Oooo I see I see, shall do. Interesting

I'm sure this has been thought of but why not Classic - layered but layer 2 is planes.

Start with 1 plane each, they can move 2 provinces, they support with only 0.5, every 3 SC's is worth a plane build.

Something like that.

Thoughts?

Interesting concept. However, I think it would be difficult (impossible?) to add a third unit through the vDip variant process and I've read on here that 0.5 levels of support/attack would also be difficult to implement. But you could be the pioneer!

I thought that the attack at half strength was already implemented was the variant "1900".

Oh, and what about adding a third level with submarines? There had been an attempt to playtest that in playdip a couple of years ago (I think there could only be one submarine max. per Power), but it never started.

@Also interesting is an option Air Strike (destroy any foe unit on a map). Allowed once in a game for each power.

The Taifa Kingdoms variant looks great. Did the tests become too crowded? At first glance, the SC/non-SC ratio seems higher than Classic.

I am playing a Taifa Kingdoms test game and I haven't found it too crowded. However I am going alright so that helps the positive feelings.

It is pretty hectic in the SW corner of the peninsula which is indeed pretty crowded. To make matters even more complicated is the one nation from Africa has no direct enemy for approximately 1 maybe 2 years, so when they arrive they should come with reasonable force.

Hi all! I'm running into a minor albeit annoyingly persistent issue with my map.

My smallmapNames and mapNames .png files look relatively good when opened by themselves from my Files DevTool section, but everything looked way worse in the test game I recently ran. You can see the issue I am referring to on the variant homepage below. It seems like all of the text has a rough, pixelated white edge. It makes the words really hard to read. This is less severe when I am viewing the map within the Map DevTool section, but it's still noticeable.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious here, but I've tried several solutions and still haven't resolved it. Anyone know of a solution?

https://www.vdiplomacy.com/dev.php?tab=Preview&variantID=159

You probably forgot to turn off anti-aliasing when you made your maps and mapNames files.

Thank you, that makes sense. I think you're right. I actually used ArcGIS to make the map and mapNames files, so I'm guessing that I forgot to turn it off there and/or transparency settings didn't carry over upon exporting the images like they were supposed to.

I appreciate your help. Thanks again!

Hi, I'm back again with two semi-related questions:
1. Is there a size limit for the unit icons?
2. Does anyone know of a guide or instructional resources for how to implement custom unit icons?

Upon reviewing other variants with both default and custom unit files, I don't think I have come across an army or fleet icon that has exceeded roughly 30x30 pixels. Is that the maximum? The default unit icons are a bit difficult for me to see sometimes, so I was hoping to change them to different, larger icon and then also vary the icon colors to mirror player colors.

I've looked through the guide to no avail. I also reviewed other variants with custom unit icons to see if I could extrapolate and then emulate the procedure for getting them to work. Unfortunately, I was not successful with that either.

I would be extremely grateful if anyone knows of a guide they can link or a solution for me to try. Thank you all again for help on my prior questions, and thanks in advance for help on this one! I've learned a lot during this process. It's been difficult but fun.

1. Technically there is no limit in the unit icon size. So you can try bigger icons. But be aware that they may make it harder to read the map if borders or whole territories are hidden. Also the order symbols on the map indicating builds and disbands may look odd on too large icons.

2. We used to copy the same snippets of code all over the place which is cumbersome and requires you to be very familiar with the whole implementation. But there is a new way rolled out with recent variants that lets you re-use the existing implementations with just one line of configuration (teaser: I can very well imagine to have a UI soon in the DEV section that lets you configure "standard" extensions with just a view clicks). I will PM you with details.

Incredibly helpful, as always! Thank you a ton and I will look for your PM.

Hi everyone! I had an idea for an experimental variant and whipped it up. The rules are essentially the same as vanilla Diplomacy, but with a change in scenery-- fight with dragons and knights over land and mountains! See the variant page for the detailed description (https://www.vdiplomacy.com/dev.php?tab=Preview&variantID=156).

The map is rather basic and probably unbalanced but I thought of it more as a proof of concept for what can be done by manipulating how a variant dev thinks about the terrain. For example, I could imagine a space themed map with armies on planets (land) and fleets traversing space (sea) and convoying armies to other planets, essentially turning the Mars variant's space slots into a whole map idea.

