Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 132 of 136
FirstPreviousNextLast
ubercacher16 (1347 D)
30 Apr 18 UTC
Replacement needed
I need a replacement for China in the bourse game.
2 replies
Open
islefan5 (968 D)
28 Apr 18 UTC
Problem: cannot set orders
I have the message “loading order” but cannot enter any orders. Is the site down?
7 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
08 Mar 18 UTC
New Variant: 1913
1913 is a revision of the Classic map, having both balance and historical accuracy at its heart.

The first game is live! http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34011
Enriador (1491 D (B))
08 Mar 18 UTC
Other games you might prefer:

Full press: http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34010#gamePanel

Gunboat: http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34009#gamePanel
Skyrock (1113 D)
08 Mar 18 UTC
I've signed up for the full press game.

I still have some concerns about Italy (as detailed over at Reddit), but otherwise some of the changes are intriguing. Play will reveal how it holds up away from the drawing board, and if and what adjustments are needed.
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34012

Smaller bet size (5).
If the balance is off, it'd probably reveal itself to be so rather quickly. On a slight procedural note, it would have been nice to have a visual indicator on-the-board that Egypt and NAO are linked, as folks will probably forget otherwise.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
08 Mar 18 UTC
@Skyrock

I am very curious to see how the variant will go. It has elements from several great variants (Swabia is from Abstraction III, Africa from 1900, Milan from Milan (duh) yet do they marry well? Let's see!

At the very least it does not seem horribly unbalanced like Colonial or Rinascimento.

@a_mercurial_git

Hmm, you're right. Can you think of a visual indicator that is not a giant sign "TO EGY/NAT"? I would like to avoid that if possible...
zurn (1178 D)
09 Mar 18 UTC
(+1)
How about a small sign? Just needs to be 'NAO' with a small arrow.

I'd put a two-way arrow between Spain and Morocco as well.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
09 Mar 18 UTC
Sounds simple enough! I will see to that. Thanks for the idea @zurn!
Halt (1276 D)
09 Mar 18 UTC
I'm kind of curious about the balance issues as well. It seems like the Western powers benefit a lot from this - whereas Eastern Powers are far more vulnerable now.

Turkey now has an additional front to deal with (UK) and falls much quicker if ganged up on. Italy can be shut down with zero builds whereas he was assured of at least 1 in Classic (Both Tripoli and Switzerland are contestable spaces, Tunis in Classic is not). Russia and Austria benefit indirectly in that their neighbors are far weaker (by virtue of making it quite legit for F/I and E/T to fight early), but that might mean R/A are now capable of taking on Germany early on as a strat?
Enriador (1491 D (B))
09 Mar 18 UTC
@Halt

You can get a small taste of the dynamics in 1913 by checking PlayDiplomacy's results of 1900 and vDiplomacy's own Abstraction III's finished, as 1913 heavily borrows from both variants. I will try to give my best predictions on what can happen.

Thank you a ton for your feedback, by the way!

>Turkey now has an additional front to deal with (UK) and falls much quicker if ganged up on.<

It's somewhat desirable; Turkey's expansion potential has exploded in 1913, so weakening that corner position was key. Besides, Egypt had a considerable English garrison there - making it neutral wouldn't be appropriate, historically speaking.

>Italy can be shut down with zero builds whereas he was assured of at least 1 in Classic (Both Tripoli and Switzerland are contestable spaces, Tunis in Classic is not).<

In Classic, Italy *can* take an assured neutral, but the price it pays is absolute stagnation. Italy will either have to bet on assaulting a neighbor or sit on 4 centers for a while.

In 1913, Italy has excellent possibilities of taking not just one but *two neutrals* that, unlike Tunis, actually can serve as springboards of further conquests on Marseilles/Munich and Algeria/Egypt. Germany already can seize BEL, HOL, DEN - how many Kaisers will risk the board's wrath and take a fourth center in Switzerland? Similarly, France is way more exposed now than in Classic, so keeping the peace with Italy and safeguarding the sure build from SPA/POR might me the priority. France's Army Algeria can take Spain or, if England is hostile, even help Italy's F ION into Tripolitania. England can challenge TRP it's true, but they are just as likely to assault Smyrna or return home through North Atlantic Ocean.

