Don’t worry Drano, I’m an equal opportunity headhunter.... : )

I, like drano019, also find that the personal aspect of Diplomacy is one of, if not the, most important aspects of the game. As a matter of fact, I never play anonymous games.

I don't mind if the game(s) are anon or non-anon, don't care about hidden draw votes or not, would generally prefer 48 hour phases but could go with 24 hour phases for the gunboat game if that one happens.

It is interesting how divided we are when it comes to settings. The votes were split 50/50 with regards to anonymity.

Playing anonymous seemed to be a necessary requirement for Agnaar to play press. If we play anonymous, everyone seems to want to play (I also sent Bob Al Hubob a personal message; he is willing to play press). This, not because I voted Anon myself, is why I suggest to play anonymously; it would provide us with a press game for 11 players.
There were only 3 votes on scoring type: 2 for WTA and 1 for Unrated. We could play WTA, but one possible alternative I see is playing a nonanonymous, unranked game. Perhaps this would also be fine for Agnaar? What do you think of this possibility?
If we do play WTA, what do you think of a pot size of, say, 500? Just so that everyone in the future who will look up the game with the largest pot ever will find ours. :P

Anyway, noncontroversial settings seem to be
- 2-day phase lengths
- Open draw votes
As for NMR settings, how about always extend (and, let's say, 2 excused missed turns which are regained after 10 turns)?

As for the variant: I, like Agnaar, like Fantasy World Diplomacy, but we only have 11 players. :( There are 3 11-player maps:
- Crusades 1201 (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=114)
- Classic - Crowded (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=14)
- 13th Century Mongolian Empire (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=138)

If the victory conditions of Crusades were set to 20, I'd prefer it over Crowded by quite a lot. Mongolian Empire is a wildcard for me, but it looks promising.

What variants do you prefer?


Note that I haven't said anything about the gunboat game. I won't play it anyway and I have hijacked this thread enough already. :P But if someone steps up to organize it, you can be sure I will spectate it with interest. :)

100% agree with your comments on the maps, Mercy.

I"d note that Agnaar actually DIDN'T say he'd only play a press game if it's anon. He actually said the opposite. Granted, it's likely a typo on his part, but he hasn't confirmed that. So I'd be cautious about us assuming anything.

Regarding maps: Crusades 1201 is horribly horribly unbalanced. Poor Rus has only been included in draw/solo once(!) out of 15 while Ayubbid has only been eliminated twice. While I'm a huge proponent of the person being able to make drastic changes in a nation's fortunes, the setup for Rus is NOT one I'd want to play. His northern flank is basically useless given that Denmark has no reason to let his fleet grow, so he'd immediately outnumbered 2-1, with Denmark having a guaranteed build from Sweden as well. A very tough position for Rus.

Regarding the others, I'd highly prefer 13th Century Mongolian (even though it's new and untested mostly) over Crowded. I like to have some ability to negotiate over territory before going directly into war. Perhaps that's just me though.

I don't know if we've had all 11 people confirm fully yet either right? I think a couple people didn't give preferences so maybe they've lost sight of this? Shah and G-Man?

I'm good with all Mercy has proposed to date -- and thanks for doing that work Mercy. I'm open on all 3 11-player variants, but would lean towards the largely unplaytested 13th Century Mongolian, since it looks so damn interesting, or Crowded, since it's quite cutthroat. If 10 players, I would highly suggest Modern Diplomacy II, as it's one of the best and most balanced of the non-symmetrical variants out there, which would make an excellent Big Hitters match.

I forgot one detail. What name do we want our game to have?

I PMed Shah and he may be out, which would mean that we would indeed play with 10 players.

I have no problem with Modern Diplomacy II, but what about Youngstown - Redux? That looks good to me too.

What are other people's thoughts on 10-player variants?

@drano Not that it is relevant in this thread, but I agree with your notion on Rus being underpowered in Crusades 1201 (and Denmark being overpowered). I remember that during a balance discussion I had suggested to make the unit in Novgorod an army, move the supply center from Sweden to Norway, and connect Norway and Finland.

I'd play either Modern Dip II or Youngstown Redux if we end up at 10 players.

Colonial 1885 seems a tad uneven on the powers, but I'd also put that as a third or fourth map on my list.

Napoleonic, like Crowded, would be fairly low on my list simply due to the lack of neutrals and the immediate war it forces. I much prefer to let the game develop on it's own with neutrals rather than forcing immediate war.

Would play Modern Dip II or Youngstown Redux. Colonial 1885, as much as I like the map, is unbalanced. Turkey and to some extent Russia are in a very tough position.

Thanks Mercy for reaching out, had lost sight of this thread. I’d prefer press, and don’t care about anonymity. I’d prefer not to play maps with a lot of special rules, so I’d be out if we’re doing Mongolian.

depends on the map and the settings i might join or not.

We have a potential 12th player! :o A 12th player who almost exclusively plays anonymous press games, judging from his profile.

I am calling Fantasy World Diplomacy (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=44), then. No special rules, which should please the Shah, and I also know that tassa has played it before.

Do we agree? Everyone still in?

Yup

I am in!

If there is no protest, I will create the game in 12 hours from now.

(Thank you for letting me hijack the thread, Amby. :P)

Any name ideas?

Does 'Clash of Champions' sound too presumptuous?

Disco 2000+

ItsOver2000?

I'm in.

Name suggestion: "A Humble Low Stakes Match"

“Party like it’s 1999”

sorry, can t start that one : going to islands next week with high chances of unreliable internet.

I wanted to create the game, but with Agnaar gone, I can't.

It is difficult to organize a game when the number of participants fluctuates.

We are back to 11 players, but the map that is liked by most with quite some distance (Mongolian Empire) is a map Shah does not want to play.

Hence it seems we are back at 10 people, though 11 players probably will want to play a 10-player map.

Sigh.

Anyway, about 10-player maps. Modern Dip and Youngstown - Redux were equally liked. Anyone prefers one of these over the others?

Also, since Agnaar is out, we will be playing nonanonymously. Does this change anything with regards to setting preferences for other people? Do some want to play unranked now?

In 36 hours I'll probably start a Modern Dip or Youngstown - Redux game.

If we've got one too many, I'm happy to drop out. I suspect that I'm just about to dip below 2K anyway.

Hate to cause complications, but I’m just not interested in playing Youngstown Redux. I am, however, open to other 10-player variants if others aren’t as crazy about playing Modern Diplomacy II as I am. I will go non-anon if that’s what the new majority prefers.

I don't think any has had an issue with Modern Dip II yet right? So maybe we just plan on that map?

Yes, sure. It will probably be Modern Dip II, then. It's not a complication, G-Man; I was just waiting for people to state if they had a clear preference for a variant before creating the game.

Thank you Bob. Maybe your sacrifice is not needed. One never knows who will decide to drop out. :P

Preferences for WTA or Unranked now that we have a majority for nonanonymity?

wta; dont really care about anon or not, but if its anon i would still like to have a list of all people who are in.