Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 133 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
GOD (1850 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 (1507 D)
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.
Page 8 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
ubercacher16 (2163 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
I would like to officially state my desire that the icons not be changed in any of the preexisting formats and that the map remain the same for reasons related above by JECE and others.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
(+3)
This asshattery has be fun for a while, but there is no point in feeding the troll.
tobi1 (1997 D Mod (S))
28 Jul 18 UTC
(+3)
I still believe we can get some useful results from this if we carefully study *all* points given on the topic and stop to provoke each other. ;-) There were many outthought comments in this thread that can be a benefit especially to those who want create a new variant and wonder about the discussed aspects.

-

The argument by JECE and others that associating an island to a land territory might produce some ambiguity should not be taken lightly.
It is obvious that Kestas had this in mind when deciding how the islands should / should not be colored. And while this is definitely a minor aspect, it is always better to reduce ambiguity from a gameplay perspective. This should be independent of the fact that we have a map connections view on the variant page (which does not seem to be used by many in this community btw).

And it is not really comparable to the printed gameplay board which does not directly associate the color of the islands to a land territory as colors obviously do not change on a printed board. If we want to go in the direction of historical accuracy (for the starting board) we should probably just color the islands in their starting owners' color and never change them (as on the printed board). However, I doubt that the supporters of a color correction would be happy by such a result as this is not only about historical accuracy but also about not having some neutrally colored Sardinia after you conquered all of the Western Med area. Am I correct?

As an alternative one could think about coloring islands according to the ownership of one adjacent sea territory. In the webdip software sea territories have an owner as well as the land territories and it would only be a (minor) code modification to color Sardinia e.g. according to the owner of TyS and Corsica according to the owner of GoL. If those sea territories are made Italian and French at the start of the game we reach historical accuracy. However, while we avoid the confusion of associating an island to a land territory we introduce a new issue, namely that a piece of land is associated with a sea territory. It is doubtful that letting a sea territory appear as an island / coastal territory is actually better than associating an island carelessly to a land territory.

-

Concerning the icons: I know we already moved on from this but as I was referring to this in my first post and have not answered questions on that yet, I would like to do it now. But before I'd like to recall @Leif's good analysis / summary of the different unit styles he gave on page 5.

@Enriador, using grey instead of black for the units is an improvement for that icons. However, as stated before, I am really not a fan of that unicolored units which is probably mostly a matter of taste. I played around a bit myself recently to see what is possible. I came to the conclusion myself, that it is harder than I thought to create a unit icon of the classic webdip icons' style that also represents the ownership well, still offers good contrast between army and fleet and fits on a few pixels - at least for a graphically unskilled person like me. Since I like the style of the classical icons I would therefor prefer not concentrating on the ownership too much when designing an unit icon. In my opinion the current solution with a background flag is a sufficient compromise.

As a bonus I would like to share my try:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0j83ryvthwjda1/map.php.png?dl=0

The army icon is derived from the VaeVictis cannon icon and is of course far from perfect. I see issues e.g. concerning size and contrast to the current fleet icon. This should just serve as an inspiration and hopefully shows the webdip icons' style and historical accurate icons do not necessarily exclude each other. Due to my personal taste I would of course be happy if this could serve somehow as base of possible future variant icons instead of the unicolor ones. ;-)

I decided to add a flag in the given version since including ownership colors in the model itself turned out to be insufficient. There were just too few pixels and it got hard to distinguish e.g. Russian and Austrian units, at least for my eyes and on my screen (even with using slightly different colors). But I am not really convinced of that flag as well hence my preference of the background square.
A more pictographic approach as in 1066 or Atlantic Colonies might work better for this.

-

Now on the topic of changing the Classic variant: This thread proves that concerns regarding the proposed changes, recoloring and icons, exist and that we are far from reaching a consensus on this topic. Since the Classic variant proved to be functional over the last decade I therefor am much in favor to make no changes to it and all existing subvariants. While offering a Classic Redrawn variant is a compromise I share the concerns of adding a variant which just offers cosmetic changes should not be branded as different variant.
@Enriador, if none of the given arguments changed your personal preference I would advocate that you just add the proposed changes to your new variants, especially your Classic subvariants. However, that might mean that I personally would not play those due to my personal dislike of the proposed icons and the huge number of alternative variants. ;-)
Enriador (1507 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
> it is always better to reduce ambiguity from a gameplay perspective.<

In that case, rather than allow a bizarrely ahistorical ownership of territories (like the fictional Italian Corsica) the best course in order to "reduce ambiguity" is to paint all the islands as grey/black/whatever in order to absolutely stomp any possible doubt.