> Russia and Austria benefit indirectly in that their neighbors are far weaker (by virtue of making it quite legit for F/I and E/T to fight early), but that might mean R/A are now capable of taking on Germany early on as a strat?<

On the Eastern powers:

Austria is a big winner - which is great given they're still the board's second most exposed power and more likely than anyone to fall victim to a 3-way attack. Austria, Germany and Russia effectively make a "Central Triangle" more active; as in Classic the Great Barren Zone is still there, but the three powers can cooperate against each other much more quickly.

Russia is my biggest worry by a far margin. They are a true central power, and the moves of F EGY-NAT-NRG + F EDI-NRG-BAR is a nighmare. The Tsar will need sharp diplomacy in order to keep his empire stable; Austria has more reasons to move A VIE-GAL, and Germany can easily afford A BER/MUN-SIL. Turkey and Italy still makes for formidable allies, and cooperation with Austria against Germany means both access to extra centers and the elimination of the game's likely early leader.

Turkey got a precious gift: Egypt. They can afford to ally Italy or Austria now much more easily, as they can expand through the EGY-NAT connection. By itself, it opens more diplomatic possibilities - even the English fleet in EGY can be of help, as assistance on AEG can result in England getting a build from GRE and possibly TRP later on.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
09 Mar 18 UTC
1913 Public Press: http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34018
Enriador (1491 D (B))
02 Apr 18 UTC
Update: '1913' will soon have visual indications that movement between Spain/Morocco and Egypt/North Atlantic Ocean is possible.

I am willing to make further changes to the map if you have any idea to give!
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
02 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
The new overlays are online now...
Skyrock (1113 D)
11 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
After I have actually played the game in http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=34010 some actual play feedback.

Disclaimer: This particular game had a huge wrench thrown in in the mid-game when Austria muted the entire Western Triangle, so my experience might be warped.

Myself I ended up playing England.

Both Germany and France turned out to be good and reliable neighbours, so we went for Italy and Russia with Germany dividing its attention between the two.
By the late game the Western Triangle Alliance still held and ended up in a 3-way draw.
In Calhamer, things would have exploded after Russia and Italy had been taken out, as there would have been no serious way for England to expand but to backstab Germany or France. The Egypt warp zone is a real game changer that allows England to work on the south-east instead, and takes a lot of sting out of the Western Triangle. Combined with its beefed up strength it makes it darn easy for a Western Triangle Alliance to mop up the map once it is going, but it was also very unusual to have the West resolve so smoothly without 1 out of 3 players being a dick about Burgundy, the Channel or Belgium.

Italy ended up badly mauled by mid-game, but that was visibly driven by diplomatic blunder. Italy tried for Switzerland without securing the help of either France or Germany, and ended up getting dog-piled by both plus Austria. (And I have tried to rig an alliance of Italy with either in 1901 - Germany and France both being too busy in the south is always good news for early-game England.)

Russia ended up between a rock and a hard place, but that is to be expected from a concentrated Anglo-German attack combined with Austrian support. It wouldn't have been very different on Calhamer.

Turkey blundered in 1901 when it agreed to make EMS and Syria a DMZ, moved to Syria in Spring and then backpedaled when I announced to move back into Egypt (which I did follow through).
I never attacked Turkey before the end-game, but it never found its momentum after that and never seriously got past Bulgaria. (Not that this fate is untypical in Calhamer either, especially when Turkey doesn't commit and follow through one particular game plan from Spring 1901 on, but changes its mind in Autumn 1901.)

One thing that I have noticed is that England has to always keep an unit near Egypt, as Egypt is impossible to win back from NAO alone once it gets occupied. (And once an attack to reclaim it can be supported from Africa, Syria or EMS, Turkey is usually already in its death throes anyway.) What the game would need is two northern sea provinces bordering Egypt. You could either cut NAO in half and add Artic Sea (or Reykjavik Bay or whatever), or you could also allow access from MAO (which would fuel conflict and paranoia between England and France).
Enriador (1491 D (B))
11 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
@Skyrock, thank you a lot for your feedback/AAR! It's clear you put a lot of effort on it.

