Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 134 of 135
FirstPreviousNextLast
Anon (?? D)
21 Aug 18 UTC
Pick up a game as the world leader
Someone really should pick up Pennsylvania in this one: https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=33789 He's only the world leader on the map - talk about picking up a nice CD position.
4 replies
Open
tassa (1654 D)
18 Aug 18 UTC
Interactive Map - Memory-easting Monster
Is it possible that the interactive map doesn't handle big maps well once you have a certain amount of units?
2 replies
Open
tobi1 (1845 D Mod (S) (B))
18 Aug 18 UTC
Sitter needed
I am traveling from August 20th to 30th and it turned out that my initially planned sitter takes part in one game, as well. Now I need your help to manage that game.
2 replies
Open
d-ice (1963 D)
17 Aug 18 UTC
(+5)
FoW padlocks
FoW variant has padlocks on all powers that have orders to give. This gives other players information about who has a retreat/build etc. I propose that these are removed so that this information isn’t revealed.
3 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
17 Aug 18 UTC
Quick Rules Question
In Classic, I am confident if an army in Portugal Attacks Spain while an Army in Spain attacks Portugal, both will fail. Would this rule still apply if the it were instead a fleet on the northern coast attacking Portugal and a fleet in Portugal moving to the southern coast?

Random Game link for Anon: gameID=35642
4 replies
Open
Docsy (1083 D)
13 Aug 18 UTC
Our game bugged out, and mods are looking at it. What do we do and what will happen?
So basically, We were playing World War IV 6.2. It was the first time we got our community of players, both on a subreddit and a discord, to play a big 36 player game. Didn't start 100% the best the first year, some players didn't get the rules and ended up starting with 2 units instead of 3.
7 replies
Open
Strider (1614 D)
09 Aug 18 UTC
Civil Disorders listed at bottom of game
I have a game that is telling me the country, it's size and who is CDing. Why is that a thing now? It's gunboat, fog of war and anonymous!
21 replies
Open
kaner406 (1416 D Mod (B) (B))
10 Aug 18 UTC
(+4)
Forum etiquette
Let’s have a discussion here about what sort of forum we would like to see here at vDip. Please no name calling. Now would be a good time to un-mute members so we can have an informed discussion about this issue.
56 replies
Open
Skyrock (1113 D)
03 Jun 18 UTC
Thoughts on fixing the Classic - Economic variant
See main post below.
17 replies
Open
badivan1 (1244 D)
11 Aug 18 UTC
badivan1 new games thread
looking for opponents for the following 1v1 maps:
Fall of the American Empire: Civil War! : https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35667 ;
Cold War : https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35668
2 replies
Open
CptMike (1087 D)
11 Aug 18 UTC
Cold war map
I have a interface problem...
4 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (783 D)
07 Aug 18 UTC
(+1)
La Resistance
Has anybody noticed the behavior of Enriador recently? He seems to be rejecting and muting anyone with conflicting ideas. (See Classic Redrawn)
17 replies
Open
GOD (1664 D Mod (B))
04 Aug 18 UTC
Live Messaging
A friend of mine and me would like to play a game of diplomacy where all player connect on Facebook or WhatsApp to communicate. We would set up a gunboat game here and then it's a regular game, just by different means of communication. Anyone interested?
17 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
16 May 18 UTC
(+2)
Classic Redrawn
I got bothered with some of the historical inaccuracies of the Classic map - like French Corsica being painted Italian green - so I went on and redrawed the entire map.
243 replies
Open
CptMike (1087 D)
02 Aug 18 UTC
Live 1v1 - Fall the American Empire: Civil War
Hello,

Is somebody interesed in playing a live (10' / phase ) on this map :
* https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=33
0 replies
Open
Flame (1080 D (B))
29 Jul 18 UTC
Territory Diagram
I wonder why VDip is not using Territory Diagram to reveal the dinamics of territory occupation in time. Now it's working rather good. But for maps with neutrals it still has several bugs. We use this module on Diplomail. Please check: https://ibb.co/mFZF3o
5 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
04 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
'Edwardian' - A new variant
Greetings diplomats.

I present you @VaeVictis's 'Edwardian' - an upcoming jewel to vDiplomacy's glorious crown. 'Edwardian' is set in 1901, the start of the Edwardian Era, and represents the intrigue and tension of the period with a level of elegance and detail never seen before
Enriador (1491 D (B))
04 Apr 18 UTC

'Edwardian' was partially inspired by Baron Powell's '1900', but it's a very different variant - there are 50 supply centers to conquer, and the map is replete with opportunities for war and diplomacy alike.