>This should be independent of the fact that we have a map connections view on the variant page (which does not seem to be used by many in this community btw).<

Now that you mention it, I really think that Map should be made more easily available as it's insanely useful, especially on larger variants.

>it is not really comparable to the printed gameplay board which does not directly associate the color of the islands to a land territory<

It is comparable in the sense that both maps replicate an identical historical starting position, though they diverge in the execution of that representation.

Historical accuracy was clearly a goal of Avalon Hill's mapmakers across the ages (as was ABC's!), as, for example, Ireland has no gameplay purpose whatsoever but still belonged to the British Empire in 1901/1914, so from *that* design viewpoint Ireland *should* be painted under British color.

webDip's author (Kestas, you say?) had a clearly different purpose in mind. I wonder though why would he make a fictional connection between Corsica and Tuscany - weren't Tuscany's connections with VEN/ROM/TYN/GOL/PIE clear enough? I have to ask him about it.

>Am I correct?<

From my point of view you are correct indeed. It is, in my opinion, one of the best improvements webDip made over Addison's original map (http://www.xcelco.on.ca/~ravgames/dipmaps/standard2_ra.gif).

Addison's map wasn't *broken* at all and is perfectly playable, yet there went Kestas improving it...

>coloring islands according to the ownership of one adjacent sea territory<

That might be a very strong solution, if viable code-wise.

>a new issue, namely that a piece of land is associated with a sea territory. It is doubtful that letting a sea territory appear as an island / coastal territory is actually better than associating an island carelessly to a land territory.<

I believe it's better as the island(s) would then start the game under its historical controller, and honestly, the changes of ownership in the course of a game are so subtle that the potential for confusion is quite low.

>the current solution with a background flag is a sufficient compromise. <

Hmm, the icons look quite good actually (minus some issues you pointed yourself). Not my favorite choice (I prefer the "unicolor units") but a massive improvement over the green tanks.

The brownish color though - are the Huns invading? =O

I wonder: what if we put a literal background square (or circle?) wrapped around the cannon/fleet? You could have a single-colored icon for all seven powers but this time with decent contrast and removes the confusing background square that shows up then is gone then shows up again (what we currently have).

I will try my hand at it and post here. Only in practise can we see how good (or bad) that might look.

> the Classic variant proved to be functional over the last decade<

Classic's green tanks have certainly proved to be reasonably functional, thankfully no one disputed that in any point of the thread.

Thereby I ask: should we only strive to improve what is broken? Kestas didn't think so! =D

>add the proposed changes to your new variants<

I am not sure about that just yet, still open for opinions. I haven't decided on a final layout and whether vDip should get a certain degree of consistency regarding the icons from the Classic' subvariants.

>I personally would not play those<

That's your God-given right. The best thing about this place is the sheer number of alternatives one has to play a game of Diplomacy!
mouse (1825 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
Your reassurances about the 'best thing about this place' ring somewhat hollow with the backdrop of your continued attempts to force a change to many of those variants that, as many contributors to this thread have stated, would alter those variants from 'playable' to 'not played'.
Enriador (1507 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
>your continued attempts to force a change<

I don't force anything to anyone @mousse, and I already told you that.

Since you obviously lack anything of note to add, guess what, I won't be seeing your mumbling anymore. =)

Peace.
Leif_Syverson (1400 D Mod)
28 Jul 18 UTC
(+3)
Welcome to the club mouse.

“This asshattery has be fun for a while, but there is no point in feeding the troll.“

As long as “unforced” changes are being shoved at the community under the guise of bug fixes while any opposition is silenced and discounted as off topic, I would describe the effort as a fight against being force fed an unwanted agenda.

