Would anyone like to play Diplomacy?

[dilettante]

I'm visiting my in-laws for Christmas and I just discovered a very old version of the game Diplomacy in their closet. I suspect there is absolutely no chance of our playing this while I'm here (or ever, I'm actually quite shocked that they own such a game!). However, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to try a play-by-email/post game with people at DWF.

If you're unfamiliar with Diplomacy, here's a blurb from the cover of the 1976 rule book:

"Diplomacy" is a game of skill and cunning negotiations. Chance plays no part.

In "Diplomacy", each player guides the destinies of one European power through the intricacies of international politics. By negotiating alliances with other players and careful planning, each player seeks control of Europe. "Diplomacy" tests your ability not only to plan a campaign, but also to outwit your fellow players in diplomatic negotiations.

"Diplomacy" is a realistic game of strategy without dice, and nothing left to luck alone. "Diplomacy" pits man against man in an exciting battle of wits. Up to seven can play.You can read the entire rules online here: http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf

We might try for 1 turn a week (maybe upping it to 2 if things move quickly enough). The gamemaster can post all the orders, the resulting moves, and an updated image of the board for each turn.

If you're interested, say so; you'll need to be able to play a turn every week and negotiate with other players via email/PM during the week. If we can get enough people on board, we can work out the details and start things off early in January.

[Greendruid]

A neighbour/colleague of mine has been itching to get a game of this going but can't seem to negotiate the time of six other people to coincide with his own schedule. I took this as a forfeit actually :lol:. I've never played but the concept sounds entirely too interesting for me to pass on the opportunity. I'm in if you manage to get the seven. Otherwise, I've heard it's quite pointless to play with fewer. But perhaps others know better.

[Michael]

Sounds cool - I'm in. I've never played the game much, but I know of the game.

And we can use the forum to host it. I can set up a forum that others can see, but only 'players' can post in - or whatever will work best.

[Dominick]

And we can use the forum to host it. I can set up a forum that others can see, but only 'players' can post in - or whatever will work best.
Or you could use this: :angel:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/

Edit : still working on that though. I know neither the game nor the software.

[Sucre]

I'll give a try ... if you don't HATE me because I am unsure not to be unriable with the schedule that I have.

[Michael]

Or you could use this: :angel:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/

Edit : still working on that though. I know neither the game nor the software.
Interesting! That looks like it might be useful. :)

I'll register there and poke around a bit...

I'll also be reading up on the game over the next couple of days - that should give me a better idea of what kind of software support we could use.

[Michael]

I'll give a try ... if you don't HATE me because I am unsure not to be unriable with the schedule that I have.
If I recall the game correctly, your absences would likely be entirely acceptable given that they are likely to be profitable for all the other players. :D

Perhaps you could 'team up' with another member who might play for you if/when you are unavailable?

[dilettante]

Sounds like we're up to at least 4 (5 if Dominick is playing)! Seven would be optimal, but I'd be willing to give it a shot with 5 or 6 if need be.

The phpDiplomacy looks interesting, though I have no idea how it works. I'm sure we could just use a forum thread if we need to.

[Dominick]

Interesting! That looks like it might be useful. :)

I'll register there and poke around a bit...

I'll also be reading up on the game over the next couple of days - that should give me a better idea of what kind of software support we could use.
Registration isn't working yet. Except of course we're both registered :lol: See thread there.

Sounds like we're up to at least 4 (5 if Dominick is playing)! Seven would be optimal, but I'd be willing to give it a shot with 5 or 6 if need be.

The phpDiplomacy looks interesting, though I have no idea how it works. I'm sure we could just use a forum thread if we need to.
Check http://www.phpdiplomacy.net . If you're familiar with the game it should be obvious I hope/think. I've never seen it or even heard of it so I don't know if the software is the same as the board game.

Is this anything like Age of Empires III ? Got that too from the Holy Man and I've just been kicking Napoleon's ass :cool: Not before he gave me a piece of that earlier though :o

[dilettante]

Check http://www.phpdiplomacy.net . If you're familiar with the game it should be obvious I hope/think. I've never seen it or even heard of it so I don't know if the software is the same as the board game.

