Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 68 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Texastough (870 D X)
30 Jun 12 UTC
Advertise your LIVE-GAMES here
All live games get advertised here
10 replies
Open
kaner406 (2103 D Mod (B))
24 Jun 12 UTC
Oli & Amby are on holidays
so the two active mods are myself (kaner406) and fasces349 ( userID=261 ).
14 replies
Open
butterhead (1272 D)
29 Jun 12 UTC
To all players in my games:
I do apologize for my NMR's, 1 CD, lack of Comm in some games, and making phases with just hours left. I have been very busy with RL situations and it has been a struggle to get online. I should be ok now, but my apologize again.
9 replies
Open
Danaman (1542 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
Chaos Gunboat
gameID=8704

I know I should not post who I am in a gunboat but with 34 players needed this will be the only chance it has to get started.
26 replies
Open
Lord Ravager (988 D)
28 Jun 12 UTC
Two more Players needed for a new North Sea game!
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8830
Variant: North Sea Wars, 1 days & 12 hours / phase
Public Press, 100 to join
1 reply
Open
Lord Ravager (988 D)
27 Jun 12 UTC
New game for 4 player: Ravagers of North Sea
Variant: North Sea Wars
1 days & 12 hours / phase
Public Press
100 D to join
4 replies
Open
Randomizer (1388 D)
21 Jun 12 UTC
Can see messages and order buttons for Maharajah game
I'm playing a gunboat Maharajah game
http://www.vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8689
and the global messages aren't appearing as well as no links at the bottom to orders, maps, and messages. Is anyone else having the same problem?
7 replies
Open
drwiggles (1582 D)
25 Jun 12 UTC
Game crashed for a while
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8103#gamePanel
9 replies
Open
gopher27 (1606 D Mod)
22 Jun 12 UTC
Do all prequels suck?
Prometheus is SOOOO terrible. Phantom Menace....sucked. Hannibal Rising.....sucked. The Thing (2012).....sucked. And no Red Dragon does not count as a prequel.
37 replies
Open
YouCan'tHandleTheTruth (1128 D)
25 Jun 12 UTC
Mods, please check the forum for an update...
No response is required, just knowing we are at 2 at the monet, I wanted to make you all aware.

Move along, there is nothing further to see here, people. That is all. Thank you.
3 replies
Open
Saladin_der_Weise (765 D)
25 Jun 12 UTC
Japan
Hello there! Please join! http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8755
0 replies
Open
fuzzyhartle1 (856 D)
25 Jun 12 UTC
I need a game sitter
I need a game sitter from June 30th to July 16th. please PM me if you can do this big favor for me.
0 replies
Open
drwiggles (1582 D)
25 Jun 12 UTC
glitches in the pirates map
We've noticed a few color glitches, and a few other potential adjudication errors.
1 reply
Open
taylor4 (936 D)
24 Jun 12 UTC
Renaissance Italy needs fill-in
Sub for cd gameID=7781
0 replies
Open
GOD (1791 D Mod (B))
24 Jun 12 UTC
labdip problem
i cant login in labdiplo since yesterday...
:((
2 replies
Open
Jonnikhan (1554 D)
24 Jun 12 UTC
Pirate Game Map Glitch
Hi Oli, gameID=7079 has a missing map again. Could you fix it one more time? The game should be ending this phase/year.
3 replies
Open
Rancher (1207 D)
24 Jun 12 UTC
webdip problem?
can't log on
9 replies
Open
Wolfman (1230 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
7 Powers of the World (Team Game Concept)
This would be a team game concept. I would like to see how fun it might be. Along with getting, others input as how to make it even better.
Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Wolfman (1230 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
This will have to have committed players that will play the duration of the game. Not only by turning in orders but go along with the concept of a Team Alliance. Be willing to make the needed compromises for the alliance as a whole. Have the willingness to understand the needs of the alliance as being a higher preference then individual achievement. Understanding of which role they will have to play in their own alliance. Give input to their alliance on their thoughts as what should happen.

To me this will be a larger test of communicational skills and a way to get several different ideas on how to precede then anyone has been a part of before. I personally like to learn new ways to accomplish tasks. Getting to see how others see the board and how they think moving about efficiently is preformed. It teaches me to become a better player overall, in my opinion. Not sure you agree or not, if your interest in the idea or not, or if your even interested in joining a game of this nature.