If a troll doubles down on trollishness, that only serves to help the cause of discounting the methods being employed to promote the agenda.
drano019 (2710 D Mod)
28 Jul 18 UTC
(+4)
A poem for our dearly beloved mouse in recognition of his joining the Muted Club:

Dearest mouse, you're such a louse!
Didn't you know this is Enriador's house?
No one is welcome, not even his spouse,
Unless his views, they espouse.
All opposition with a mute he will douse,
It must be lonely in his big glasshouse.
M U T E and D. M O U S Eeeeeee. Muted mouse. Muted mouse. Forever let us hold the banner hi. Hi! Hi! Hi!
JECE (1534 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
"The brownish color though - are the Huns invading? =O"

Brown is the color of wood . . .
JECE (1534 D)
28 Jul 18 UTC
Thanks for your reply, tobi1. Thoughtful from start to finish and a noble attempt to salvage something useful from the thread.

Your proof-of-concept for replacing the green tank is great! It suffers from historical inaccuracy in its own right, but proves that we can replace both the tank and the squares with functional alternatives.
Retillion (2304 D (B))
29 Jul 18 UTC
(+3)
15 and a half hours ago (on page 7 of this thread), Enriador wrote :

"Do note, however, that a vote as you propose ("play & vote") can be easily manipulated by someone (say, myself) opening as many games as possible with a 10-day window. I could CD and NMR however much I want, but the games would still exist and count as "votes" for the side I chose."


That comment says a lot about how much Enriador wants his agenda to be fulfilled.

NMRing and CDing should be avoided as much as possible ! It is an important matter of respect towards our fellow players.

Someone stating that he could "open as many games as possible" for the sole purpose of falsifying a vote, and allow himself, in the process, to "CD and NMR however much he wants" is scandalous and shows, if that was still needed, how little respect he has for the members of our community.
tobi1 (1997 D Mod (S))
29 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
@Enriador: Thanks for your reply.

At several places in that reply and before the argument appears, that we should not hesitate to change something only because it is already working. And I am with your there, of course. We both made our contributions to move on from the webdip state of let us say 2010 which was already fully functional, as well.

However, there is a difference between improving something broken and improving something functional.
In the former case one could nearly do anything and certainly get an improvement. If unsure about the consequences one could experiment a bit, get feedback and alter the improvements.
But in the latter case, one should be relatively sure, that the improvement is really an improvement. One should try to avoid weakening the current status quo. Hence "if it ain't broke don't fix it". This should be especially important for a core variant such as Classic.

Your proposed changes seem to be a solid improvement at first glance. But this thread proves one thing: The changes, even though quite minor, are actually very controversial. And while the current status quo definitely has its own flaws, the proposed changes come with their own disadvantages, too. So we would trade one issue for another.

The proposed icons all have their advantages and flaws. This was already extensively discussed before. I would advise anybody who tries to design a new icon to look at the elaborate feedback in many of the posts before. And perhaps at some point some talented soul will design an icon that includes most advantages of the given examples but avoids the flaws. That icon, however, should probably be tested in its own variant(s) and if it really gets that popular and proves to be clearly superior to the existing ones, we can talk about the replacing them. The current ones, like the Napoleonic icons, unfortunately do not completely meet those conditions apparently.

Concerning the map, I stated disadvantages for some solutions in my last post. You (@Enriador) especially mentioned the solution of coloring all islands black. And while this circumvents the issue of coloring the islands I doubt I have to elaborate on the disadvantages to the optical appearance. But I assume this was meant ironically anyway?
A good balance between optical appearance, historical accuracy and functionality is the key. And this is, unfortunately, subjective again. Hence we should be careful of modifying something existing with a controversial alternative.
But, especially as this is very minor, there is no problem of experimenting around with the different options in different variants. You already can find a ton of those experiments in the existing set of variants.

So the given proposals while certainly made with best intents turned out to be not unquestioning suitable for the Classic variant and the current solutions turned out to be more thought out than it might have appeared at first glance. I hope that we can all agree to that conclusion and settle the original discussion about changing Classic at this point.

We can continue the discussion about coloring islands or designing unit icons with the aim to get some more insights for the design of future variants. But due to the unhealthy state of this thread it might be wise to suspend such a discussion for some time until feelings cooled down and we can constructively and respectfully argue with all of each other again.


@JECE: Thanks for your feedback. Proof-concept-concept is a good word I could not think of yesterday. Unfortunately, I am really not an expert of early 20th century cannons hence the inaccuracies.
If anyone want to use that icon for future works feel free to contact me for a raw version of that icon.
Enriador (1507 D)
29 Jul 18 UTC
> perhaps at some point some talented soul will design an icon that includes most advantages of the given examples but avoids the flaws. That icon, however, should probably be tested in its own variant(s) and if it really gets that popular and proves to be clearly superior to the existing ones, we can talk about the replacing them<

I agree with you, and proposed a similar arrangement (based on @mousse's idea) a page back - it's basically the same as you say but in this case without any fixed timeframe.