The rules they lay out there are extremely simple compared to those in the board game manual, though perhaps that's because there's a program keeping track of all the more complex stuff behind the scenes.


Is this anything like Age of Empires III ? Got that too from the Holy Man and I've just been kicking Napoleon's ass :cool: Not before he gave me a piece of that earlier though :o

AoE the computer game? Not really. It's closer to Risk or Axis & Allies. The two major features that distinguish it from those are (1) everyone moves at the same time; each player writes and submits orders for each of their fleets/armies and those orders are executed/processed simultaneously according to the (occasionally elaborate) rules, and (2) there is no randomness (except for assigning countries in the beginning), no dice or cards or any of that; your success depends entirely on your strategy and ability to convince other players to do what you want them to.

[Michael]

The rules they lay out there are extremely simple compared to those in the board game manual, though perhaps that's because there's a program keeping track of all the more complex stuff behind the scenes.
Yes, it looks like the software will take care of all the move adjudications, which sounds like a cool feature.

I just read up on the game yesterday. :)

Malvolio might be an other potential player...

[Dominick]

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=2&join=on&gamepass=098f6bcd4621d373cade4e832627b4f6

is a Test game. (with password 'test')
Mostly to test the software, but feel free to do whatever you want with it. Just let me know any and all quirks.
Don't share the link outside of DWF. It's private.

[Michael]

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=2&join=on&gamepass=098f6bcd4621d373cade4e832627b4f6

is a Test game. (with password 'test')
Mostly to test the software, but feel free to do whatever you want with it. Just let me know any and all quirks.
Don't share the link outside of DWF. It's private.

Game is waiting for 7 players before starting... can't do anything with the game. We need to get a 'test' game going just to see the thing function. Perhaps we should register double-accounts to get the test going?

Heck, I'm thinking of creating Michael#2 through Michael#7 and play one game myself - I've read up the rules and a game commentary article, but I want to see the 'process' of the game-flow.

Dominick, can I setup multiple names for this kind of test?

[Dominick]

Game is waiting for 7 players before starting... can't do anything with the game. We need to get a 'test' game going just to see the thing function. Perhaps we should register double-accounts to get the test going?

Heck, I'm thinking of creating Michael#2 through Michael#7 and play one game myself - I've read up the rules and a game commentary article, but I want to see the 'process' of the game-flow.

Dominick, can I setup multiple names for this kind of test?
Sure, do whatever you want. I'm looking at the php side (well, not recently). There's an issue with PHP safe mode incompatibility that may be insoluble (at least not without jeopardizing the forum security which is a big no-no I assume).

[Michael]

Sure, do whatever you want. I'm looking at the php side (well, not recently).
Okie dokie. I'll set up a game with my playing all 7 positions just to see how the game-software processes things. This is important for setting up our game - knowing who has to do what in what sequence of turns and time-frames.

There's an issue with PHP safe mode incompatibility that may be insoluble (at least not without jeopardizing the forum security which is a big no-no I assume).
Correct. I'd not be too worried about security for the diplomacy game. It would be nice, but not necessary. Forum security is far more important since it is public and address is published.

The diplomacy game sitting on our server is just there for us.

[dilettante]

If giving DWF it's very own Diplomacy system is going to cause security problems, we could just set up a game at http://www.phpdiplomacy.net. I've got a couple games started there to try it out.

[dilettante]

Well, the game set up on the forum doesn't seem to be working as of yet. If we want to try one on the phpDiplomacy.net site, I've created one HERE (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/board.php?gameID=7836&join=on&gamepass=78f227ba679339a28d52b894333710af). The game name is "DWF-game" and the password is "DWF". It's set to allow up to 48 hours between phases.

[Dominick]

Well, the game set up on the forum doesn't seem to be working as of yet.
What exactly isn't working?


If we want to try one on the phpDiplomacy.net site, I've created one HERE (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/board.php?gameID=7836&join=on&gamepass=78f227ba679339a28d52b894333710af). The game name is "DWF-game" and the password is "DWF". It's set to allow up to 48 hours between phases.
The link points to the DWF-phpDiplomacy location :ummm:

[Michael]

Well, the game set up on the forum doesn't seem to be working as of yet. If we want to try one on the phpDiplomacy.net site, I've created one HERE (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/board.php?gameID=7836&join=on&gamepass=78f227ba679339a28d52b894333710af). The game name is "DWF-game" and the password is "DWF". It's set to allow up to 48 hours between phases.
I've registered there as "DWFMichael" - can't find that game anywhere... :ummm:

What exactly isn't working?
The game. Seems like a Java issue maybe. We have seven players for one game and it just sits there waiting to start.

