Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
butterhead (975 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+11)
Advertise your NON-live games here!
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
2515 replies
Open
kaner406 (1375 D Mod (B) (B))
Mon 07 AM UTC
Face to Face play in what seems like forever...
So I've finally convinced my gaming group to have a go at Diplomacy, and i have to say I'm looking forward to doing this thing again after what seems like forever. Only problem is they are all newbies to the game. Any advice from folks as to how to introduce Diplomacy to gamers (who haven't played Dip) before?
6 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (768 D)
Thu 06 Dec UTC
Better country randomization
We need a better country randomization script than just assigning people countries by the order they join. I've started 2 variants of Classic (FoW and Octopus) and I've gotten England both times.
16 replies
Open
Devonian (1871 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
(+14)
1v1 Tournament Rules, Rankings, and Challenges
Official Rules for 1v1 Ladder Tournament
1697 replies
Open
kaner406 (1375 D Mod (B) (B))
08 Sep 18 UTC
(+1)
Variant Development Thread
This thread is made for the express purpose of cutting down of multiple threads that deal with new variants, ideas, concepts etc...
71 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (768 D)
Thu 29 Nov UTC
(+1)
Returned
Well, here I am.
It's been a long break, and I feel it's time to return, now that the frenzy that made vDiplomacy terrible (I'm sure you remember it) has ended.
Here we go, as I try to regain those vPoints...
13 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+19)
Winning
Oli won.
On Imperial Civilization's off-topic thread (link inside), there was a brief stint of Second to Last Person to Post Wins. Now that the thread is closed, Oli won.
7019 replies
Open
bamzolino (1000 D)
Thu 06 Dec UTC
Adjucation bug. Can it be fixed?
This move seems to be adjucated wrong. Support shouldn’t be cut from where it is going into if I understand the rules correctly. Armenia supported move from Rumani to Sevastopol, but it was cut even though Sevastopol is the target.
https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=36686
I don’t know how to post pictures, but the link should allow others to see the game. I would like to know if this can be fixed as it wildly changes the game.
2 replies
Open
ingebot (1793 D)
04 Oct 18 UTC
(+1)
Workaround to "forced" ready
In rulebook press, part of the idea is that for retreat and builds it forces you to ready up. However, simply by then pressing "not ready", the order changes to "saved". Is it possible to promote the original idea of this press type by making the state of "not ready" equal to "no orders received"?
Retillion (2221 D (B))
04 Oct 18 UTC
In that case, what should a player who is not ready do ? Click "ready" nonetheless, or wait longer at the risk of NMRing ?
ingebot (1793 D)
04 Oct 18 UTC
(+2)
Not join a rulebook press game, I would assume, since one of its most important features is to expedite retreats and builds (for this reason, all chat is disabled during those phases).
mouse (2002 D)
04 Oct 18 UTC
(+2)
I would disagree with the priorities there: the feature of rulebook press that makes it interesting is disabling press during thise phases; that this tends to expedite those turns is nice but is not the point.

The main thing preventing me from preferring rulebook press is the current implementation that (especially combined with the recent changes to input order visibility) they can prevent the 'preview' of saved orders before committing to them. The change proposed here would exacerbate that issue further; an alternate implementation along the lines of 'save is available, but will auto-ready after <reasonable period of time>' would appear to resolve both issues (the downside being I can't see that being anything other than difficult to actually implement).
ingebot (1793 D)
04 Oct 18 UTC
I think a way to have effective preview is through the IA system, where the process of entering the orders give you by default a preview while entering the orders. Of course, I assume a wider implementation of the IA system is what is currently worked on.
vixol (1295 D)
04 Oct 18 UTC
Rule book press means (at least at the face to face cons I've been to) that you are allowed to publicly discuss retreats and builds briefly.
The rules say no communication during retreats and adjustments, vixol. What you do in house rules is your business. But even public discussion allows for coordinated retreats and disband which is contrary to the spirit of the rules for those phases.

I suggest every time a player saves, the system auto-readies on those phases. Then if a player unreadies and misses, they NMR and did it to themselves. There is no reason for not readying up when there is no communication.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
04 Oct 18 UTC
YCHTT wrote :
"There is no reason for not readying up when there is no communication."