I have come up with possible set of alliances for this game using the World War IV. I am willing to alter the alignment of the alliances if others have, a better way to distribute the teams. The concept is to have seven powers of five man teams. I have broken it down into the following alliances and given my ideal names for said alliance. Nothing is in stone right now and is up for possible discussions and changes. This is to bring up the idea and see if we can find the number of players required and discuss important issues that could interfere or affect the outcomes.

UNA (United Northern Alliance)
California
Canada
Illinois
Quebec
US

UCA (United Central Alliance)
Amazon-Empire
Columbia
Cuba
Mexico
Texas

SHA (Southern Hemisphere Alliance)
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Inca-Empire
Oceania

UEA (United European Alliance)
Chatolica
Germany
Russia
Turkey
United Kingdom

UAA (United African Alliance)
Congo
Egypt
Kenya
Nigeria
South-Africa


UCA (United China Alliance)
Central-Asia
India
Iran
Manchuria
Sichaun-Empire

INA (Island National Alliance)
Indonesia
Japan
Philippines
Song-Empire
Thailand

Some negotiable rules I have came up with to start out the discussions with are as follows.

1) Alliance members cannot eliminate a player on their team.
2) Alliances should try to keep all members alive in the alliance, to the best of their abilities. Sharing centers if need be.
3) Alliances may work with any other alliances they wish.
4) Alliances may choose to have one member be the leader/spokesperson if they choose.
5) All members’ input considered on all moves and actions of their alliance, recommended to give your team the best chances.
6) Members may give up centers to other members of the alliance, as long as they maintain control of at least one center at all times, for strategic purposes.
7) No individual member can win outright or solo. If a member of an alliance is getting close, then handing over of centers to another member of the alliance might be necessary to equal out balance and to ensure that the game ends with a draw among one alliance.
8) Game should draw once there is only one alliance power left. However, if there is stalemate lines or all members of two or more alliances wish. A draw between 10 or more members is permissible.

Now some issues that we would have to decide on before hand so that we can start this up. First, know that the concept is open to opinions from anyone. Even if your not interested in actually playing. So feel free to give suggestions as you see best.

1) This style of game, would it be important rather or not, it is anonymous or not?
2) Randomly chosen or not as to which country and alliance you would belong to?
3) Length of phase time should be long enough to allow for planning and organizing between five members or possibly two alliances or more.
4) If for any reason, a member of an Alliance was to CD. Is the alliance responsible to find a replacement or will it be a free for all to join?
5) How much should each player spend to join?

There are most likely a lot more things to decide on, or changes to the idea as a whole. So let us see what we all can come up with to improve the concept. In addition, feel free to comment on rather or not it sounds like something you are interested in playing.
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
I woud like. I have never played this variant before. Should be fun!

1. I say anonymous. No reason, just because

2. Randomly chosen,

3. I would say one day

4. I would say free-for-all, though the alliance CAN hunt down a member to join

5. I say 5 D simply so more people can join
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
and please create the game now, but people like 10 + days to join. It will start as soon as we get the needed number of people anyways
DEFIANT (1311 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
I like it Wolfman, nicely done, well thought out, I am in if you need a player.
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
(+1)
and, to avoid solos, simply make the victory conditions all of the centers :P
DEFIANT (1311 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
I like the idea of getting some buddies and play, I am pretty close to sure I can get 4 players and we could grab one more, I would like a variant non-anon, if we can. Should be at least 2 day phase, 5 country cooridnation could take a bit. No alliances between the other teams. This should be fun.
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
@DEFIANT i would argue there SHOULD be alliances between the teams, espcially as if they are acting like one country.
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
besides, what is the fun of only allying with the people who CAN'T stab you?
Let's say two alliances want to crush another one, why shouldn't they?