That's the variant's map: https://i.imgur.com/ePeeunq.gif

For more details and information, check the variant's page on the PlayDiplomacy.com Forum: https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=413&t=57471;
VaeVictis (1000 D)
05 Apr 18 UTC
(+4)
Salutations vDiplomacy players,

I am new to vDiplomacy, but have frequented PlayDiplomacy for the past few years. 'Edwardian' has been about 4 years in the making (on and off) and dates back to a somewhat half-baked attempt to alter some aspects of Classic and Powell's '1900' in a variant originally called '1905: Europe.'

This iteration of 'Edwardian' that Enriador has been so kind to code and promote here is the 2nd edition of that variant and has been markedly altered from its original inception. As Enriador mentioned, it is larger than Classic or '1900' and has purposely been expanded to accentuate the historical advantages in military strengths and geographical advantages of the early 20th century great powers. By increasing the overall number of pieces available to each power, larger powers demonstrate fully their predominance while not hampering the openings of the smaller powers too badly.

There are three (arbitrarily styled) classes of powers: the Continental Leviathans (Germany & Russia); the Colonial Empires (Britain & France); the Second Tier States (Austria-Hungary, Italy, & Turkey).

Germany and Russia possess 6 centers to begin with, but are either cursed with a contested and central location (Germany) or limited in the number of secure neutral centers to capture first year (Russia). These two powers were granted greater initial clout because of Germany's industrial might and Russia's seemingly inexhaustible man-power.

Britain and France possess 5 centers to begin the game that are spread across the map with each maintaining a colonial exclave (Algiers & Cairo). These produce uniquely challenging and beneficial opportunities for openings, reflecting the reality that Britain and France were the premier colonial empires of the early 20th century.

Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Turkey each possess 4 centers at game start that are either arranged in compact initial setups or stronger openings to potential neutral supply centers. They represent the second-class great powers that dwarfed their smaller neighbors, but lacked the preeminent strength of the more vital empires in Europe. The reasons for these constraints ranged from poor industrial infrastructure (Italy), to the entropy of ethnic nationalism (Austria-Hungary), to simply being a slowly dilapidating husk of a formerly formidable Mohammedan empire (Turkey).

I will be monitoring this thread for any questions.

Enjoy,

VaeVictis
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Side note: 'Edwardian' will launch with full support for the 'Interactive Map' feature! For those who don't know it, it allows you to send orders by clicking on the map itself. Especially useful for larger variants with many spaces (and units) to send orders to.
G-Man (2227 D)
05 Apr 18 UTC
Enriador on a roll -- thanks for all the hard work!!
kaner406 (1416 D Mod (B) (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
o_O

wow! keep up the awesome work Enriador!
The man is a MACHINE!
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
Porting 'Edwardian' was what pushed me to learn about making variants here for vDip, so I am equally happy - we will playing it soon!
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
@Oli

I need to insert "Austria-Hungary" as a power, but the dev-tools don't allow "-" as a valid symbol.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
@Oli,

By accident, Morocco and Persia didn't have unique colors in smallmap. I uploaded a new smallmap but they are still colored like before.
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
05 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
@Enriador:
I added "-" to the allowed chars for the countrynames.
Morocco now has the same color as Ukarine. You need to change the color-mode back from "indexed" to "RGB" before you change the color and save as indexed-color after changing the countryColors. Once you save as indexed PNG you can't add another color. I have uploaded a corrcted version of your map.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
Thanks Oli, everything is working now!
Enriador (1491 D (B))
05 Apr 18 UTC
@Oli

The bulk of 'Edwardian' is done. Two important things left:

1) The variant has a special rule: Gibraltar is a coastal space where both armies and fleets can enter, but a fleet in Gibraltar is allowed to convoy as if the space was a sea.

