I preferred the original 1:5:5:2 layout we had planned, but if our choices have come down to these 2 options, I vote for the first... so I guess it would be:

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 5 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura, butterhead)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 3 votes (Erudite, Battalion, EM)

I'm thinking about how the roles will likely go about fulfilling their objectives:

King-The King is the only country that we know beforehand-he will be Britain. Britain is one of the higher SC countries in Imperial Diplomacy, naturally giving the Loyalists an advantage in SC count (not guaranteed, but the probability is in their favor).

Rebels-Their main advantage is that you don't know who they are. Some will attack the King right off, while others will gain trust by playing the waiting game before stabbing. This means the Rebels have the advantage in anonymity. A lot less Rebels will be lost to friendly fire since they have a known target that is in multiple areas of the board.

Knights-These poor guys are in an unfortunate situation: they have no idea who their enemies are, and the King will be hesitant to trust them for fear of a Rebel trick. I'm sure that some of the Loyalists will end up having a bout of friendly fire; after all, when you're not sure whether your neighbor is with you or against, isn't the best option to take their SCs so you can be certain those units are working for your cause?

Traitors-Rather than play Knight until the end as I had thought at first, the traitors will likely serve to counterbalance whoever is in the lead. If I were a traitor, I would start the game by getting on the King's good side. When someone gets eliminated, his role is announced. If he were a Knight, I would probably continue to help the King. If he were a Rebel, I would consider stabbing the King to keep the fight going. The traitor's goal is to hold the balance of power in check while he grows.

The change to a 1:4:5:3 increases the # of traitors making it easier for them to win (a traitor might be identified when he stabs the King right after someone's role is announced to be Rebel by their death, potentially allowing other traitors to identify their fellow turncoats). Also, the more traitors there are the more likely the game won't end very quickly due to unlucky country draws since they will seek a balance of power. And the final reason-I think being a traitor would be the most fun, and having 3 of them increases my chances.

So the question then is, which advantage is stronger: the likely greater SC count of the Loyalists or the anonymity and known target of the Rebels? I think it's a much closer call then I initially thought, and so my vote is hereby changed to a 1:4:5:3 breakdown.

In case I am allowed to vote, despite the fact that I am not in the upcoming game, I will go for the second option.
1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 6 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura, butterhead, Erudite)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 3 votes (Battalion, EM, Lukas Podolski)

Even if I don't have voting rights in this context, I would like to throw out my two cents. If we are under the rationale of sticking to originality, I would say we try to keep the number of traitors down - ideally there is only one, as per the card game - but of course we allow there to be two, recognizing the difficulty of taking over the whole board. Note that, in fact, if the VC is not to take over the whole board, the difficulty is insignificant, and thus the justification for more than one traitor does not even exist imho.

The good thing about traitors is not only on their switching sides constantly. Even if their identity is exposed, not everyone will want to kill them. And even if there are ppl who try to kill them, say a particular faction like the rebels, the opposing faction will not hesitate to offer at least some protection. The chances of survival for a traitor is actually higher than you all expect.

I know I'm showing up pretty late to the party, but if you need one more player, I'd love to join!

It looks like we might have to restart negotiations; the Imperial Diplomacy map is kaput...

-Abstain from voting-

Damn broken variant...

Anyone has the solution? What variant are we aiming for now?

And B-RICH: I think we still have spots.

I literally just created an Imperial game. No issues for me. Sure its broken?

Yes, I started one a month or so ago with some of my friends, none of our units could cross the river.

No, sorry, I thought you Imperium, Imperial is fine (I'm pretty sure), it's Imperium that is broken.

Which river?

*thought you said*

Oh right there's a difference between Imperial and Imperium! So we're good right?

We already have enough people to start Imperial, and I think we're ready to go...

Ok, then you create the game, tell the password and give the complete list.

Oh and just for the record: I still haven't heard anything from ScubaSteve.

1. butterhead
2. Spartan22
3. Battalion (if there aren't enough people already playing)
4. steephie22 (same as Battalion)
5. Drano
6. Scordatura
7. Erudite
8. GOD
9. Captainmeme
10. General Cool
11. Raro
12. EmperorMaximus
13. DoubleCapitals

I replaced ScubaSteve's spot w/ Drano. I know that B-Rich requested a spot, will anyone give up a seat?

Well Battalion said he would...

I am already in another game so I would give up my spot but rather not because to be honest I have been looking forward to this...

As per Steephie22, I have been quite looking forward to this... Flip a coin :p

I created a game:

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=16544
Password: Imp2

I figure we can start having people join as we finalize everything.

Updated vote counts:

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 6 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura, butterhead, Erudite)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Battalion, EM)
Abstain: 1 (DoubleCap)

At this point, we have 6 votes for 3 traitors, and 1 abstain meaning that 1 more vote for 3 traitors will set us on that path.

To Lukas -

The VC still IS to take over the board, it's just simply that the traitors have to take over the board together, not as an individual. Quite frankly, taking over the board as an individual is going to be impossible on anything larger than Classic. Even with 2 people, on a map the size of Imperial, I'd wager it's impossible. There's going to be a stalemate SOMEWHERE. That said, this is all about experimentation and seeing what works best. Since none of us have ever tried this, none of us can really make the statements that you're making. None of us KNOW how it will play out, so none of us KNOW what type of chance the Traitor (s) really have. If 3 proves too high, then we knock it down.

My vote is for three traitors as well

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 7 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura, butterhead, Erudite, Spartan22)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Battalion, EM)
Abstain: 1 (DoubleCap)

Alright, by a vote of simple majority let's go ahead with 3 traitors first. And yea we need to at least do some field-testing before we can make accurate/constructive adjustments.

Then it's settled. With 7 votes, we have a majority. As soon as we're all signed up, we'll get the distribution settled by an outside party and we'll be good to go!

I'll give up my spot to B-RICH then I suppose...

Note that my vote doesn't count then so it isn't technically a majority vote yet.

Also have fun guys.

And I'd like to reserve a spot in whatever game of this to follow including on different maps, although I might cancel my reservation later. Can that happen in exchange for my sacrifice? :)

Nice of you to give up your spot. Thanks for helping get this set up steephie.