DEFIANT (1311 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
Fair enough I can concede that, there are 7 teams and that is no different than playing a standard map, I can go with that.
Guaroz (2030 D (B))
03 Jun 12 UTC
I'm interested. I'd say:
1. Non-Anon
2. Randomly chosen! You join the game and when it starts you'll discover who's in your team.
3. Phase: 2 days+2hrs (so deadlines move to different times)
4. Free-for-all
5. I'd say 10 D, but whatever is fine with me.
I also agree with FD about alliances among teams. They're funny, even necessary.
Further, I agree with all previous 8 "negotiable" rules as they are. Good job, Wolfman! :)
Imagonnalose (992 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
sounds like fun...
ezpickins (1714 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
change some of the names away from "united" what is this America?
PRC?
some variety would make the teams less confusing.
Wolfman (1230 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
Before I create it, some of my thought on the issues.

1. either one would be fine with me Anon or Non-Anon
2. Randomly is fine too. However picking your team and drawing for an alliance would be kind of neat too.
3. At least the 2 days+2hours and maybe longer due to communication need to be past and responded to by at least 5 players and maybe even 10 or more.
4. If it is random teams formed Free for all, If it is picked team, that is where I would think finding your own replacement would be necessarily.
5. I was thinking 20 (don't know how to make the little d). That would make 100 per alliances and a 700 pot. Giving a 20 buy in and a draw with one alliance each gets 140. Two alliances drawing make it 20 buy in and 70. Still a decent pay out. Either way the ratio stays the same even if it is a 5 or 20. Was just thinking in regards to making it seem more appealing.

FD is correct we have to be able to have Alliances work together against other alliances. We are talking 5 players you are attacking as a unit (if played right). One alliance against another is 5 on 5 and usually at one front. So a need to be able to coordinate another front would be about the only way to ever get anywhere.

@FD, yes setting the SC for the solo at the highest would eliminate the solo risk. I like it and that will be set accordingly.

So far we have.

1)Wolfman
2)Fortress Doerr
3)DEFIANT
4)Guaroz
5)Imagonnalose

That is enough for one of the powers. Still need 30 more people. I would like to get a few more interested and their inputs on the issue before I set it up for now. So please continue to post comments and thoughts.
keess (1232 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
Sounds great!

1) I would like non ano. You can see with whom you are working.
2) Randomly chosen country
3) Phaselength 2days +2 is okay.
4) In case of a CD I think, free for all will work best.
5) 10

But what to do if there is a CD and there is no replacement?
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
I know a guy who will play (username is kingwar59)

And i think that no power should be FORCED to give up centers to protect another member.
And, if the dying country agrees to it, i would say that another country of that alliance can take the dying country's centers. Better an ally get them than an enemt
cypeg (2619 D)
03 Jun 12 UTC
we can find players dont owrry about that.
I think the game can be played as normal with the minor exception that we know that 4 neighbouring states have to be allied.
gopher27 (1606 D Mod)
03 Jun 12 UTC
You have surrounded some countries with their allies. Germany for instance.
GOD (1791 D Mod (B))
03 Jun 12 UTC
Count me in :))
Wolfman (1230 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
@ FD :And i think that no power should be FORCED to give up centers to protect another member.
And, if the dying country agrees to it, i would say that another country of that alliance can take the dying country's centers. Better an ally get them than an enemt

To some extent your 100% correct. However, In other ways you are off base slightly on the concept. If a Alliance can send two units at an ally. Then can't they protect that same center with the power of 3?

The idea is that each player is given the known trust that they are in a true team. They all go down together or none go down at all. All team oriented games of any kind are like this and was the idea behind this concept.

@ cypeg : I think the game can be played as normal with the minor exception that we know that 4 neighbouring states have to be allied.

Can you elaborate on this? I am confused as to what it means exactly, or what you might have meant by it.

@ gopher27 : You have surrounded some countries with their allies. Germany for instance.

That is true and I did not realize that until you mentioned it. However, the greatest thing about this variant that I love. Is that it is build anywhere and no locked down home centers. For example Brazil is in South America, we all know this to be true. However, with ones mind open to bigger possibilities. The movements of an alliance, NAP's and stabs. Then Brazil could be in the centers that Central-Asia owns and still be able to take centers on one front.

Not saying I am not willing to switch up the alliances. Please see if you can split it with the 7 teams yet keeping them together at the start. Given each a number of possibilities to move in, NAP's with Alliances (other teams), stabs against other Alliances.