On Egypt, well, the British Empire always had to keep a sizeable garrison in Egypt precisely because retaking it could be so costly. Cutting NAT in half is too big a nerf for England actually, as it becomes nigh impossible to stop the conqueror of Egypr from slipping into the mainland. Egypt-NAT's bottleneck works both ways!

I considered giving Egypt access to MID as well, or even MID alone. However the cost on France's chances would be massive. F LON-ENG, A LVP-WAL, F EGY-MID is most likely the end of the game for the blue units.
Skyrock (1113 D)
25 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Looking back at that game a couple of weeks later, I would say the greatest weakness in 1913 is how beefed up the Western Triangle is _and_ how easy it is to avoid the conflict of actually resolving it, something that is normally inevitable in Calhamer once England has exhausted its options. A Western Triple alliance is not only possible, it is absolutely devastating and unstoppable when it happens.

Conversely, the Eastern Triangle gains little. Russia is effectively unchanged, also gaining 4 units like the Western powers but unlike them needing to commit to two frontiers, effectively playing more like two allied 2/3 strength powers. Turkey gains little but the third option of going for Egypt in lieu of Russia or the Balkans/Austria. Austria gains the most in the form of peace of mind about Trieste, but is still only a 3 SC power needing to secure against multiple attack vectors.

As for the odd man out, Italy, I have already detailed my thoughts over at Reddit, and still think it would need an upgrade. The carrot of Switzerland is only of limited value with the easiness with which Germany and France can agree to go different ways.

My proposals are:
* Make Sicily an Italian SC (with a land bridge to Naples) starting with an Italian army. (Just a slight buff that won't have much effect in 1901, but will make Italy a bit hardier.)
* Make Crete an Ottoman SC (without any land bridges) starting with an Ottoman army. (As above, a slight buff without direct use in 1901 - and something that will potentially even out the struggle for central ION.)

Not sure what can be reasonably done for Russia or Austria.
My first thought for Russia would be to make Crimean Peninsula a Russian SC with an army, but that would make it extremely easy for Russia to harden its Sevastopol defense and effectively force a Juggernaut alliance. Maybe make Finland a _neutral_ SC under Russian control, but keep Russia at 4 units in 1901? Slight buff in 1902, but the opening remains largely unchanged.
Austria, I have no idea, especially as they are traditionally a hard-mode power and historically a WW1 whipping boy, and as their central location makes any changes have sweeping unpredictable effects across the board.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
26 Apr 18 UTC
>A Western Triple alliance is not only possible, it is absolutely devastating and unstoppable when it happens.

Isn't this the same as Classic? England is still in a prime position to stab either France or Germany... And even then, any triple alliance has to be fought against fiercely. If the other four players fail to muster a coalition, that's their own fault.

I checked up your game. England, France and Germany made an obvious, highly dangerous triple alliance... and Austria/Turkey decide to go to war! Without Turkey to harass Egypt and Austria to support Italy/Russia the F/G/E had an easy walk. Italy and Russia were essentially alone to fight against two neighbors, since their potential rescuers were busy killing each other.

> Russia is effectively unchanged, also gaining 4 units like the Western powers but unlike them needing to commit to two frontiers, effectively playing more like two allied 2/3 strength powers

Russia is Diplomacy's most sucessful country. In 1913, they have four home centers *and* incredible reach across the board - they can reach as many centers within, say, four years, as Russia can. Look at the numbers below to get a rough idea:

POWER: SCs reachable from a Home Center within 2 years (Increase from Classic)

ITALY: 28 (+1)
FRANCE: 28 (+1)
ENGLAND: 19 (+0)
GERMANY: 31 (+1)
TURKEY: 18 (+0)
AUSTRIA: 29 (+2)
RUSSIA: 31 (+2)

>Turkey gains little but the third option of going for Egypt in lieu of Russia or the Balkans/Austria.