>the solution of coloring all islands black<

> I doubt I have to elaborate on the disadvantages to the optical appearance<

1) I meant it as a serious alternative. Backstabbr, PlayDiplomacy and Conspiracy all use this compromise (between historical colors but possible confusion on borders vs nonsensical colors with a pint of extra clarity (?)) with a good degree of success.

webDip/vDip alone in the world paints e.g. Danish Iceland with strange colors - I have been collecting Diplomacy maps for years and webDip's adaptation of Rob Addison's map is absolutely unique in that regard, God (aka Kestas) knows why.

2) I am actually curious about what you think about it. Personally, I see grey islands on PlayDip and think, "urgh, Switzerland alone is impassable/grey according to the rules" but they don't hurt the eye quite as strongly as webDip's grossly incorrect assignment of colors. So an elaboration would be very welcomed.

My rationale is: better to paint them neutral than to paint them with an obviously wrong color.

> I hope that we can all agree to that conclusion and settle the original discussion about changing Classic at this point.<

Unless someone has something meaningful to add in that sense, I agree - the thread (nevermind the surprisingly entertaining trolling and spam) has seem plenty of good proposals and counter-proposals regarding the best way to improve Classic's feel and style (or keep it as it is).

From my end I got nothing else to add, but I would be happy to engage and discuss new ideas if they pop up.

>We can continue the discussion about coloring islands or designing unit icons with the aim to get some more insights for the design of future variants.<

And that's a topic with pleeeeeeenty to talk about. We have around a dozen of experienced mapmakers very active here on vDip (plus some lurkers), and many more who have an interest in trying their hands on variants for the first time - I know I grasped a new concept or two that I didn't know about, so the potential is there.
Leif_Syverson (1400 D Mod)
29 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
tobi,

Well stated! This discussion about island coloring methodologies and unit icon anachronisms has a place, but not in reference to seeking to change Classic as soon as possible. I believe I would be speaking for much of the opposition in stating that recognition of this was all we were looking for.

As to the follow on discussion, I for one have been inspired to try my hand at some alternate unit designs, having played around with unit designs for the Axis and Allies online implementation TripleA. I will need figure out at some point to get these scaled and on a map.
Caerus (1470 D)
29 Jul 18 UTC
(+3)
I feel like I should thank our wonderful Mods. They have each managed to remain calm and respectful, despite the pressure to step into the fray and fling mud with the rest of us. They have inspired me to pursue such a measured response in all of my correspondence.

But I did, in fact, engage in the mud-flinging and said I’d make a game. As a man of my word: gameID=35562. Game of the Muted. Password: muted.

(Anyone is welcome to join. Being muted by Enriador is not a requirement. Having read this thread is punishment enough.)
mouse (1825 D)
29 Jul 18 UTC
Re-roll it with a proper victory count and I'd be in, Caerus. Only needing ~35% of the total centre count on a map that size cannot, in any way, be considered an actual solo.
I hate public press. Make it full press or rulebook and I'll play.
Caerus (1470 D)
30 Jul 18 UTC
Good point. Corrected in a different Variant attempt #2 gameID=35563
JECE (1534 D)
30 Jul 18 UTC
I'm going to regret having joined this, ha ha.
JECE (1534 D)
31 Jul 18 UTC
(+4)
Hey Enriador! "Sea of India" is missing from the Spice Islands big map. Oh, wait, you can't hear me.
Mapu (2086 D (B))
31 Jul 18 UTC
(+2)
I'll tell him for you. Oh wait -- he can't hear me either.
Caerus (1470 D)
01 Aug 18 UTC
Do you think Enriador will unMute the people he muted for off topic posts? I can understand (not agree, but understand) the rational behind hiding everything that is not relevant to the conversation in order to focus on the topic, but to then leave that person muted doesn’t fit inside that rationale. Now that the utilitarian purpose for the mute has been served, I’d like to assume he will hear us again, but perhaps that is a bit naive.
Frozen Dog (1497 D)
03 Aug 18 UTC
(+1)
"perhaps that is a bit naive."