And if I try to open the initial game there (7 Gamemasters) that is 'going' I get an error.

[dilettante]

The link points to the DWF-phpDiplomacy location :ummm:

I've registered there as "DWFMichael" - can't find that game anywhere... :ummm:

Sorry. I had the wrong thing copies to the clipboard and was too lazy to test it myself. This one should work: DWF-game (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=7836&join=on&gamepass=78f227ba679339a28d52b894333710af)

[Michael]

Sorry. I had the wrong thing copies to the clipboard and was too lazy to test it myself. This one should work: DWF-game (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=7836&join=on&gamepass=78f227ba679339a28d52b894333710af)
Got it.

35 hours...

[dilettante]

Got it.

35 hours...

You can try out some faster games there if you want to get a feel for how it works. I discovered over the weekend that you can finish a game in a single day as long as everyone stays online and is willing to devote several hours to it. It was handy for seeing how the game plays (and for learning to be gracious in defeat :) ), but I think I'll prefer having the moves spaced out by a day or two.

[Michael]

You can try out some faster games there if you want to get a feel for how it works. I discovered over the weekend that you can finish a game in a single day as long as everyone stays online and is willing to devote several hours to it. It was handy for seeing how the game plays (and for learning to be gracious in defeat :) ), but I think I'll prefer having the moves spaced out by a day or two.
Yes, I understand all that. I'm patient and will wait for this game. I just want to see the game actually operate.

If no one else joins, you and I can play that test game.

[Dominick]

I signed up as DWF_DD. I still don't understand a thing about the game so you'll be able to use me as punching ball. :lol:

The system on this server is still :wip: I HATE managed servers

[Michael]

I signed up as DWF_DD. I still don't understand a thing about the game so you'll be able to use me as punching ball. :lol:
Did you not read either of the links supplied in the OP? I found the information there to be quite sufficient.

The system on this server is still :wip: I HATE managed servers
Bitch, bitch, bitch! :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, our server contract is up in two weeks. If you want to ditch this server for another, speak up soon! ;)

[Dominick]

Did you not read either of the links supplied in the OP? I found the information there to be quite sufficient.
Sure, but I'm an oaf with rulebooks. Only playing it will do the trick.


Bitch, bitch, bitch! :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, our server contract is up in two weeks. If you want to ditch this server for another, speak up soon! ;)
Nah, Starting from scratch once already caused enough harm as it is.

[dilettante]

With Korimyr and greendruid we're up to 5, which I think is the minimum number for a decent game. If we can get 2 more in the next 13 hours we'll have a full set to try this out with. :)

[Michael]

With Korimyr and greendruid we're up to 5, which I think is the minimum number for a decent game. If we can get 2 more in the next 13 hours we'll have a full set to try this out with. :)
Sounds good! :)

Sucre did mention an interest too...

[dilettante]

Sounds good! :)

Sucre did mention an interest too...

Yes, I PM'd Sucre (and Drgoodtrips, just in case) to see if they were interested.

[Michael]

I thought Malvolio might have been interested...

But either way, the test game starts at around 8pm tonight (EST) as far as I can tell...

[Michael]

Well, game on?

How does it start?

[dilettante]

Well, game on?

How does it start?

Unfortunately it seems it doesn't at the moment. I was just reading their forum and it seems their system is experiencing technical difficulties. Rather poor timing, really.
Hopefully they'll fix it soon and we can get too it. I'll keep an eye on it and post something when the game starts.

[Michael]

Unfortunately it seems it doesn't at the moment. I was just reading their forum and it seems their system is experiencing technical difficulties. Rather poor timing, really.
Hopefully they'll fix it soon and we can get too it. I'll keep an eye on it and post something when the game starts.
Yes, I just read the thread about it in the phpDiplomacy forum.

Alas.