First test game open at vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=58320. Let me know what you all think!

(My other variant New Zealand is still in the works. Sealanes were a bad idea I think, I'll have to rearrange regular sea territories to manage the stalemate lines.)

There's a similar concept with inverted sea and land territories. Vanilla armies become fleets, and vanilla fleets become armies. The new armies can move fleets across land spaces (representing portages/canal-building), but they themselves cannot be convoyed. This reversal would be useful for play centered on bodies of water, and since supply centers could be placed anywhere in the ocean the focus could be shifted to controlling key centers of shipping and trade.

I've made new versions of a couple of my variants -

Bronze Age: https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=142

Incensed: https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=158

https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=58573

In the variant creation guide, there is a note to "contact Oli" - is that just to open a ticket in the Mod Forum requesting a variant to be opened?

Second-to-last iteration of the Taifa map!
https://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=151
I have added one SC in Alpuente, which I'm hoping will help Zaragoza and/or Toledo (they need it), while also allowing for 2-player draws now. I've also changed again with the initial conditions of Granada; at first they were underpowered, then overpowered, hopefully third time's the charm.
Next iteration will look to play a bit with the seas and cut any last moment loose threads, and after that the variant will be ready to see the light! Thanks to everyone who has helped me test it so far and has given feedback, I'm creating two new games and I will greatly appreciate anyone who can jump in :)
Open chat: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=58659
Gunboat: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=58660

Introducing 15 player Pangea Diplomacy! By all means, let me know what you think.

https://imgur.com/a/HsuXwW9

Looks really cool, very unique take on the global diplomacy variants. Just looking, it looks kind of dense with territories and centers. What's the center and territory count?

Much appreciated, its the idea that got me wanting to make maps in the first place.

202 territories total, 161 land 41 ocean, 90 centers, 45 home 45 neutral. 46ish to win I think? Yeah Ill openly admit there's a few places I'd agree are pretty packed, more ocean tiles? Less centers? I just tried to keep it within reasonable bounds of other variants of similar proportions. Any critique is welcome

Love the idea! Is it custom builds, or preset start? If preset, I could see an initial advantage for the inland powers if the neighboring coastal powers are too fleet heavy to start.

Also, I realize it's completely done on purpose, but I always giggle a bit when I realize that powers on completely opposite sides of the map are closer in moves than powers that are much closer physically. Just means you have to watch your edge moves closely!

Yeah so I was thinking custom builds turn 1, but other than that I want to keep it with standard rules if possible, force the rivers to come into use. If it doesn't work then maybe just build on home centers?

And yeah Im hoping the ocean arrangement allows for a lot more interaction with perhaps unlikely other powers. We'll see though hahaha

Variants with a lot of players and/or SCs are tricky because units can get concentrated in certain areas, especially in big swathes of of just land or sea territories. I'd reduce the number of centers, land, and sea regions. You should probably cut around 20ish of the neutral supply centers.

You also don't want players to be outright ignoring some others for most of the game. That's tough with 15 players, but, ideally two players will only be separated by 1-2 neighbors at max.

Remember this is kind of a fantasy variant, so you can bend the territory placement, SC placement, and player placement to your will entirely. You're not constrained by any historicity.

Reducing it by 15 might be good, since that means first year goes from 3->6 to 3->5 centers for people, so keeps things even

You could set it up “colonially” with dispersed home centers perhaps. That would serve to push the players together more.

Alright heard that, there's definitely a handful of centers I can eliminate, certainly to even the year 1 gains at least, which likely needed happening anyway.

I would naively argue though, if considering the center-territory ratios of maps like World Diplomacy IX or Known World 901, both relatively balanced and popular, they appear to both support similar amounts of units to Pangea, and really call for that amount of territories for there to be room for players to interact. The connecting ocean also helps reduce the separation, and realistically in most larger maps there's a player or two you're just not likely to come in contact with, no?

And while I agree organizing it colonially might force more interaction, the initial draw of the map to me was the touching international centers and the interesting combinations created. Im not certain it would hold the same interest if the home centers were more widely distributed