Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
butterhead (1014 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+13)
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.
3122 replies
Open
Rhaga (1000 D)
12:01 PM UTC
Question about NMR and Civil Disorder
I don't really understand how the NMR and Civil Disorder mechanics work here on vdip. We're playing a casual unrated game with a group, but one of the players wants out for personal reasons.
5 replies
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+23)
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.
8993 replies
Open
Fake Al (1724 D)
Thu 03 Jun UTC
(+4)
Listing pronouns
One of the pitfalls of online Diplomacy I fall into is that I often don't know the genders of my fellow players and get the pronouns wrong. As far as I'm aware, the site doesn't yet have a feature for us to list the pronouns we use. Maybe we could all start listing the pronouns we use in our profile quotes to cut down on the confusion and ambiguity? I went ahead and put mine there.
118 replies
Open
NickArrow (1000 D)
Sat 04 PM UTC
Escalation Variant
I was wondering if anybody knows if it is possible to play the escalation variant on here? Ideally, Escalation can be played with less than seven players, or possibly more than seven players. But I am not seeing any sort of option to play Escalation, does anybody know if that is possible?
5 replies
Open
SimonPeterWatson (1059 D)
Tue 01 Jun UTC
Standardized Diplo-Language?
I was wondering if anyone has ever come up with a standard language of diplomacy commands so as to maintain anonymity while playing an anon game among friends. If you're playing with friends, you can tell who is who by how they write. Thanks for any comments or ideas.
14 replies
Open
kaner406 (1703 D Mod (B) (B))
08 Sep 18 UTC
(+4)
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...
862 replies
Open
AJManso4 (1729 D)
21 May 21 UTC
(+1)
Anyone play EU4?
Wondering if some people would like to do some multiplayer games sometime of EU4 or other paradox games in a discord server im in
12 replies
Open
Mikey99 (2106 D)
22 May 21 UTC
Random Idea for variant
I guess this would be tricky to code, but how is this idea for vDip?

During a build phase and where a power has available build capacity, any unit sitting in a supply centre may be boosted by a power of 1, ie, doubled. This unit will require twice the normal ongoing supply maintenance.
13 replies
Open
DaveSpermbank (1036 D)
23 May 21 UTC
Replacement player
Life has gotten busy and I do not have the time to play anymore. Can I have a country switch replacement for Tlemcen in gameID=47238?
2 replies
Open
butterhead (1014 D)
09 Apr 21 UTC
Divided States Team Game
Hey guys! Back in the day, we used to do a lot of team games on here(chaos map, classic, etc). Im curious if people would be interested in doing a team game of the divided states map... Yes, I know, 50 people is a LOT to get for a team game. Here is how it would work.
Page 6 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Halt (2123 D)
04 May 21 UTC
Here are the design principles I'm proposing
1) If it belongs to the 5CP or 4CP condensed tier, it cannot have a directly neighboring ally. This makes these powers way too strong with a front they are sure is secure.

2) No more than 1 of the above tier can belong to each team.

3) For lesser powers, each should at least start near 1 ally. It is, after all, a team game.

4) Given central powers are far weaker than border powers (given border powers have 1 front secured, the edge of the map!) central powers will be given the 4CPs pread out powers.

With these in mind, here's one possible team composition:
1: Ottoman--Teutonic Order-Livonian Order-Milan
2: England-Tlemcen-Tunis-Burgundy
3: Sweden-Bohemia-Bavaria-Naples
4: Mamluk-Savoy-Brandenburg-Saxony
5: Castille-Austria-Switzerland
6: Denmark-Lithuania-Portugal-Morocco
7: France-Venice-Novogord-Muscovy
8: Hungary-Aragon-Norway-Scotland
9: Poland-Papacy-QQ-Golden Horde

I'm not sure if this is quite balanced. Some of the rules could not be implemented once the number of permutations narrows down
mouse (2019 D)
04 May 21 UTC
Not having an adjacent team members to be able to actually coordinate with is what spoiled the attempt we did have, since it rendered the 'team' aspect of very limited utility.

As such, principle 1) of the above is pretty much a non-starter.
Deezee (1626 D)
04 May 21 UTC
@Halt @ Butterhead while past ER games are pretty limited sample size, worth pointing out that there's only been 3 solo victories in total and Denmark has won 2 of them, while North African countries have historically done pretty well during the draws, so those countries might be a bit stronger than you would assume just looking at CPs.

Might be good to get input on the teams from @Drano, since he's played this map a fair bit. Probably the biggest challenge will be getting teams that are closer enough together to actually coordinate but not so close that a team will be able to get a stalemate position very quickly.
AJManso4 (1729 D)
04 May 21 UTC
(+3)
I have/am in 14 Europa Renovatio games and am in queue for another 2.