2) There are several unit sprites, unique for each power. I already uploaded them.
Sky_Hopper (783 D)
05 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Interesting touch, with the unit in Gibraltar instead of Ireland.
VaeVictis (1000 D)
06 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
@Sky_Hopper,

Having F Gib supplied from Belfast is originally from Powell's "1900" (as far as I know; there may be an earlier manifestation of it than that, but I'm not sure)--though "1900's" F Gib is supplied from Liverpool . As you mentioned, it is an interesting aspect and well worth emulating in other variants, which is why I employed in 'Edwardian'. The same concept is also applied to A Lor, F Apu, and A Mac which all represent beginning positions that apart from their supply center (I explain this in more detail on the PlayDiplomacy development thread here: https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=413&t=57471).
Enriador (1491 D (B))
12 Apr 18 UTC
Hello folks,

'Edwardian' is ready, only left is polishing a couple of things. Here's a preview of the map! https://imgur.com/a/bICtU
Anon (?? D)
15 Apr 18 UTC
It's alive!

Full Press until 1907: http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34489
Retillion (2221 D (B))
16 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Thank you very much, Enriador, for all your great work !
VaeVictis (1000 D)
16 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
Thanks again Enriador for all the hard work in bringing this variant to vDiplomacy.

As before, I'll be lurking on this thread for any questions.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
16 Apr 18 UTC
It's a pleasure! I hope you guys enjoy it.

Gunboat games:
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34492
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=34494
GOD (1664 D Mod (B))
16 Apr 18 UTC
(+1)
I love it! One thing though, in the variant description it says that Sweden does not have two coasts, as classic supposedly does, which to my knowledge it doesn't...did I get something wrong here? 0.o
Enriador (1491 D (B))
16 Apr 18 UTC
Hi @God, I am glad you liked it!

From the variant description:

>Denmark does not split the coast of Sweden (as in Classic Diplomacy).<

It means that Denmark not splitting Sweden's coast is exactly like Classic.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
16 Apr 18 UTC
So, "as in Classic Diplomacy" means that whatever comes before ("Denmark does not split the coast of Sweden") *also* happens in Classic. Though I guess it could have been phrased in a less ambiguous way!.
GOD (1664 D Mod (B))
17 Apr 18 UTC
Aaaah, okay, I get it, my bad :D
Looks great! If only I wasn't in so many games!!!
ezpickins (1491 D)
18 Apr 18 UTC
The click interface for Morocco wasn't working properly yesterday. With Oli's comment about Ukraine/Morocco it might have been fixed since then.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
18 Apr 18 UTC
I think it's fixed now @ezpickins.
JECE (1184 D)
22 Apr 18 UTC
Wow! This even includes Montenegro.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
22 Apr 18 UTC
Isn't it awesome? I am quite tired of all those variants making Austria annex Montenegro. =P
Enriador (1491 D (B))
09 Jul 18 UTC
Do you prefer Southern Algeria to be colored French blue (following Algiers' owner), or grey? Remember it's impassable.
As discussed in the podcast I'd like to see this with African territories you can move through to break any nexus in Cairo. But that's just from my personal experience, others may very much disagree.
G-Man (2227 D)
09 Jul 18 UTC
Since it's impassible, I would vote the same as Arabia. However, like the Ambassador, I'm wondering if it's essential it be impassible in the first place.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
10 Jul 18 UTC
I think it was @kaner who pointed out in the podcast that Egypt being a "nexus" increased its relevance. Remember that the Suez Canal, located in Egypt, was pretty much the heart of the British Empire and a key location, fought hardly for in both world wars.

I am not the variant creator (you should ask @VaeVictis himself about that) so I am limiting myself to cosmetic changes.
VaeVictis (1000 D)
16 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
@The Ambassador & G-Man (and anyone interested),

I'm a little late to this party, but here's my two cents:

As Enriador wrote, part of the map's design is to emphasize Cairo. I listened to the podcast and understand the concerns here. The scenario that was discussed in the podcast is honestly something I had never considered and what you addressed is a legitimate concern. The reason I wanted to have the impassable African territories was to offer more security to the British possession in Egypt because of its isolation (the idea for wrap-around Atlantic and Indian Ocean spaces, by the way, was lifted from some of Charles Feaux de la Croix's variants). My only fear in making some of the impassable territories playable is that it will not only hurt Britain, but also Italy. Britain and France have the advantage of home SCs in Africa while Italy can only establish a foothold across a single space sea axis through Central Mediterranean. With Southern Algeria and Sahara passable, it might grant Britain and France (especially) and advantage by being able to produce and then stack pieces against a beleaguered Italian garrison at Tripolitania.

I could be off base on this (I'm not the most mathematical or analytical game player/designer. Intuition and sight are generally my guides), but this was my reasoning.