Yes there is : if you do not want that the game goes too fast because you are busy IRL.
Then don't play rulebook press. It's that simple and I stand by my statement. This thread is about rulebook press and there is no reason to not ready-up retreats and adjustments.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
04 Oct 18 UTC
• YCHTT wrote : "This thread is about rulebook press"
→ Yes, indeed : it is about rulebook press. Rulebook press stipulates that no communication should happen during the retreats and builds phase. Rulebook press has nothing to do with speeding up the game by forcing orders to be readied. On the contrary : during a FTF game, retreats and builds are an excellent moment to do some things like getting a drink, something to eat, or to use bathroom all of which actually lengthen the game.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
04 Oct 18 UTC
• YCHTT wrote : "there is no reason to not ready-up retreats and adjustments."
→ I gave you a reason to not ready retreats and build orders : if one does not want that the game goes too fast because he is busy IRL. The fact that you do not accept that reason does not annihilate it : it exists.
I will even give you another reason to not ready retreats and builds orders : the forced readying prevents you from double checking your orders on the preview map and it obliges you to enter all your orders at once, which leaves you at the mercy of a misclick or of a technical problem.
And I will give you one more reason to not ready retreats and builds orders : the first time in a phase I check a game I am playing, I enter as soon as possible at least one order, any order, even temporary, but at least one order. The purpose of that maneuver is that helps to never NMR. Of course, I may need some time to *think* about my orders and that is why I want to have the possibility to change the possibly temporary orders that I have saved, especially in the large variants when one can have several dozens of units and many different options to compare.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
04 Oct 18 UTC
• YCHTT wrote : "Then don't play rulebook press."
→ That is what I do ! On that subject, do you think that our community on vdip has so many active serious and reliable players that it can afford to discard players from rulebook press games because of the way these games are operated ? And once again, even though you may like it that retreats and builds are readied in rulebook press games, rulebook press games should actually have nothing to do with readying orders during these phases.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2501 D)
05 Oct 18 UTC
I agree with Ingebot and YCHTT here. The entire point of the rulebook press concept was to expedite the retreats and build phases. The rules of Diplomacy stipulate no communication during these phases to speed the game up, and to add the element of disorganization to retreats and disbands. In most cases you already know what you want to build, and frankly if you need an entire phase length to do it, you probably do not deserve the build in the first place. In any case those are the rules of the game. As the game moved online there was no effective way to police this so the rule has been largely discarded over time. Here at Vdip it has become a huge problem with losing players seeking to punish the remain players by stalling the game with retreat and disband orders that do not require the same amount of time to consider, and should not need diplomacy. It's become a very douchey thing to drag games out, hoping that the other players will get bored and vote for a draw. The rulebook press games seek to avoid that. We had some limited success with on your honor type special conditions, but those concepts are a joke to the maggotry.
Look up the rules in the rulebook. Retreats and builds are given a fraction of the time of a movement phase. Until we can get that in place, forced ready is the next best thing.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
05 Oct 18 UTC
(+1)
After I read RUFHAUS 8's and YCHTT's answers, I have checked in the rule book :

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1992AH3rd.pdf

It indeed stipulates that no communication should happen during the retreats and builds phases and that these orders should be written immediately, but it does NOT stipulate that these orders should be played immediately :

• "The retreats are written down immediately by the players concerned, without diplomacy, and simultaneously exposed as with movement orders." (Rule XII, page 5)

• "As with retreats, builds and removals (collectively known as "adjustments") are written and exposed simultaneously without any preceeding diplomacy." (Rule XIV, page 6)


So, even if it is true that the rulebook stipulates that retreats and builds orders should be *written* immediately, the rulebook does NOT stipulate that these orders should be *played* immediately nor that the game should be sped up at that time.

Even though the phenomenon described by RUFFHAUS 8 of losing players stalling uselessly the game indeed exists, it is another question completely unrelated with rulebook press.

As a conclusion, in rulebook games :
• disabling private press during retreats and builds phases satisfies the rule that prohibits communication at those times ;
• the rule book does NOT stipulate that retreats and builds orders should be played immediately ; what's more, forcing the readying of orders does NOT even force these orders to be played immediately ! Indeed, players can wait the full length phase before entering their orders.

