps 50?

If you make it 50, you run the risk of having 4 or 5 people WINNING at the same time by getting the 50 on the same time. thats not really winning I don't think. I feel it would be interesting to, If you lower the winning centers at all, lower it to 100 even. that makes it much harder for more than 1 person to solo, and only 2 people can do it at the same time, which will be dang near impossible.

So, I just joined this site after seeing a reference to it on webdip, and although i'm on call for a game, haven't actually played any here yet. I also just started on webdip about a week ago, but i'd be really interested in playing this :) Are we going to be able to do the formal alliance thing?
So far as the game start problem, I don't see why we couldn't just treat it like a live game, where it starts on the set start time independent of people having filled out all slots or not. Wouldn't that work?

I honestly dont think we should lower the target sc's. If you make it too low then it never actually feels like its one unified game. Just several different games trying to get to whatever the target sc's first. If someone only needs say 50 sc's then they will never have any reason to communicate to powers around the world. I say just keep it as is.

In the spirit of "Haven-this map is insane, but awesome", I suggest the first game be entitled, "WWIV-this map is whack".

And Oli, may I request Oceania or Kazakhstan? Maybe one of the Sub-Saharan African countries. If the map is going to be this big, I'd like a new experience and not another run of ModernDip or South America or Fall of the American Empire within a larger game.

Does it seem reasonable to people that "China" is worth 18 SCs and "India" is 4 SCs?

@AncientMemories, welcome to Vdip!
also, what do you mean the Formal alliance thing? do you have a particular map in mind? this one we are discussing here is not for any alliance thing like what you are referring to I believe, as it takes 35 players and its a world wide map... If you have any questions, Suggest you either make a new Forum thread, or PM people...

No, i read http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/w/worldwar4-4.1.htm to see what the un rule was, and belwo it was this whole thing about 'formal alliances'. Well, wither that or i am sleeping right now... In which case this is a very strange dream.

Ahh, I don't think they are bringing the UN code with it... to hard...