In my experience, it could be balanced to have some historicalish looking teams for the sake of balance - counteracted by other "historical" teams, ultimately being anonymous. In saying this, "historical" teams would be 2 teamates being neighbors, with their other 2 teamates also being neighbors (but located elsewhere on map)

The idea would be 9 teams (each separated in 2 "pairs"), with 18 pairs needed. The 18 pairs would have to be listed and then scrambled, (with some balanced alterations by the host) leading to a combined team of four.

For example, Castille and Aragon being one pair, end up being scrambled with Poland and Lithuania. The full on team is unknown, but the team would consist of those 4 countries (with everyone knowing that Castille and Aragon are 2/4 of their team, and likewise with Poland and Lithuania)

Pair ideas I have that would be balanced (and some of them pretty historical :D) and make for a fun game

-Scotland/England
-Denmark/Norway
-Sweden/Livonian Order
-France/Burgundy
-Brandenburg/Teutonic Order
-Milan/Savoy
-Switzerland/Bavaria
-Austria/Hungary
-Bohemia/Saxony
-Poland/Lithuania
-Castile/Portugal
-Aragon/Naples
-Morocco/Tlemcen
-Tunis/Mamluks
-Pope/Venice
-Genoa/Great Horde
-Ottomans/QQ
-Novgorod/Muscovy

^^ Leaves no definite strong nation (pair). A further explanation can be done to show why exactly it is balanced from my experience if need be, but ideally I don't want to type it all out :p
AJManso4 (1729 D)
04 May 21 UTC
Have completed 13, am currently in 1 ER game. IN queue for another 2*****
erikip107 (2149 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I would argue that putting any of Mamluks, Ottomans, and QQ on the same team will spell near-certain death for the other one. And Pairing Genoa with GH would highly favor a land-based genoa, which could be interesting but also means genoa basically starts with 1 maybe 2 centers if you count the one in the Aegean.

Also, I don't think putting any two African nations together is necessarily great, but if teams are known I suppose it could be okay (I realize my two suggestions means Mamluks doesn't get a pair...)

I've lost count of how many ER games I've been in. It's been a bunch. Interestingly, I have never played a country that is landlocked to start, and never played an African power.
mouse (2019 D)
05 May 21 UTC
Factoring in the above, teams of Mamluks/Morocco (and thus Tlemcen/Tunis), Ottomans/Genoa (or Ottomans/Venice) and thus QQ/GH could be interesting?

AJManso4's idea in general is pretty solid, too.
Poolside (2119 D)
05 May 21 UTC
AJManso, you and I have squared off against each other several times, and have never been allies. While we haven’t been in agreement diplomatically, you’re a strong, experienced player. I very much like and agree with what you say here: it comes from both creative thinking and hard-earned ER wisdom.

Except re: Africa, where I agree with erikip. Like him, I’ve never played an ER game with a power who is landlocked at start (though I’ve seen players like Drano absolutely whip ass from a starting position I would not relish, lol).

Unlike erikip, I have played several African or near-African countries (like Portugal, who in all games I’ve played in has absolutely been solidly in the “African region” when it comes to diplomacy and war — especially those of the successful kind).

AJ, I find your “pairs of pairs” idea brilliant. Maybe my reaction stems (just a bit) from out previous ER team game, where my country (Morocco) was isolated far from all my teammates. And for which I enjoyed the (very) humbling privilege of being the first player to be eliminated. It’s all my fault, and I’m blaming no one but myself. But it did raise the question: what does it mean to be on a team?

I like pairs, and it would make (I think) for better “team” play (because are you really even on a team when your teammates’ ability to help you is limited solely to diplomacy?) I don’t make the rules, and am not complaining. I’m sharing thoughts, and pointing out that when you talk about “teams”, well... that can mean different things to different people. To me it means having someone you can count on and that that can help you directly — in the military sense of help. Pairs does that.

Africa, however (to Erikip’s point) is a special case. My advice is be careful there, because whoever controls Africa will likely have a significant advantage over all the others.

So then the question is: what to do?

Perhaps splitting QQ, Mamluks and Ottomans among separate teams? iMO having a hotly contested Africa is a good thing all players: one reason African powers have done so well is that they have tended to resolve their theater faster than the other areas, giving them a critical early jump. Plus, they can build many fleets, and they have means to reasonably safeguard their centers from invasion. In my experience, no other region shares all 3 of those characteristics to the same degree.