I was looking forward seeing how the countries are assigned at the beginning (random I suppose) - and which one I get.

I guess game will be postponed until tomorrow (at least). :(

[Dominick]

Could Michael or dilettante test the local game again ? I think it should work.

If it doesn't could you please copy/paste the error message. "There's an error" isn't really helpful ;)

[dilettante]

Could Michael or dilettante test the local game again ? I think it should work.

If it doesn't could you please copy/paste the error message. "There's an error" isn't really helpful ;)

Looking better.

The issue before was that the game didn't advance when it should have. Specifically, when the 7th player joined Michael's "2nd Test Game" it should have set some flag telling the system to advance the game forward (assigning countries and such), but instead it just sat there as if it were still waiting for more players.

Now it looks like its moved on to the first turn, which is good. If Michael (and his five alter-egos) can sign in and finalize their orders, we can see if it advances on to the next turn.

[Michael]

Looking better.

The issue before was that the game didn't advance when it should have. Specifically, when the 7th player joined Michael's "2nd Test Game" it should have set some flag telling the system to advance the game forward (assigning countries and such), but instead it just sat there as if it were still waiting for more players.

Now it looks like its moved on to the first turn, which is good. If Michael (and his five alter-egos) can sign in and finalize their orders, we can see if it advances on to the next turn.
Looks like it is working. It shows me that Dilettante has made his first move.

I'll process orders for all 6 of my Michaels over the next few hours. :D

Nothing elaborate. I'm not going to try to actually plan anything, just execute orders.

Dilettante: did the software just assign countries randomly to the various players?

[Dominick]

The issue before was that the game didn't advance when it should have.
Yeah, there was a script that had to be placed in crontab (scheduler). Not knowing the game I had no idea I had to look for that.


Dilettante: did the software just assign countries randomly to the various players?
According to the description that is indeed an (and the only) element of chance.

[Michael]

Yeah, there was a script that had to be placed in crontab (scheduler). Not knowing the game I had no idea I had to look for that.


According to the description that is indeed an (and the only) element of chance.
All six Michael's have issued orders to their respective empires (everyone except Russia). Everything looks like it is functioning.

I have not agreed to any alliances between any of my Michaels. :D

[Dominick]

One should keep something in mind here:
If one checks 'Remember me' in phpDiplomacy and one logs out expressly from this forum, phpDiplomacy will not remember you. That's because the express log out of vBulletin clears all domain related cookies.
Guess who just had this happening and doesn't remember his 4-days-ago-created password ? :rolleyes::lol:

[dilettante]

Hmmm. If the last Michael finalized orders more than an hour ago, things should have moved along to the next phase well before now.

Is the DWF game connected-to/using resources from the phpDiplomacy site? Or is it possible for this game to work even if their system is still messed up?

[Dominick]

Hmmm. If the last Michael finalized orders more than an hour ago, things should have moved along to the next phase well before now.
The game says 'End of phase: 10 hours'. :shrug: I'm assuming it won't take the next step until then. I'm not sure though.

Edit : scrap that.
The Faq says "Once everyone has finalized their orders the game moves forward to the next turn immidiately; so a game can go as fast as the people playing it want it to go."
So there might be a problem unless there's some player's input required.


Is the DWF game connected-to/using resources from the phpDiplomacy site? Or is it possible for this game to work even if their system is still messed up?
I don't think it needs that site. The script runs every five minute's and doesn't report any errors.

[Michael]

One should keep something in mind here:
If one checks 'Remember me' in phpDiplomacy and one logs out expressly from this forum, phpDiplomacy will not remember you. That's because the express log out of vBulletin clears all domain related cookies.
Guess who just had this happening and doesn't remember his 4-days-ago-created password ? :rolleyes::lol:
I have 6 freakin' logins over there and haven't had a problem... :lol:

Hmmm. If the last Michael finalized orders more than an hour ago, things should have moved along to the next phase well before now.
Yes, I gave orders for all six.

Is the DWF game connected-to/using resources from the phpDiplomacy site? Or is it possible for this game to work even if their system is still messed up?
Shouldn't have to, but I guess we ought to wait for Dominick to reply to that.

[Dominick]

Yes, I gave orders for all six.
You don't have to click somewhere for the 'Order resolution phase' ? I can't see that yet as I'm in no playable games.