--------------------

@ RUFFHAUS 8 and YCHTT :

You can certainly understand my position since it was yours when the question of rulebook press was first brought here :

https://vdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=68430#68430

In that conversation,

• YCHHT wrote, on February 23 2017 :
"I can agree with no press, but not the "saved auto readies". Saving is like writing it on the paper. Readying up is like dropping it in the box."

• RUFFHAUS 8 wrote, on February 23 2017 :
"The saved button offers players a chance to do a quality assurance check on the orders that they have entered, something made very effective by using the "show server side stored orders for this turn" feature. This gives you a graphic representation of what ordered the system is recognizing. For that reason I like the save button, but it works best when players ready up after checking them. I'm not sure that works with your suggestion, but from past experience the QA check using saved orders and the map graphic has saved me dozens if not hundreds of mistakes."
"Written down immediately and simultaneously exposed" but it does not say "when the timer expires" because there is no fixed full phase length. I c,t speak to the tournament scene but every Diplomacy gaming group I've ever played in had everyone write them down and then when all were written, exposed them and adjudicated the results. People took needed breaks during the negotiation phase which had a timer running on it.
I *can't* speak...
Caerus (1599 D)
05 Oct 18 UTC
@Truth & @RUFFHAUS 8, I checked and is correct. you were not in favor of auto-ready two years ago. What is different about that conversation and this one? What changed your mind?
Caerus (1599 D)
05 Oct 18 UTC
...and *Retillion* is correct...
Opinions change. In the last year, people have acted like little brats and had tantrums when they've been eliminated far to many times. After rereading the rules, I came to the conclusion that they should be processed immediately.
Chumbles (1019 D)
05 Oct 18 UTC
@Retillon. FTF practices have nothing to do with how this site is run. My experience from the 70s and 80s in the UK is exactly the opposite to yours. If you have RL probs you have the recourse to request an Extend, or to arrange a babysitter for your game.

In the 70s the vast majority of UK postal games were played on a 2 season year (retreats and builds conditional) and the US games were played on a 3 season year (retreats conditional, builds separate.) The US version was closer to the rulebook, but the UK went 2 season because the Royal Snail's service was so erratic.

This was reflected in FTF games by having a minute to consider and write down retreats in FTF games... Zeus, if players could drag out a retreat 'phase' and 'pop out to the chippie (aka a swift pint) then you'd run the risk of EVERYBODY going down the pub. The more so as players were increasingly eliminated!

I think that dragging out the retreat phase also lends itself to misuse: as in FTF games, so that a draw would be agreed and to covert diploming during the retreat phase.phase... Personally, I think retreats should either be conditional or the option scrapped.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2501 D)
07 Oct 18 UTC
I'm still not in favor of auto ready. Auto ready is not the answer to game schedule manipulation. I also do not play Rulebook Press games, simply because the mechanics in place are not adequate to gain my interest.

The reason I object to auto ready is because I like to save my order set as I enter them and then do a QC check over them using the map preview section, confirming each order is accurate. After this check I manually select ready. I typically only do this on movement turns, but it's a good practice to prevent misorders of any kind.

I don't see any hypocrisy or altered position here. So please withdraw your claim, sir.
The thread is focused on a glitch in the Rulebook Press games that allows players to mark retreats and builds as saved after the system defaults them to ready. Doing this negates the entire purpose of the rulebook press concept.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
07 Oct 18 UTC
@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

All I wrote is : "You can certainly understand my position since it was yours when the question of rulebook press was first brought here.".

I never called you a hypocrit. And I haven't even written that you had altered your position, even though that is what I had I understood.

I had understood that you were in favor of auto ready because you wrote "I agree with Ingebot and YCHTT here" after YCHHT wrote "I suggest every time a player saves, the system auto-readies on those phases".

Thank you for clarying your position and for removing the misunderstanding.

Please be sure that I did not want at all to express any lack of respect nor to offend you in any way.

