Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 2 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
notsureifwant (835 D)
16 Jan 11 UTC
need more players
a 17 player world game
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=268
0 replies
Open
Friendly Sword (846 D X)
15 Jan 11 UTC
Rock out in Modern Europe!!!! :)
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=260
0 replies
Open
principians (963 D X)
15 Jan 11 UTC
don't know what to think
Guys, maybe this is becoming pathological:
I dreamed with diplomacy!
It was one of my current games in this web. I had written a set of orders when I went to sleep, and in my dream the orders were fatal to my country. Then I awoke and saw, realeased, that in the real game things happened very different
2 replies
Open
Hellenic Riot (1267 D)
13 Jan 11 UTC
South American Supremacy
Thought I'd test out the full sized south American map, anyone up for it?


http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=242
1 reply
Open
mace (1287 D)
14 Jan 11 UTC
1 on 1
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=251#gamePanel

searchin for a challenger for a fast france vs. austria game... join now
1 reply
Open
fasces349 (1007 D)
12 Jan 11 UTC
why can't I join?
I was hoping to play a 2 player live lepanto game with a friend. I have 3 D and the point requirement is 1 point. So why can't I join?
12 replies
Open
fasces349 (1007 D)
14 Jan 11 UTC
For those who want some fun
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=246
join this 1 point 24 hour standard game.
6 replies
Open
SrgtSilver64 (971 D)
13 Jan 11 UTC
Modern Diplomacy Game
Need 5 more players for a Modern Diplomacy game. 16 point buyin and 1 day phases. http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=243
1 reply
Open
Shep315 (1435 D)
14 Jan 11 UTC
confused
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=29
im france in this game and can someone explain to me why im not in yunan, tonking was set to move to canton to break support, but it didnt work
4 replies
Open
JetJaguar (996 D)
14 Jan 11 UTC
I Demand Satisfaction
Pseudo live game gameID=245 because some needs a good ass kicking, and it just might be me.
1 reply
Open
Need a sitter
I'm going on holiday for 10 days, and I still have some unfinished games, Can someone sit for me? I'm playing FOW gunboat, Messed up Diplomacy (little negotiation, and a promising position), a pure game, and the chaos game. All of those I am in a good position, so it's bound to be fun.
5 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
11 Jan 11 UTC
Queensland floods
Some of you may have seen the terrible flooding in Australia. Well its come to my city so I've put in pause requests in all my games as power could be cut soon....
11 replies
Open
bozo (2302 D)
13 Jan 11 UTC
Lepanto
Anyone want to try a live Lepanto?
1 reply
Open
Onar (833 D)
10 Jan 11 UTC
Post your Variant Idea(s) here!
I know, you must be sick of getting all these new threads with variant ideas posted in them. So I figured we might as well make a topic for posting them.
31 replies
Open
mace (1287 D)
12 Jan 11 UTC
1 on 1
need a player who wants a 1 on 1 austra vs france.
7 replies
Open
RoxArt (1732 D)
11 Jan 11 UTC
lepanto
join! :)
2 replies
Open
drano019 (2710 D Mod)
31 Dec 10 UTC
Looking for some competition...
See inside...
54 replies
Open
Lepanto Variant
Check it out!
8 replies
Open
mace (1287 D)
11 Jan 11 UTC
4 more players needed... gameID=198
feel free to join the game "crowded wars".
map: crowded; players needed: 11; players atm: 7
pw: none; time left: 14 hours; phase: 1 day 12 hours
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=198#gamePanel
3 replies
Open
SacredDigits (978 D)
09 Jan 11 UTC
Bug in Fall of American Empire IV?
Unique to games on this site, it seems to give me an error message when I click on the button to get a larger version of the map.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 20971520 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 6720000 bytes) in /usr/www/users/vdiplo/webdiplomacy/map/drawMap.php on line 297
2 replies
Open
fasces349 (1007 D)
08 Jan 11 UTC
Bug in Karibik
I attacked an American army with the intent on preventing it to transform into a fleet. Yet it is still a fleet.
7 replies
Open
Fog of War - why are the orders visible?
After all it kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? All it does currently is remove the graphic facility.
12 replies
Open
Shep315 (1435 D)
31 Dec 10 UTC
WAR! (treaties)
This thread shall be used to post all treaties in the game War! (war declaration match)
54 replies
Open
Shep315 (1435 D)
25 Dec 10 UTC
Empanadas and war declarations
hey im hoping everybody that was in the game "dont touch my empanadas" will comment on this thread so i can get it set up with the same players that were in it before
Page 2 of 2
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Shep315 (1435 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
yeah, had to come up with that after i saw how it was going to work in the last game, wish we could have finished that one, granted i was brazil so everyone was scared of me
Shep315 (1435 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
i know its probably a bit early seeing as how we just started the first two games of this type, but im already thinking about the map for the next one, im thinking crowded, but im open to feedback
Graeme01 (1224 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
What about modern diplomacy?
Betrachter (1206 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
I just want to say that this all treaty and announcement tasks drastically incease the time effort you will spent in such a game. With 7 player it is on the edge to be too complicated. With 10 players it might be a complete mess. So I recommend maps with fewer or equal number of players rather than more. Just think about the theoretically number of all possible bilateral treaties!
However, we can try out what happens in a big game.
butterhead (1272 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
It could turn out a Disaster, but what fun would a 4 or 5 player game be? not much... I think Modern or Crowded would be amazing to try out...
SacredDigits (978 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
Since coloration doesn't matter for SC's, I assume it doesn't matter for non-SC land also? In other words, it's fine to move into a pink Argentinian unoccupied non-SC without declaring war.
gman314 (1016 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
Unless it's a DMZ.
gman314 (1016 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
Then war will be declared on you.
Shep315 (1435 D)
29 Dec 10 UTC
yeah even if it isnt they can still declare war on you, it depends on how defensive the individual player wants to be
Shep315 (1435 D)
30 Dec 10 UTC
how about playing these rules on karibik or 1880?
It may be very interesting with more players, but could cause conflict two, I am already predicting a big mess with all these treaties in War! but it may be very enjoyable to play in that chaos.
Shep315 (1435 D)
30 Dec 10 UTC
yeah, chaos would be interesting to see, but with 34 people it would be hard to keep up with what is going on, i know it works on stardard european style maps with 7 players, and it seems to work well on south american supremacy, it has so far on this site and it was working well on the other too, colonial might work, havent tried it yet
Shep315 (1435 D)
30 Dec 10 UTC
of course im toying with the idea on world map, but that might be too many people, but im thinking of trying to come up with a global map scenario, basically a team game thats a cold war gone hot scenario, warsaw pact versus nato with neutral thrown in, but i dont know how that would work
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
***RULE DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION***
Due to the current events in the game "WAR!" (gameID=43) I'd like to start the discussion about the rules again as there seem to be several interpretations.