[Michael]

You don't have to click somewhere for the 'Order resolution phase' ? I can't see that yet as I'm in no playable games.
From the look of things the game is now waiting 9 hours for the completion of this phase.

[Dominick]

From the look of things the game is now waiting 9 hours for the completion of this phase.
Could you give me access to one of your Michael's ? I'm groping in the dark here without the actual interface.

[dilettante]

You don't have to click somewhere for the 'Order resolution phase' ? I can't see that yet as I'm in no playable games.

No, once the last player finalizes it should move along on its own. It looks like it's having a similar problem to what it had before: not recognizing that all the conditions for advancing the game are met.
What did you do to it last time?

From the look of things the game is now waiting 9 hours for the completion of this phase.

Yeah, that's no good. I suspect that even 9 hours from now it would just say "Due Now" and sit there waiting like it did before. Something is awry.

[Dominick]

All should be fixed.
I see the game is in "Autumn 1901" already.

You're still playing Michael6, Michael. I'll just use it if further hiccups occur.

[dilettante]

All should be fixed.
I see the game is in "Autumn 1901" already.

You're still playing Michael6, Michael. I'll just use it if further hiccups occur.

Looks good. Russia's good to go. After the various Michael's make their move we'll see if it advances on its own this time.

What was the problem, if you don't mind me asking?

[Michael]

Looks good. Russia's good to go. After the various Michael's make their move we'll see if it advances on its own this time.
I'll get orders for all six done over the next hour or so.

[Dominick]

Looks good. Russia's good to go. After the various Michael's make their move we'll see if it advances on its own this time.

What was the problem, if you don't mind me asking?
Two typos in the crontab scheduler that triggers the script that performs the actual work. A "/5" instead of an "*/5" and a "0" instead of a "O".

[Michael]

All 6 Michaels have made their moves.

[dilettante]

All 6 Michaels have made their moves.

And the game advanced just its supposed to. Spiffy! Next up, new unit placement.

Just look at all that purple... :)

[Michael]

All 6 Michaels have built units...

[dilettante]

Looks like everything is working properly. Maybe we're ready to try a game with more people and fewer doppelgangers.

[Michael]

Looks like everything is working properly. Maybe we're ready to try a game with more people and fewer doppelgangers.

Who are you calling a doppelganger? I am the Sextile Alliance! :D

And sure. This game is a dead end - just a test to see if everything works. Seems to work fine.

[Michael]

Okay - we're ready to start a game if people are still interested.

Dilettante, feel free to start up a new game on our DWF server.

[dilettante]

Ok. There's a new "DWF-Game" to sign up for here: http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/gamelistings.php
It didn't give me the option of setting the length of phases, but it looks like it defaulted to 24 hours. Hopefully that'll be ok for everyone. I'll PM the other people who expressed interest to let them know.

[Michael]

Okay, I joined the new game...

[dilettante]

Okay, I joined the new game...

Hopefully we'll get more than just you and me this time. Not that I'd mind using Russia to crush your puny six-way alliance...it just doesn't seem very sporting.
:commie:

[Dominick]

I'm in. Can't let Europe fall into the hands of the Americo-Canadian Empire :sneaky:

[dilettante]

I'm in. Can't let Europe fall into the hands of the Americo-Canadian Empire :sneaky:

Oh, sure you can. Just look how it's already divided up into conveniently state/province-sized pieces. :D

BTW, looks like we've got the requisite 5 players so things should get rolling to about 12 hours (barring technical difficulties).

[Michael]

I'm in. Can't let Europe fall into the hands of the Americo-Canadian Empire :sneaky:
Isn't it already? ;)

BTW, looks like we've got the requisite 5 players so things should get rolling to about 12 hours (barring technical difficulties).
Any idea how 7 Empires sorts into 5 players?

[dilettante]

Any idea how 7 Empires sorts into 5 players?

Italy and Germany are placed in "Civil Disorder," meaning that their initial fleets/armies defend themselves but do not move from their starting locations or support one another.

[dilettante]

As it would happen, the phpDiplomacy site seems to have repaired itself. At this point, I'd recommend we stick with the DWF game (or play both :)), since it's nice to have our own little server.