If played right, as a committed team. With agreed upon actions to take place in each turn. This type of teaming up on this map that allows for anywhere to be your home centers. Add in 5 minds have to be better then one. We could see Japan own the East Coast of North America and the Cuba area. Not holding any centers in old Japan or in that direction. When this game ends. I see ways teams could even make checked looking map with the colors of there members. Possibilities are base solely on how good of team player are you and what you want to accomplish as a team. Goals!



Now we are up to:

1)Wolfman
2)Fortress Doerr
3)DEFIANT
4)Guaroz
5)Imagonnalose
6)keess
7)kingwar59 (but would like to here that from him too)
8)cypeg?maybe
9)GOD
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
i still do not really agree that the team must do whatever it takes to keep a member alive (I DO think that, if the dying country wants to stay alive, the alliance SHOULD give up centers to help it). If a dying country wants to die, and gives the other premission to take their centers, they should
ezpickins (1714 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
I'm game to play.
kaner406 (2103 D Mod (B))
04 Jun 12 UTC
count me in.
cypeg (2619 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
I mean that if I am Germany I will play the game as normally do, with the exception I cant attack my fellow europeans.
Yes, some countries like Germany will be deadlocked, but its troops will move to support a front. Im in and I can find more players.
I think you should make a game titled TEAM GAME or something, non-anon, pick your own country. So that me and my "buddies" can start picking up our team. If it is random I guess the same thing can work but with no "buddies"
Tristan (1258 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
sounds good, I'll play
kingwar59 (888 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
i would like to play :)
Ender Wiggen (915 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
I am interested
I can make the hours (the only reason my rating sucks is cause i was gone for a week and no body paused....
Guaroz (2030 D (B))
04 Jun 12 UTC
EW, frankly, my concern is not (only) your sucking RR. It's 16 Game-messages in 11 Games that worries me a lot. It'll be a game in which you'll have a lot to talk....
Fortress Doerr (978 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
@Guaroz

I play with him a lot on Webdip. Trust me, he will be talking quite a bit
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
Consider me a maybe, if someone can clean up and clarify the rules to something simple enough to work out.
The Desert Fox (1995 D)
04 Jun 12 UTC
I would like to give this a shot, sounds like a good idea.

Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

108 replies
airborne (970 D)
20 Jun 12 UTC
Europe 1815
Thoughts and comments
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=672&p=4938#p4938
12 replies
Open
BosephJennett (1204 D)
22 Jun 12 UTC
Request for Mods
I submitted something to the Forum this morning and haven't heard back yet. Just want to be sure it didn't slip through the cracks. Thanks!
0 replies
Open
adalephat (733 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
Manipulations Testgame
I'd liek to organize a testgame for the Manipulations Rules (see links inside)
3 replies
Open
adalephat (733 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
Manipulations Game
A set of auxilliary rules which I want to test: see in the discussion.
11 replies
Open
butterhead (1272 D)
02 Jun 12 UTC
butterheads classic series concluding:
Well, as some of the games start to come to an end, I figured I'd post results here for those of us(like me and Leif) who were interested in the results of all games. so here we go with the finished games(ordered from person with most centers to least)
12 replies
Open
Jonnikhan (1554 D)
19 Jun 12 UTC
No Map! Admin?
Oli, please help! gameID=7079 has a bug - the map isn't loading at all for anyone. Please help!
24 replies
Open
King Atom (1186 D)
17 Jun 12 UTC
(+4)
GRAMMAR!
To, too, and two. GET IT STRAIGHT, PEOPLE!
12 replies
Open
Grand Admiral Thrawn (1207 D)
14 Jun 12 UTC
(+4)
Daily +1 Pyramid Thread for vDip!
The rule is simple and laid out by Diplomat33; you must +1 everyone who posts before you. Enjoy!
13 replies
Open
javidtl (976 D)
16 Jun 12 UTC
Join this game
We need 2 more players to start this game. It's going to be fun.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8677
0 replies
Open
King Atom (1186 D)
14 Jun 12 UTC
Look! It's a game...
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667 gameID=8667
8 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
13 Jun 12 UTC
Maybe I'm playing Gunboats wrong...
But when I start a gunboat, I generally choose a target very quickly. This then becomes either a fantastic success getting me to a draw, or a horrible disaster getting me eliminated. What's a better tactic?
13 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
05 Jun 12 UTC
Strategy idea: What could a unit be doing?
An article. See inside.
16 replies
Open
Page 68 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top