Yes
Enriador (1507 D)
03 Aug 18 UTC
>Yes<

Damn @Dog, I forgot to block you - you didn't make any contributions to the thread (which is fine, your call) yet you slipped for some reason. I fixed it. <3

My deepest apologies for the delay!
bsiper (1281 D)
05 Aug 18 UTC
██
██
jason4747 (1633 D)
07 Aug 18 UTC
(+1)
Redacted reply? It's like muting yourself!
JECE (1534 D)
07 Aug 18 UTC
(+1)
On this sad day, we should remember Frozen Dog by the last words he heard from Enriador:
"@FrozenDog, by the way, thanks for the gentle words. You have always been a very helpful and knowledgeable person, no matter what others might say about newcomers to vDip. Remember that."
Sky_Hopper (365 D)
07 Aug 18 UTC
Why is Enriador blocking everybody again?
Also JECE said Sea of India is missing from the Spice Islands big map.
Sky_Hopper (365 D)
07 Aug 18 UTC
You are just a deaf ear to criticism, Enriador, and you know it.

Page 8 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

243 replies
CptMike (1575 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 (1073 D)
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 (1507 D)
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
44 replies
Open
polaris (1137 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 (1073 D)
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 (1073 D)
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 (1534 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 (2181 D Mod (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 (1309 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 (1604 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 (1287 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 (2304 D (B))
10 Jul 18 UTC
(+1)
A thick and ugly blue box
Please read below.
8 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
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 (1169 D)
09 Jul 18 UTC
sealanes
How do they work?
15 replies
Open
Anonymous Games
Anonymous Games grant liars a shelter to do there worst, making abusive and absurd offered and generally making me passionately hate this game, which can lead to NMRs . Having to be out there means you have to have honor, and enables revenge. I have seen allies pitch in by hopping from one neutral territory to yhe next in the name of their promises. This site seems to be for the childish.
98 replies
Open
Flame (1073 D)
09 Jul 18 UTC
First Diplomacy game edition 1959
Who got the photo or scan of the first Diplomacy edition board (500 pieces), 1959? Please share to be used in an article.
7 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
18 Jun 18 UTC
(+2)
Replace PPSC with something rank-based?
I've put together a length proposal over on PlayDip to provide a rank-based scoring system for draws that's similar to the Carnage system used in several North American Dip tournaments today.

https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57975#p951166
103 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
07 Jul 18 UTC
[New Variant] Machiavelli - To the Renaissance
New (official) subvariant of Machiavelli coming up on vDip. Not a single case of adjacent home centers - praise be God!

http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=115
0 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
25 Apr 18 UTC
(+2)
New Variant: Crusades 1201
Hail diplomats,

New 11-players variant coming up, set in the High Middle Ages.
44 replies
Open
gremlin (994 D)
02 Jul 18 UTC
New Variants
Just curious, what is the process for creating new variants?
1 reply
Open
WiJaMa (1228 D)
26 Jun 18 UTC
Looking for game sitters
I'm looking for a game sitter for three games while I'm out from 1 Jul to 22 Jul. PM me for details.

Also, is there supposed to be a thread for these? I can't find it but the help page says there is one.
2 replies
Open
ubercacher16 (2163 D)
25 Jun 18 UTC
Strategy - Hold Order
See First Post
16 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
12 Jun 18 UTC
(+2)
At long last: 1900
With some help from Tobias & Oliver, my implementation of Baron VonPowell's "1900" is finally live.

64 replies
Open
Matthew Goldman (965 D)
27 Jun 18 UTC
Looking for someone to take over my country (Not in a bad position)
Currently 13/35 countries remain and my country, Brazil, is in 8th place after some set backs with NMRs. Currently allied with the 2nd place country, Argentina, as a fight between the two of us will ultimately be the doom of our existence. Argentina has said that a substitute will not charge the alliance between our two countries.

Reply if interested in taking over.
3 replies
Open
RVG1984 (1169 D)
21 Jun 18 UTC
convert fleet to army
How do I convert a fleet to an army and the other way? I see people do it, but don't see the option on the dropdowns.
12 replies
Open
WaitingCynicism (903 D)
20 Jun 18 UTC
Notifications by email?
Is there a way I can get email notifications for my campaigns? I haven't gotten any at all, and because of that I've lost several games.
4 replies
Open
Page 133 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top