Just to summarize: We all clearly agreed on that SC owned by a player are protected by the war declaration rule which says that a player must declare war 6 months before he may attack a Supply Center occupied by another player.
There was also only little to none discussion about that non-SC territories owned by a player are also protected by the war declaration rule.
But there is a lot of disagreement on the so called "costal waters". Are they protected by the rule or not. What are costal waters actually? And what about the unclear cases like the English Channel bordering on France and Britain.

About the last issue I propose the following:
Costal waters are NOT protected by the war declaration rule. They may be attacked and conquered by everyone without a declaration of war. But the attack on occupied costal waters can be considered as an act of war authorizing the defender to declare war immediately without the 6 month latency. This applies to EVERY territory considered costal waters including the English Channel.
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
Speaking of instant war declarations I'd like to discuss these, too. They should be only allowed to be announced directly after they had been triggered. I.e. Britain attacks Mid Atlantic Ocean which is considered costal waters of France. France must declare instant war directly afterwards. Otherwise it must be assumed that France tolerates the attack and/or occupation. This rule should apply for every case of instant war declaration for instance if they are part of treaties or announcements like "Attack region X and me and my allies will crush you faster than you can say war declaration".
Graeme01 (1224 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
I agree with Sandmann's approach.
Betrachter (1206 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
True. This is a very kind application of the "waiting rule" that protects SC. Entering costal waters allows the adjuncted country to declare instant war. The waiting rule does not apply then. But from the perspective of the adjuncted SC, the rule DOES apply. Because the attacked country has "enough" time to set up the defense of the SC. In the later case it could also be an advantege not to declare war though the owned SC are safe, thus tolerating the hostile navy in front of your living room.
Ironically, this seems having became a defense strategy in our current game making owned SC protected. E.g. it seems that France will not declare war to England because it sees his navy in a disadvantagerous position compared to the Royal Navy. (?)
However, this game - and this discussion is the living proof- is much more diplomatic and complicated and funny than other dull games.
Shep315 (1435 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
seas can be free game if majority agrees, i mainly wanted to do the war declaration rule to prevent brutal stabs that completely destroy a persons game, that and i like the rants :D
I am cool with all that, just the preconditions for war were unclear re: coastal waters prior to this clarification. Previously it was unclear if the attack on coastal waters occupied by another (eg Wales to EC with a French fleet in EC) was itself a nonverbal declaration of war. This ruling infers it is not, and it is still up to the aggrieved party to declare war. I'm fine with this, but again if we had this rule clear from the start a different set of outcomes would've occured.