But you can see the initial set up in the other game and see that Italy and Germany are in disorder and won't play: http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=7836

[Michael]

Italy and Germany are placed in "Civil Disorder," meaning that their initial fleets/armies defend themselves but do not move from their starting locations or support one another.
Yes, I think I saw that in the rules somewhere. Thanks for the clarification.

(I suspect that improves the starting positions for the remaining 'central' powers like France and Austria since both have challenging border positions with Germany and Italy that turn into 'easy opportunities' instead).

Anyway, the game is due to start in a couple hours 26 minutes! I'm curious as to what Empire I shall have to play with! :)

[dilettante]

Yes, I think I saw that in the rules somewhere. Thanks for the clarification.

(I suspect that improves the starting positions for the remaining 'central' powers like France and Austria since both have challenging border positions with Germany and Italy that turn into 'easy opportunities' instead).

Anyway, the game is due to start in a couple hours 26 minutes! I'm curious as to what Empire I shall have to play with! :)

The few games I've tried on the other site have all been with 7 players, but I suspect that having Italy and Germany in CD may not be as helpful as it first appears, since they're initial units remain entrenched over their supply-centers and have to be forced off. It'll be handy for Austria and France that they won't have to worry about invasion from those directions, but I doubt they'll get around to actually displacing the CD units until at least year 2.

[dilettante]

And we're up and running!

Michael is England
Dominick is France
Greendruid is Italy
Korimyr is Russia
and Dilettante is Austria-Hungary

Let the game begin!

[Michael]

And we're up and running!

Michael is England
Dominick is France
Greendruid is Italy
Korimyr is Russia
and Dilettante is Austria-Hungary

Let the game begin!

Correction: Greendruid is the Sultan of the Ottomans. Italy is out. ;)

(The Royal Germanic House of Windsor laughs at the ugly Habsburg chin)

[Dominick]

Dominick is France
Allons! Enfants de la Patrie ! Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g)

[Michael]

Allons! Enfants de la Patrie ! Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g)
Bloody revolutionaries!

Btw, where is that Druid-Sultan of the Ottomans? Frollicking with his harem no doubt...

[Michael]

In case anyone is curious, the game is afoot!

Czarist Russia, the Austro-Hungarians and the Ottoman Turks are engaged in a three-way war of expansion in the southern Balkans. France is off to a good start (given the absence of Germany & Italy) launching a two-front war (east and south) while the Brits are moving into Scandanavia.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Just because we've got our game up and running, I don't think we should neglect the one running on phpDiplomacy (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net). I'm starting to get into the game and wouldn't mind being able to play in a few more games concurrently.

[Michael]

Just because we've got our game up and running, I don't think we should neglect the one running on phpDiplomacy (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net). I'm starting to get into the game and wouldn't mind being able to play in a few more games concurrently.

We could easily start a 2nd game here if there is interest. I wouldn't mind playing a 2nd game.

[Dominick]

Just because we've got our game up and running, I don't think we should neglect the one running on phpDiplomacy (http://www.phpdiplomacy.net). I'm starting to get into the game and wouldn't mind being able to play in a few more games concurrently.
I had totally forgotten about that one. I'm OK to continue it.

[dilettante]

Or we could just start a new one on the DWF server, that should shuffle around who has which country.

[Michael]

Okay, lets set up a 2nd game on DWF. The Game at php is toast now. I don't want to play multiple games on different servers. A couple of games at the same place is way better.

Btw, I wouldn't mind playing a 2-player game since that divides the world in half - no diplomacy, just the opportunity to get used to all the map-units-moves.

[Michael]

Btw, I wouldn't mind playing a 2-player game since that divides the world in half - no diplomacy, just the opportunity to get used to all the map-units-moves.

No one into a 2-player game?

[dilettante]

No one into a 2-player game?

I'll give it a shot if you set it up.

[Michael]

I'll give it a shot if you set it up.
Done.

I called it "WW1" (for obvious reasons) since the two players control either England-France-Russia or Austria-Germany-Turkey. Italy is neutral.

Not much to set up there...

I'm thinking this is a good set up to get used to the map board layout and get used to the ways of moving and attacking (finding out what works and what doesn't work).