Among other things, I would also invite vDiplomacy players to visit the PlayDiplomacy thread for suggested Edwardian 3rd Edition alterations (2nd Edition is currently live here on vDiplomacy) here: https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=413&t=57961&p=951031#p951031

Enriador has helped me considerably with this (though he refuses to take credit in the title) and is currently working on coding and porting this to vDiplomacy. Please raise any concerns or offer suggestions about balance in the PlayDiplomacy thread or here on vDiplomacy.

Notable changes include:

A reordering of British spaces. This is aimed at reducing the volatility of Britain's defensive posture in the Isles (3 SCs bordering Irish Sea, Auggh!).

A redrawing of some Atlantic spaces, most notably Bay of Biscay which is aimed at easing Anglo-French diplomacy by allowing France the option of disengaging F Bre to the Mediterranean without needing to crawl along the Iberian coast (not a very plausible scenario in most games I should warrant).

Alterations to France's spaces to provide greater security against Germany and better opportunity toward the Iberian Peninsula.

Reordering Germany and Russia's spaces to decentralize the former and cohere the latter.

And the addition of one more SC in Jabal Shammar to offer another potential build for the Ottoman Empire and to encourage more British involvement in the East (I think that Britain moved to Indian Ocean once in all of the 2nd Edition games so far).

A potential additional improvement that I have been considering is reducing to the victory total to below >50% like Powell's "1900." Of the 12 finished Edwardian games so far on this site, four have been 5 player draws and even one 7 player. That seems absurdly high and a lower victory total might facilitate more solos. However, there is differing thought on this notion since many argue that lower victory conditions actually encourage larger draws as players fear to take the risk of a solo with too many players still active.

Any thoughts?
Good stuff Vae Victis. I don't suggest I have the wisdom of Solomon on this issue. I was just giving my perspective to help inform the future direction and evolution which sounds like its well under way. Keep up the great work!
VaeVictis (1000 D)
17 Jul 18 UTC
I completely understood what your intention was and I do not possess Solomonic wisdom either! So, I do not wish you to think I was being combative or anything of that variety. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the current setup of the board.

The quest for balance is ever elusive and any help I can acquire from other eyes is always helpful. Your discussion on Cairo got me thinking, so that was useful.
G-Man (2227 D)
17 Jul 18 UTC
Likewise VarVictis. The heart of my point is to essentially find alternatives towards creating immediately knowable stalemate lines. I think the game is better for it. Will try to take a look at Edwardian and give some feedback this weekend. I do very much enjoy the expansion into Africa and modifications with the similar Abstraction III and Europe 1939 variants.
No probs VV. All good!
Enriador (1491 D (B))
18 Jul 18 UTC
>reducing to the victory total to below >50% like Powell's "1900."<

Okay, on that:

I believe that the number #2 cause of a higher rate of draws in 'Edwardian' is the higher density of provinces. More provinces means more spaces to traverse, fewer "powerplays" where a couple of moves can radically alter the board, more SCs to fight for.

The number #1 cause is the sheer number of SCs. A victory criteria of 26/50 SCs, in a map so dense, means that the would-be victor needs much more space and time in order to maneauver towards the remaining SCs. There are basically no stalemate lines in 'Edwardian' either, and funnily enough it makes the leader have trouble keeping his advantage without facing threats from other sides.

I agree on @VaeVictis's suggestion. I find games with a lower (but not too low!) victory criteria essential in order to enable more soloist play. We can find evidence of that effect (<50% of SCs = more solos) in two variants of similar scale: Youngstown Redux and Youngstown WW2.

Redux requires 21 SCs out of 81 (25.92%).
WW2 requires 42 SCs out of 79 (53.16%).

Redux has 51 victories, 24 draws (68%).
WW2 has 38 victories, 72 draws. (34.54%)

We have a crystal clear correlation between # of SCs required and # of games that end in a victory. Ultimately, I believe that the enlarged number of victories is a good thing for the game.

For 'Edwardian Version 3', I would suggest a 40% victory criteria (20 out of 50).
Enriador (1491 D (B))
18 Jul 18 UTC
There are some common criticisms of such practise. I have seen people complain about "being scared of a likely draw" so they draw often. I never found the numbers to corroborate that. People *are* more scared yes, but the resulting "Stop the Leader" coalition usually ends with someone else being the leader and in a better position to win.

Another criticism, one worth considering, is that a power my win while others may not be at all able to stop it due to distance and geography. However I don't think this applies to 'Edwardian', where everyone has multiple starting units (and units in key places like Egypt, for example) allowing all of them to somehow interact - and thus influence - with all other powers.