So what would I recommend? That any 4-player team with an African pair be teamed with a landlocked pair on the opposite end (west or east) of the map. So that the two pairs on the team cannot coordinate with each other early on. Because there will be some teams with no African pair, and they should have a the chance to catch up.

Those are my thoughts. I’ll go with whatever the powers that be decide. You are all smart and strong players. It’ll be fun whatever we decide. But I do sense the search for optimum balance. And I applaud and support the effort.

Cheers

butterhead (1014 D)
05 May 21 UTC
Ok guys, so I have never played a ER game from start to finish. so if any of these teams are completely broken, please let me know so I can change them:

My ideas-
teams of 3:
1. Novgorod, Sweden, Norway
2. Scotland, England, Denmark
3. Brandenburg, Poland, Saxony
4. Portugal, Castille, Tunis
5. Papacy, Naples, Venice
6. Morocco, Tlemclem, Aragon
7. QQ, Mamlucks, Ottomans
8. Savoy, France, Burgundy
9. Muscovy, Great Horde, Hungary
10. Livonian Order, Lithuania, Teutonic Order
11. Switzerland, Milan, Genoa
12. Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria.



OR, teams of 4:

1. England, Scotland, Bohemia, Bavaria
2. Castille, Portugal, Poland, Teutonic Order
3. Morocco, Tlemclem, Austria, Venice
4. Aragon, Tunis, Saxony, Brandenburg
5. Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Ottomans
6. France, Burgundy, Novgorod, Muscovy
7. Savoy, Switzerland, Sweden, Livonian order
8. Milan, Genoa, Mamlucks, QQ
9. Papacy, Naples, Lithuania, Great Horde
AJManso4 (1729 D)
05 May 21 UTC
Re all:Completely agreed regarding mouse’s mamluk team change and the regard for africa’s other pair of team being landlocked. Mamluks was a tricky case and it’s good to discuss, i agree that tunis/tlemcen, mamluks/morocco, QQ/GH could be better. But the question remains for the ottomans, genoa, venice, and the pope. Some sort of mix of venice or genoa going to one or the other
AJManso4 (1729 D)
05 May 21 UTC
^^ should be able to fix the previous problem at hand

CYFI (1884 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I personally like the teams of three option
drano019 (2561 D Mod)
05 May 21 UTC
The teams of 3 option has a major flaw in Team #7. Mamluks, QQ, Ottomans, is an exceedingly dangerous team.

1) It removes a major weakness of Ottomans to have their eastern and southern borders so much safer than normal.
2) There are absolutely 0 threats to either Mamluks or QQ off the bat. Mamluks easily controls CGH right away with easy builds around them. Tunis has no ability to pressure Mamluks realistically, as they only have 1 unit anywhere near striking range, and also a lot more neighbors near home. And Venice is isolated in Crete and facing Ottomans/Mamluks in the Mediterranean.
3) QQ has only 1 option in this team setup - move north. They literally are boxed out of anything else. This means Team 7 and Team 9 (Muscovy, Hungary, GH) are almost guaranteed to fight right off the bat, or QQ will end up sitting on their hands realistically. Not to mention QQ would be in a fantastic position given that they could devote every unit north with zero risk to the rest of their territory.

Simply put, that corner of the map is far too "safe" to put those 3 on a team. This could probably be true for many teams. Put 3 neighbors together, and a lot of them can form regions that are near blockades pretty quickly. The middle groups would be in the worst postions, while edge groups benefited from safety of the board edge.


I too am a fan of the "pair of pairs" idea. And with Poolside's focus on Africa as well. The long board edge in Africa means once someone consolidates, they're quite safe and can focus on external expansion instead of having to worry about their defenses as much like a power in the middle of the map would have to. Don't have the answer to what those teams mean at this time, but I think AJ and Poolside have the right idea.
mouse (2019 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I honestly don't think Africa is as strong a position as is being generally assumed. If it's split 2-2, especially if that split is outside vs middle rather than east v west, then it takes long enough to properly unify that the requirements for an actually strong, secure Africa (namely, a sea border in the northern Med rather than on their own coastline) is significantly less feasible. The desert zones are amazing for flanking, as is CGH, and the coastline is simply too long to hold against a sustained attack.

A more general rule of "pairs of pairs can't be adjacent" with more expansive 'adjacency' definitions for coastal nations (eg. Mediterranean coastal pairs are all 'adjacent' for pair exclusion purposes; ditto 'Atlantic', 'North Sea' and 'Baltic' coastal pairs) would be sufficient balance things out, imo.

butterhead's 3-groups is mostly fine, if that's the preferred team sizing, but I definitely agree with drano regarding Ottos, QQ and Mamluks being a tad too strong together. Also, the inclusion of Tunis with Castille/Portugal seems odd - that's the only grouping where one partner is completely non-adjacent by any reasonable measure. Maybe Castille/Portugal/Morocco?
erikip107 (2149 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I think I like the pairs-of pairs idea better as well.