In the end, it looks like you and I and agree : we both object to auto ready because we like to save our order set as we enter them and then do a QC check over them using the map preview section, confirming each order is accurate. After this check we manually select ready if we want our orders to be readyed.
I'm only for autoready while adjustment and retreat phase lengths aren't editable. Make that editable so one doesn't have to wait 3 days in a 2 day no weekend game and I would be on your side and stick to my original non auto position. Also, autofill and ready with no option to unready when one has no valid retreat and must disband or must disband all of one's units is something I always have and always will support.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2501 D)
07 Oct 18 UTC
Retillion, I was responding to Caerus' question, which implied that I had flip flopped on this.
Retillion (2221 D (B))
07 Oct 18 UTC
RUFFHAUS 8, my mistake, sorry about that.
Caerus (1599 D)
08 Oct 18 UTC
@RUFFHAUS, I had no desire to impune your honor. In this conversation it appeared that you and YCHTT were taking a stance contrary to one you had taken before. I was trying to understand the difference between the two conversations to better understand the situation as a whole. For his part, YCHTT freely admits that his opinion on the matter has changed in the interim (which there is nothing wrong with), and I am grateful that he was able to provide the reason his opinion has changed so that I could better understand him and his point. In your case, it appears I had misunderstood your intent in this conversation and I am sorry about that, but I am grateful that I asked, so that I am now less ignorant than I was.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2501 D)
10 Oct 18 UTC
I shoot my pistols into the dirt, gentlemen.
As long as we're chatting about rule book preferences... When my group got together and played face to face the a country that NMR^d on a move did not get to choose retreats, dislodged units were automatically disbanded as a punishment. Why is that not enforced here?
Or is that civil disorder , maybe what I am contemplating is NMR go directly to disorder, but then those in other regions of the board suffer as winners grow quickly.
NMR is per the rulebook. The standard is an NMR on retreats disbands the units. An NMR on moves has all units hold. An NMR on disbands removes them starting with the furthest from a home SC.
But NMRing on moves doesn't punish the player if they are back for retreats. That isn't in the rules and is your gaming groups rule, not an official one.
Sky_Hopper (768 D)
Thu 29 Nov UTC
I suggest just scrapping the whole "auto-readying" thing and process the retreats/builds as regular moves without chat. There are reasons for saving and not readying, especially if the phase length is <24 hours (turn clock elapses in full).
Dejan0707 (1778 D)
Mon 03 Dec UTC
(+1)
If you want to force one segment if the rulebook why not force them all. Rulebook also claim that people should discuss with other people (discuss = talk). So lets force this rule too and close this site and all other sites. Maybe Post office too because rule doesn't mention that at all.
Dejan, we talking about applying the rulebook to one press type only - rulebook press. This isn't about the entire site. Don't be a 'tard.
Dejan0707 (1778 D)
Wed 05 Dec UTC
YouCan'tHandleTheTruth,

Because I was unfamiliar with the term "tard" I had to search for the explanation.

"'tard

Someone who is stupid, but in an annoying way. In fact, if they were actually mentally retarded it would be a dramatic improvement.

Mason is so stupid that it's pissing me off! He's a real 'tard."

If that is the truth then yes, I Cannot Handle The Truth.
I said don't be one. But I see you didn't take my advice.
Dejan0707 (1778 D)
Wed 05 Dec UTC
That's fine friend. You would figure it out eventually.