More importantly, Egypt provides an alternate path of expansion for Turkey, which enables Turkey to ally with Austria or Italy without they freaking out about border tension. It's an advantage that massively expands Turkey's diplomatic horizons.

>Austria gains the most in the form of peace of mind about Trieste, but is still only a 3 SC power needing to secure against multiple attack vectors.

a) Italy is way more likely to march westwards than eastwards, thanks to Switzerland.
b) Turkey has more reason to move A Smyrna-Syria than A Smyrna-Constantinople.
c) Austria is virtually guaranteed to have 5 centers by Spring 1914, having excellent growth potential from then on.

All in all, I think Austria is way better than Classic's Austria.

> Italy, I have already detailed my thoughts over at Reddit, and still think it would need an upgrade. The carrot of Switzerland is only of limited value with the easiness with which Germany and France can agree to go different ways.

I do worry about Italy, as they cannot be sure of a neutral in 1913. Still, if Switzerland isn't Italian (likely due a F/G alliance) then England, the Odd Power Out, should consider supporting the Italians into the North African neutral center.

I will ponder about your suggestions @Sky_Hopper. Thanks for the time to make such awesome feedback!


16 replies
Sky_Hopper (765 D)
04 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Imbalanced map?
It seems as if several maps need some balancing work. For example, England* v Turkey is skewed toward England, and in Rinascimento, the French are virtually at the hands of other players’ wills.
11 replies
Open
Safari (1510 D (B))
05 Jan 18 UTC
(+1)
Austrian Succession: New and Improved
After four years, War of Austrian Succession is nearing completion! Please come help test it so that I can perfect the balance.
It would be very helpful if we could have no NMRs for the first few phases. http://lab.diplomail.ru/board.php?gameID=64
38 replies
Open
gopher27 (1226 D Mod)
23 Apr 18 UTC
War of Austrian Succession....being obnoxious
Does history matter and should it fall to a mathematician to be the history nerd?
11 replies
Open
CCR (1666 D)
12 Dec 17 UTC
A Reconquista variant
http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/i/iberian.htm
38 replies
Open
stephan (1068 D)
16 Apr 18 UTC
Vermont needed!
Vermont in „the trump effect“ 50 states game has been basically abandoned and is still in its (characteristically) stronk position, but not for much longer. grab while supplies last!
3 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (765 D)
15 Apr 18 UTC
Blank variant?
On the variants page there's currently a row with no assigned variant. Can you fix this?
6 replies
Open
TheFlyingJarate (923 D)
15 Apr 18 UTC
Hello, I have a problem
Hello, I have a problem. I am going away for a few days (tomorrow), and I don't know how to quit the game I am in. There are 36 players, so I cannot reasonably ask for all of them to pause --- besides, there isn't enough time --- so I am stuck.
6 replies
Open
Maiorianus (1000 D)
14 Apr 18 UTC
Playing with fewer players
Hi all!

I know this is probably a noob question, but I need to resolve this issue: is it possible to start a game with fewer players than those normally expected? I tried it once with the Rinascimento variant, but the game didn't launch just because there weren't 12 players.
Thank you in advance!
3 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
02 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Machiavelli Variant
Hail diplomats,