To "fix" the African powers though, instead of isolating them completely, perhaps they could have a partner across the Med north-to south? It would disrupt AJ's neat other pairs, but perhaps something like

Mamluks/Venice
Tunis/Naples
Tlemcen/Papacy
Morocco/Aragon

That way Africa should still be hotly contested, but wouldn't resolve so quickly, but also the African powers won't be super isolated from their teammates.
Deezee (1626 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I think overall I like erikip's idea and it can probably applied more generally - edge powers that otherwise would have too secure of a position can be appleid to powers on the interior rather than their most direct neighbors.

On specific teams, Mamluks/Venice and Morocco/Aragon teams put a lot of pressure on the Ottomans and Castille, respectively. The Ottomans tend to be fairly strong in general and probably will be fine as long as they have another nearby ally - perhaps Hungary or even Genoa (QQ or Golden Horde might be overcorrecting). Castille can be quite naturally paired with Portugal I suppose.
i love the pairs of pairs idea, and I really like butterhead's ideas in general. Maybe the pairs could be a bit like this:

Team A-Team B-Team A-B-A-B-A-B
stretching across the map. For example:

Scotland(A)-England(B)-Denmark(A)-Bavaria(B)-Hungary(A) are something along those lines. That way each team can help each other, but there is not too much easy defence.

Additionally, the Africa-Asia countries can be split up considering diagonals and snakes end in their corners
AJManso4 (1729 D)
05 May 21 UTC
I agree with erikip on his idea regarding how to "fix" it -

-I like Tunis and Naples the most.
And Tlemcen/Papacy
Morocco/Aragon look fine

Mamluks Venice is still kind of weird, but QQ/Ottomans/Mamluks are in weird positions, and we still are missing out on Genoa

So I believe it would definitely end up with Ottomans and Mamluks separate teams, with each getting either Genoa or Venice. making the Aegean quite the battle zone. And setting up Ottomans and Mamluks to almost guaranteed fight which should be the natural goal anyways
erikip107 (2149 D)
06 May 21 UTC
Could do Ottomans/Genoa, QQ/GH, Mamluks/Venice. Then it becomes a triangle between the 3.
BigOtto (971 D)
06 May 21 UTC
I'm sorry friends, got caught up with stuff in real life. I'll have to withdraw from the list of players from both ER and DS.
AJManso4 (1729 D)
06 May 21 UTC
agreed @ erikip


Also soooo whats the final consensus? It appears people spoke up for the pair of pairs idea, and the set up of all the pairs. We just need to finalize it and rules
AJManso4 (1729 D)
06 May 21 UTC
Also we ideally need a host to be the game moderator and not a player (also the one that scrambles the pairs)
erikip107 (2149 D)
06 May 21 UTC
Could you post the pairs of pairs again? With the modifications.

I think we settled on that one team needs 60% of the centers, if I'm not mistaken.
lfischl (767 D)
07 May 21 UTC
Maybe drano would do it
AJManso4 (1729 D)
07 May 21 UTC

-Scotland/England
-Denmark/Norway
-Sweden/Livonian Order
-France/Burgundy
-Brandenburg/Teutonic Order
-Milan/Savoy
-Switzerland/Bavaria
-Austria/Hungary
-Bohemia/Saxony
-Poland/Lithuania
-Castile/Portugal
-Pope/Tlemcen
-Tunis/Naples
-Morocco/Aragon
-Ottomans/Genoa
-GH/QQ
-Mamluks/Venice
-Novgorod/Muscovy
drano019 (2561 D Mod)
07 May 21 UTC
Can we not put Scotland/England together this time? Securing the British Isles guaranteed (and basically giving Norway no realistic way to hold the islands nearby) just doesn't seem right, even with known teams.
England/Norway, Scotland/Denmark perhaps?
lfischl (767 D)
07 May 21 UTC
France Burgundy is overpowered
AJManso4 (1729 D)
09 May 21 UTC
(+1)
well, England/Scotland and France/Burgundy were meant to be natural counters to each other
AJManso4 (1729 D)
09 May 21 UTC
France/Burgundy is surrounded by several german teams, Aragon, Castille, England, Savoy, and the Pope