37 replies
ingebot (1793 D)
Fri 30 Nov UTC
Age of Pericles
In the "Age of Pericles" variant, the map clearly shows that Euboeius Sinus and Thermas Sinus border each other (top right). However, the movement between them is apparently not possible; this is confirmed by looking at the map info. However, given that the map shows them as clearly in contact, isn't this a mistake?
4 replies
Open
OrdinalSean (959 D)
Sat 01 Dec UTC
CountrySwitch gameID=36173 Song-Empire
Diplo is beginning to depress me. As such I'm open to anyone taking over from me. I'm Song-Empire, 23 SCs, currently fourth place. I'll PM details to anyone who replies saying they want to join.
0 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (1000 D)
11 Nov 18 UTC
(+3)
Armistice
100 years today.
40 replies
Open
Pudge (964 D)
Mon 26 Nov UTC
Games
I would like to have groups of friends to play games more often here, I hope that if someone wants to participate more actively tell me
5 replies
Open
AIShandling (973 D)
21 Nov 18 UTC
Own Varients
Is it possible on this site, or anywhere online, to upload your own variant to play?
8 replies
Open
Pudge (964 D)
Sat 24 Nov UTC
Fast Game
hey, good a Saturday for all, anyway want play a fast game today? pls say me! regards!
3 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
Sat 24 Nov UTC
Fast Game
If wants to play a fast game today go a https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=36608
0 replies
Open
Just need some Clarification
So I have a fleet ready to attack New Zealand and there's an enemy one ready to do the same. If I use a supported attack from some other troops to attack the enemy fleet (assuming it has no unit supporting it holding) while moving in to New Zealand with my other fleet what happens?
6 replies
Open
PTTG (845 D)
16 Nov 18 UTC
Mistakenly dropped from a game?
Re; gameID=36387. My country was put into CD and I was dropped despite playing as normal and checking in every day.
I don't care about getting back in the game, but I would like to fix my reliability score.
1 reply
Open
jmodugno (1024 D)
12 Nov 18 UTC
Can someone explain this move?
Why did Rumania support to budapest from Galicia fail?
https://vdiplomacy.com/map.php?gameID=36477&turn=6&mapType=large
5 replies
Open
ScubaSteve (1199 D)
08 Nov 18 UTC
Health Problems
I have a couple of games going. One super interesting and one less so. Would anyone be willing to take over?
9 replies
Open
Yoshimon (812 D)
11 Nov 18 UTC
(+2)
Replacement
I’m going through some mental health issues right now, and would appreciate if someone would be willing to take over 3 games that I’m currently in
3 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1676 D (B) (B))
02 Sep 16 UTC
(+7)
New podcast for online Dip games
Hi everyone

Kaner and I have started a podcast about playing Diplomacy online....
198 replies
Open
WWII Tournament
I would like to start a tournament. I've seen the Known World and 1v1 tournaments, and those are great fun. So why not apply it to World War II? I'm still working out the details, but I'll post some details.
353 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1676 D (B) (B))
03 Nov 18 UTC
Kaner temporarily offline
Hi everyone - in case you're waiting on Kaner for any games etc, his internet connection at home has died and his ISP are being difficult. Not smart when his ISP contract ends in a week. So he's going to switch providers in a week and will unfortunately have to "go dark" from vDip for that period of time. But he will be back.
9 replies
Open
Mercy (2068 D)
31 Oct 18 UTC
Newspaper Game
A while ago, some players in threadID=80668 discussed playing another Newspaper game. Meanwhile, more than 7 players have shown their interest to participate in it, but no consensus on the specific settings of the game has been reached yet. I have created this thread to set up the next Newspaper game and discuss its settings.
33 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
26 Oct 18 UTC
(+2)
Recruiting for Dissolution (Play by Slack/Discord/Email)
Next year, starting in Jan or Feb 2019, I will GM a game of Dissolution, a 10-player Diplomacy variant* of my own creation. Dissolution is set in the 1990's, just after the breakup of the Soviet Union. This game is not a vDiplomacy site game; it will be played with most communication handled via IM (either Slack or Discord), with some email too.

More details below.
6 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1676 D (B) (B))
31 Oct 18 UTC
Diplomacy World needs a hand!
The quarterly mag needs a few good Dippers. Find out more at https://mailchi.mp/c18279ad9e1d/diplomacy-world-staff-vacancies and give a hand for the hobby!
9 replies
Open
BBQSauce123321 (1422 D)
11 Oct 18 UTC
Grey Fog of War
So I have just discovered variants for both Grey Press and Fog of War. I have no idea how to code so can't make this happen, but if someone was able to combine these two variants, it would make for a very very interesting game, especially in Public Press
37 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1676 D (B) (B))
26 Mar 18 UTC
vDip Google Map...
Where is it again? I tried finding it referenced in old forum threads but as search is non-existent, lucked out.
15 replies
Open
Chumbles (1019 D)
07 Oct 18 UTC
(+2)
Smelly stand-ins/replacements
We have a situation, a 'metagaming' tactic which thoroughly distorts gunboat games' outcomes. Replacement players don't have to have the same RRas the game originally required. Thus we can get a replacement whose sole purpose is to recover their own RR by suiciding - moving their own units out of their centres in so another player can move in entirely uncontested.
55 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top