The same cannot be said of certain massive (mostly global) variants, where two powers may never ever even border the same third power, but this is not the issue here.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
18 Jul 18 UTC
a power may win*. Damn typing on a phone.
Enriador (1491 D (B))
18 Jul 18 UTC
20 out of 51* SCs for Edwardian V3, as JAB is a SC now.
VaeVictis (1000 D)
18 Jul 18 UTC
@G-Man

Yes, Cairo could become the focal point of a nasty stalemate line on the bottom of the map. I wonder if that is too dire a problem since, as Enriador stated, there seems to be very little opportunity for a stalemate line in the middle of the map (could be wrong! Things like stalemate lines might take a long time to notice through numerous play tests). If the center of the map stays fluid, would some congestion on the edges be too stifling to dynamic play? I don't know, what do you think?

@Enriador

Excellent analysis, I should let other people do my mathematical and logical analysis from this point on!

Large variants seem doomed to this problem as a simple matter of course; with increased size comes more distance which corresponds to diminishing dynamism in the end game (as you mentioned). All those additional units that make for a unique opening result in a sluggish finish. 20 out of 51 seems like a good guess on what would be ideal for a victory total. We should go with that.
G-Man (2227 D)
24 Jul 18 UTC
Re. Eduardian

Agree on the lower than 50% victory conditions for exactly the reasons mentioned.

If the center of the map is in fact fluid, I think it's okay to have a unique point of congestion on the edge (or two or more in larger variants, depending on their size). However, I still think it's better to find alternatives to creating known bottlenecks as, like you said, you don't know what stalemate lines will emerge with more play or major analysis.

Like the move to unpack British supply centers. Of all the countries, Britain should be the last to have yet another defensive advantage.

Love the new boundaries of the Bay of Biscay. This not only gives Britain and France more options with each other, but allows France needed flexibility with regards to becoming more of a naval power vs. a land power by eliminating the huge problem of having two distant coasts that each have home centers.

While I like the redesign of French spaces overall with regards to French defense and the Iberian peninsula, this does give Germany a big edge in the lowlands, and I'm not so sure that's a great idea. It should influence Germany to head west more often than not, making the likelihood of a deadly German/Russian alliance even greater.

Moving Berlin and removing the unit in Munich/Bavaria are needed moves to weaken the German defensive advantage, but again the bulk of German units in the west will influence Germany to move in that direction and be friendly with Russia more often than not. You might look at taking the Frankfurt territory out, or taking the supply center there out, and relocating it in the east.

The elimination of White Russia is also a needed move to help Russia from disintegrating into too many distant areas.

The addition of Jabal Shammar is a great incentive for Britain to move east, but as with the French moves pulling France away from northern Europe, this will often pull the Ottoman Empire away from Central Europe. Both of these revisions should often combine to leave Austria in more peril with regards to Germany and Russia, if not immediately, with the early years.

Would like to see the impassible South Algerian Desert in gray, and more natural territorial shapes for the Sahara and Nefud Deserts (like the South Algerian).

Also prefer the units in the 1st version (though they shouldn't be see-through and take on the color of the territories they're in, but be colored in their own right) and think the armies need to be differentiated more from the fleets if you're going to go with the flags.
VaeVictis (1000 D)
30 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
I agree about bottlenecks, but I'm not completely certain how to remedy Cairo (if it indeed will be a significant problem) without creating other problems of volatility (the issues I briefly touched on regarding too much fluidity in North Africa, etc.). If it proves a serious problem in a number of play tests, I will bend some focused thought to a solution.

I agree that Britain should not be too advantaged defensively, though I changed Britain's SCs and setup to grant her more defensive options. If France (or any other power for that matter) attains access to Irish Sea, without Britain possessing sufficient pieces for defense in the area, Britain is virtually finished apart from some intervention by another power.

I'm glad you liked Bay of Biscay, I hope it works out as well as planned.