'Machiavelli', a legendary variant of Diplomacy, will soon be made available here on vDip using Andrew Jameson's adaptation.
50 replies
Open
drano019 (2179 D)
05 Apr 18 UTC
Variant Design Help
See below.
20 replies
Open
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
05 Apr 18 UTC
(+3)
New convoy-code.
Thanks to tobi1 we have a new and improved convoy-code.
This was really a problem for all "big" variants.
Very cool you could solve this problem. I did take a look at your code, but I'm absolutely clueless... :-)
4 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (765 D)
06 Apr 18 UTC
Gunboat specs
If the "Gunboat", "Public Press", or "Per Rulebook" rules are employed, shouldn't the game be automatically "Anon" as well? If it weren't, then players could just PM each other, defeating the purpose.
6 replies
Open
gopher27 (1226 D Mod)
06 Apr 18 UTC
Question about social norms for players
In a large game, a reliable player asked the mods to extend the game for Easter. The request was general and largely in the name of other player: "Hey guys, it's Easter, and in a big game, some people will probably be traveling to see family." The extension was granted, and requests like that are likely to be accepted.
15 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (765 D)
06 Apr 18 UTC
Port this?
Here's a variant we might want to try (with a few tweaks, of course):
Map: https://apolyton.net/filedata/fetch?id=8931879
Thread: https://apolyton.net/forum/miscellaneous/archives/stories-diplomacy-archive/114155-stefu-s-very-own-north-american-diplomacy-1870-map
1 reply
Open
JOIN: Imperial Diplomacy II - 3 more Players!
JOIN: Imperial Diplomacy II - 3 more Players!
1 reply
Open
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
10 Feb 18 UTC
(+1)
RSS feed for Notifications (discussion)
Hi everyone.
Don't miss PMs or game-notifications with your personal RSS-feed.
In your settings-page you can create a unique link that updates with your "Notices"-tab on your homescreen.

Feel free to post ideas for improvements or suggestions.
What's your favorite RSS-client for your platform of choice?
19 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (765 D)
02 Apr 18 UTC
Testing a possible new variant
I've made a simple Diplomacy variant, but I haven't tested it. Would this be the place to (perhaps) gain some testers?
7 replies
Open
sarmstro (942 D)
03 Apr 18 UTC
Noob question
Hi, long time dipper, first time vdipper. Is it possible to enter orders using an android phone, or do I have to wait to get in front of a PC? The orders field just says "loading order" and nothing else happens.

Apologies for the stupid question, and hello!
3 replies
Open
Battalion (1910 D)
29 Mar 18 UTC
Bot wars
I've been wondering how well you could write a script to play gunboat diplomacy. Probably not very well (at least to begin with!), but it would be fun to try. I don't really have the time to do this properly right now, but I'm interested to know if it has been done before, or whether anyone would be keen to try at some point in the future.
14 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
26 Mar 18 UTC
(+1)
[Upcoming] Renaissance: 1453
Hail diplomats! I wanted to share a very small project I have been working on. Soon we will have the chance to play 'Renaissance: 1453'!
16 replies
Open
The Real Wheat (0 D)
29 Mar 18 UTC
(+1)
Issue with South American Supremacy Map
Hey, I'm getting ready to start a game with some friends using the South American Supremacy map. It appears the map is starting with a fleet in Bogata, which is a landlocked territory. the variant homepage lists Bogata as starting with an army. Is there is a good way to correct this? Thanks!
2 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1676 D (B) (B))
22 Mar 18 UTC
(+1)
Forum search idea
Cam the awesome guys that know techie stuff add some functionality to the forum so you can search?
6 replies
Open
jason4747 (817 D)
21 Mar 18 UTC
What happened to the U.S. of Insanity?
Draw?
2 replies
Open
Woodruff (1000 D)
22 Mar 18 UTC
Map Markings
I apologize if this is a repeat question or if it's found somewhere obvious, but I'm brand new to vDiplomacy and I can't seem to find what the difference is between the two types of what I believe are SC markings on the Bye Bye Federalism map.

Can someone help me?
2 replies
Open
March Madness discussion
Let's have a discussion/argument about this year's tournament.
12 replies
Open
Pretz (971 D)
20 Mar 18 UTC
Option to play a variant with fewer than the max number of players?
Hello all,

I and two of my friends love playing 3 player diplo games together. Having gone through the different 3 player maps, I'm wondering if there is a way to play on some of the larger variants, but with just 3 people? For instance, I'd love it if we could play a 3 player game on Fall of the American Empire IV.
2 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
15 Mar 18 UTC
Which variant would you like seeing on vDiplomacy?
Is there a variant that you really want to play, but isn't available here yet?

I have done work on half a dozen variants and I would like to pick something else. What's your favorite?
30 replies
Open
Page 132 of 136
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top