I'm also assuming England's original unsuccessful of Wales to EC (which failed), based on these sets of rules, could've resulted in me declaring war right then and attacking in spring 1904. Again, this wasn't clear and I would've successfully taken the North Sea based on the plan I had in place once it was clear war had arisen.

Based on what's been discussed here and global it is appropropriate at a minimum for England to take EC back to Wales and allow sufficient time for me to rebuild a fleet in Brest etc to make the presmise of the game true to what was intended and true to this new clarification on the rules.

Plus it'd give more time for the peace conference to meet and discuss these and other high matters of state as our man servants groom our pegusi and unicorns.
Betrachter (1206 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
I agree with The Ambassador's opinion.
Since the rules have not been 100% clear (and I promise you, they will never be perfectly clear) England should withdraw from EC. France therefore can rebuild the crushed fleet. We can value this as a first success of the future peace conference.
Betrachter (1206 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
Just for my clarification. If Country A attacks, destroys or what ever country B's fleet in neutral/coastal areas, this implies that the attacked nation has the right for immediate declaration of war w/o the waiting rule applied? I stress out that B CAN declare war, not that he is forced to do so. As I said earlier on this thread, be passive and tolerate this violation might be part of a very sensibile defense strategy, protecting home SC that might be in danger. However, nobody hinders the attacker A to declare war, Then the waiting rule applies.

The attack from A can be done w/o any form of declaraton before, and the immediate declaration of war also can be executed w/o having an explicit treaty/announcement or what ever. But reasonable diplomats, and I presume that we all are reasonable diplomats, will set up a globally posted treaty in advance to inform the rest of all player about his concerns.
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
Just to prevent misunderstandings. What I posted is just a proposal how I'd like the rules to be. I'm glad that everyone so far seems to like it.
Ambassador is absolutely right saying that a different interpretation of the rules would've affected his order significantly. The same goes for my orders.
I'm also willing to revert the game and replay with the "improved" rules. Giving France the English Channel would be an advantage for France in my opinion so I'd revert to a point where EC was still DMZ. This way no side would profit from the reversion. I would, of course, let France build up the crushed fleet and get into position.
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
@Betrachter: Yes, it's meant exactly the way you described it. The defender CAN declare war and strike back in every possible way immediately. The attacker, though, must declare war and can only attack SCs and occupied land territories with the common 6 month latency.
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
Oh, the last sentence is mistakable. I mean the attack must declare war before he may attack an SC or occupied land territory.
@Sandmann - ok, I'm cool with that. A good diplomat knows when its best to compromise ;-)
<just as long as Wikileaks doesn't tell the world about it later on!>
Sandmann (969 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
LOL. Yes, I fully agree. And a good compromise is when all sides think they've gotten the largest piece of the pie. :)
Betrachter (1206 D)
06 Jan 11 UTC
Is somebody interessed about how the German Secret Service is thinking about the leadership of Russia? Or the Pope? There are rumors that German spies have installed a hidden camera into the Pope's bedroom chamber......Interessting material, indeed :-)
The Pope has no comment on the last sentence other than he dismisses it and will send one of his pegusi to fly to the ceiling (since to Pope is to short to reach) and to kick the camera and destroy it with its hooves.
Shep315 (1435 D)
07 Jan 11 UTC
which russian leadership? the czar or the president? or maybe lenins shadow government....


60 replies
kaner406 (2103 D Mod (B))
07 Jan 11 UTC
Auditore assassins - 1 more needed
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=122
0 replies
Open
Rancher (1207 D)
04 Jan 11 UTC
Karibik Cartels
Hey I'm back - let's try the Karibik cartel drug trade again

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=134
5 replies
Open
fasces349 (1007 D)
03 Jan 11 UTC
Variant Request
I would like to see a Fog of War Imperium and Fog of War Ancient Med.
19 replies
Open
kaner406 (2103 D Mod (B))
06 Jan 11 UTC
5 more needed:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=122
1 reply
Open
fasces349 (1007 D)
05 Jan 11 UTC
Fog of War glitch
In a fog of war game, I am Italy, and control Trieste. The the Eastern most province I own, however despite that, I can see an Austria army in Galicia despite being 2 provinces away.
2 replies
Open
Jonnikhan (1554 D)
03 Jan 11 UTC
For those seeking competition...
Play Conquerors! World wide conquest, if you've got what it takes.
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=51
Eight open slots remaining. Need 17. Got 9. 3 days remaining...
6 replies
Open
Page 2 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top