Page 6 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

244 replies
Mikey99 (2106 D)
13 May 21 UTC
VP
Kinda curious on VP... I understand that the gains are lesser as one gets higher, but how does one player (for example) get to over 2000 with under 12 total games and only 1 win? I know its not that consequential in the grand scheme of things. but as I get to a moderately respectable total, the vp gains from a win or draw seem trivial and disproportionate to lost vp when losing. How does VP calculations actually work?
6 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
18 May 21 UTC
A Modern Europe Game --> Need players! :D
The massive map of europe with 20 countries. only 7/20 filled up

https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=48301
1 reply
Open
umbletheheep (1023 D)
18 May 21 UTC
Diplomacy Board Game Giveaway
The Briefing is giving away a free Diplomacy board game. Here's how to win it: https://www.diplomacybriefing.com/giveaway
0 replies
Open
pcrowther (1313 D)
15 May 21 UTC
Trying to post in mod forum
I’m trying to post in the mod forum but it doesn’t look like it’s saving/posting the thread. Am I doing something wrong?
2 replies
Open
David Hood (976 D)
14 May 21 UTC
May 2021 Deadline News is Out!
Enjoy the Dixiecon news, the panel discussion with Jordan Connors (Conq), Katie Gray and Jason Mastbaum, and headlines from around the world of Diplomacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUQ19Shp0I

David Hood
0 replies
Open
Giving SCs up in order to prevent a solo win.
What’s the opinion of everyone when it comes to giving up ones SCs to a non-leader in order to help prevent a solo win? Good strategy or cheating?
19 replies
Open
BigOtto (971 D)
06 May 21 UTC
Sitter Needed
Unexpected stuff happened IRL. Can anyone please sit for me in two of my games?
1 reply
Open
leelee.lewie (1073 D)
02 May 21 UTC
Dropping out due to life getting too busy/complicated
Hi all, I am not sure how but I have seen it before. How do I drop out of all my games if I just do not have the time for it anymore? I would hate to ruin the ongoing games my fellow players are in and would like to have a way to drop out without a penalty. Would be greatly appreciated!! :)
7 replies
Open
Caustic (1114 D)
27 Apr 21 UTC
Cant find a forum post
I can't find the variant development post in forum. Iv looked at every page twice. Idk what my deal is. Can someone past the URL to it or tell me what page its on? Please and thank you
4 replies
Open
butterhead (1014 D)
27 Apr 21 UTC
(+9)
Appreciation
Thank you mods for just being super awesome and taking great care of this site. We appreciate everything you do, and think you guys are all around awesome.

Thank you, that is all
8 replies
Open
Caustic (1114 D)
27 Apr 21 UTC
Cant find a forum post
I can't find the variant development post in forum. Iv looked at every page twice. Idk what my deal is. Can someone past the URL to it or tell me what page its on? Please and thank you

On a side note. A search bar to search threw forum would be nice to have
3 replies
Open
Tabrith (948 D X)
27 Apr 21 UTC
Suppressive Mods
Cant even air grievances without getting shut down. These mods are unbelievable snow flakes unable to handle even the smallest issue. Pathetic.
5 replies
Open
Tabrith (948 D X)
27 Apr 21 UTC
Worthless Mods
Mod Team are a bunch of useless, lying, sub-humans, if you have an issue then just give up and forget about having it be dealt with properly.
4 replies
Open
Chaqa (1586 D)
23 Apr 21 UTC
Dark Mode???
y no dark mode
8 replies
Open
Question on retreats
Hello all, I haven't found a satisfying answer on it on this page. So to clarify it ones and for all: If two units bounce into one territory, does this prevent a third unit to retreat into it in the upcoming retreat phase?

Thanks for the answer! I hope this thread helps others too.
6 replies
Open
Interactive map bug
is it just me or does t.he interactive map only work on mobile devices now? I've tried to on my desktop, laptop and phone and it only seems to work on the phone.
Thanks
8 replies
Open
David Hood (976 D)
23 Apr 21 UTC
(+2)
April 2021 Deadline News is out, from the Diplomacy Broadcast Network
This month's edition includes interviews, a panel discussion on ethics in Diplomacy, and headlines from around the world of Diplomacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv6eYt-bMhI
2 replies
Open
ubercacher16 (1674 D)
21 Apr 21 UTC
New Tournament?
Message below:
11 replies
Open
JECE (1472 D)
15 Apr 21 UTC
Is the ModForum still being used? I'm in no hurry, but I posted this over two weeks ago:
Subject: Can't create new game with custom phase length

I'm trying to create a game with 42-hour phases, but keep getting this error: "The phase value is too large or small; it must be between 5 minutes and 10 days."
I was able to do this a few years ago without any problem: gameID=32997
3 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top