I also discussed the problem of German movement and weight toward the west with Enriador (one of the numerous immense helps that he granted me in both analysis and time). This could be the greatest problem (and could simply be a symptom of the larger problem of 6 SCs for Germany in so compact a space), but it seemed to me that having Lyon border both Alsace and Switzerland was actually a detriment to France initially with very little reciprocated compensation in benefit of greater influence in the Low Countries. It seems that the Low Countries belong to Germany no matter what since France is naturally inclined by the game's geography to move towards Iberia. Reordering Lorraine hopefully secures some protection for France while not altering Germany's opening too much. France might then be able to build a strong position from which to strike east against Germany in the mid and late game with the help of Britain, Italy, or and eastern power. However, this is, of course, simply my conjecture and I could be completely off the mark (solution might actually lie in reducing Germany's SCs, but I'm not sure that I would want to do that since the enlarged volume of SCs is part of Edwardian's distinctiveness).

My only fear about moving another German SC east is that Russia and Germany are already at odds to begin with. There is tension in the Baltic with Fleets Riga and Kiel and between Dresden and Berlin and Warsaw. Placing another German SC east might wreck Russia's chances that are already limited compared to Germany's by slimmer options for neutrals and more tenuous defensive lines if those SCs are captured.

Yes, Jabal Shammar could diffuse Turkish interests too far and wide from the center of the board and could paradoxically actually hurt the Porte's chances later in the game. That's also something to be watchful over through play tests. Very excellent observation to share; thank you for that.

I'm not sure that I could draw a territorial shape for the Nefud, per se, since it's a nebulous expanse of desert. But drawing Sahara into a southern Turkish Tripolitania shaped impassable area could be done. I'd need to look at some maps and redraw some things (kinda busy now and disinclined to do so, but I wouldn't rule that out at some point).

Yes, I see your point about the pieces. I'll address this in the Edwardian 3rd Edition thread where it seems to have become a point of discussion.


44 replies
polaris (1202 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
Known World 901 question re rebuilt armies
The variant page says that "This map is build anywhere and has neutral standing armies that disband when dislodged, but will be rebuild if the relevant Home Supply Center is vacant and unowned during the build-phase in autumn." but looking at completed games, I don't see the standing armies getting rebuilt. Does this mean I need to always occupy my own SCs in the fall or else they turn back into neutral standing armies? Can someone explain this to me?
4 replies
Open
Flame (1080 D (B))
23 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
1898 - Civilization in Diplomacy
Variant "1898" by Randy Davis is very cool. One unit for each power at the start on the classic board.
It's already avaliable to play... but...
17 replies
Open
Flame (1080 D (B))
21 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
Mistake in Known World 901 variant
In "Known World 901" we have Principality of Kiev (short - Russia). But it's a mistake which I have fixed when I did the php-adaptation to Western Known World 901 variant. The power must be called as Kievan Rus (short - Rus). It's not Russia at all. So it must be also fixed in Known World 901 variant I think.
15 replies
Open
JECE (1184 D)
20 Jul 18 UTC
The variant page is down. This is what I get:
Error triggered: A software exception was not caught: "syntax error, unexpected ''Ghana'' (T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING), expecting function (T_FUNCTION)".
4 replies
Open
kaner406 (1416 D Mod (B) (B))
10 Mar 18 UTC
(+4)
Bourse 2018
See below:
194 replies
Open
Oli (977 D Mod (P))
09 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
You can now access the server via https...
So friends in the same network can no longer spy on your network-traffic here to gain an advantage over you... :-)
9 replies
Open
Penguin_XX7 (1534 D)
14 Jul 18 UTC
Sitters for four games.
I need game sitters for 3 Gunboat games and one full press until July 24th. Please PM me.
1 reply
Open
Thanks to the winning thread, I lost The Game...
...and now you have too.

The perfect thread for all of us losers to post when we've lost. There can be no winners here.
7 replies
Open
Strider (1614 D)
09 Jul 18 UTC
Preview in fog of war
Why can't you preview your moves in fog of war? I understand that some features might need to be turned off for fog to work but it this required or just an acident.
6 replies
Open
Antiloquax (1187 D)
23 Jun 18 UTC
Why is the red box attacking me?
The red box on games with no saved moves is stressing me out! I have 2 days. What's the emergency?
23 replies
Open
Retillion (2221 D (B))
10 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
A thick and ugly blue box
Please read below.
8 replies
Open
Enriador (1491 D (B))
22 May 18 UTC
(+4)
New Variants (yup, plural!)
Four new variants, based on Classic, will be coming to vDip!

Some of these were directly taken from the DP Judge. Others were lost in the Variant Bank for a long while.
28 replies
Open
RVG1984 (1136 D)
09 Jul 18 UTC
sealanes
How do they work?
15 replies
Open
Page 134 of 135
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top