[Greendruid]

Doh!

I joined the game before I read this post Michael. I was going to post that I'd be interested as well. Would you like me to leave the game?

[Michael]

Doh!

I joined the game before I read this post Michael. I was going to post that I'd be interested as well. Would you like me to leave the game?
No. Actually, I was going to suggest that you and I should play this game since we are the newbies and could use the learning experience while Dilettante is already an experienced player.

I'm not sure if Dilettante is really into playing that game or if he just volunteered because I wanted to play it.

[dilettante]

Greendruid can take my place; I'm already in a few other games at the phpDiplomacy site.

[Michael]

Greendruid can take my place; I'm already in a few other games at the phpDiplomacy site.
Excellent! Greendruid is probably easier to beat than you. ;)

[Dominick]

You'll have to create some dummy players. The game will be simply cancelled with less than 5 players. Just let someone confirm 'hold' for all armies for the dummy players.
The alternative WWI scenario as described in the Diplomacy manual Dilettante linked to isn't implemented in this version.

[dilettante]

Maybe you could have all those Michael clones join the game to bring it up to 6 players, then you could give greendruid the passwords for whichever Michaels were assigned to his side of The Great War.

[The Drunk Guy]

WHOA! I just found this thread. Dammit. Anywho, I'm in. Tell me where-when-how and I'll join in.

[Michael]

Maybe you could have all those Michael clones join the game to bring it up to 6 players, then you could give greendruid the passwords for whichever Michaels were assigned to his side of The Great War.
Dam! That sounded like a fun game to play (3 Empires vs 3 Empires) - no diplomacy, just war. I figured it would be a great way to get used to the game interface and the battlefield moves that work and don't work. I've already made a couple of minor 'technical' mistakes in my first game and I've observed a couple others make similar mistakes as well (since several of us are beginners as it were).

And yes, your plan ought to work for the WW1 scenario. I really would like to play that particular game if anyone is particularly interested in that style of game (where you have to log in and out of 3 different players for each turn). Perhaps this ought to wait a bit. I'm not trying to overload on games, just add a second game to build up my experience level a bit.

Another alternative is to use up the 'Michael-drones' to fill up the other spaces and then just abandon those drones and let them go 'civil disorder' and die and thus have a big board of 1-on-1 play - real easy at first to take all those neutrals, but after they are gone, then its the WW1 (with random sides!). :D

I think I'd like to play THAT 2nd alternative WW1-style game right now since it would still serve a similar 'learning' purpose.

And since Drunk Guy wants to join, we could another open game since we'd probably get at least 5 players. The pace seems pretty easy-going and easy to cover with one turn per 24 hours.

[Dominick]

I'm looking to implement all the alternatives that are mentioned in the Diplomacy PDF, such as the 'real' heads-up WWI scenario. That won't be ready overnight, mind you.

I'll be setting up a second installment of the game server for that purpose in a hidden (or rather obscured) location in order to avoid potential disaster in the active one. If anyone would happen to stumble upon it, please don't do anything there.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm looking to implement all the alternatives that are mentioned in the Diplomacy PDF, such as the 'real' heads-up WWI scenario. That won't be ready overnight, mind you.

I'll be setting up a second installment of the game server for that purpose in a hidden (or rather obscured) location in order to avoid potential disaster in the active one. If anyone would happen to stumble upon it, please don't do anything there.
Since you're messing with the technical stuff, I want to wait until you tell me to sign up. When everything is ready, post here and I (along with everyone else that's interested) will sign up and log in. ;)

[Michael]

I'm looking to implement all the alternatives that are mentioned in the Diplomacy PDF, such as the 'real' heads-up WWI scenario. That won't be ready overnight, mind you.

I'll be setting up a second installment of the game server for that purpose in a hidden (or rather obscured) location in order to avoid potential disaster in the active one. If anyone would happen to stumble upon it, please don't do anything there.
That sounds very cool. Good luck with that! :cool:

[Michael]

Okay then, a second diplomacy game (named WW1) is now open and looking for players. :)

Only Greendruid and myself so far...

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=7

[Dominick]

Since you're messing with the technical stuff, I want to wait until you tell me to sign up. When everything is ready, post here and I (along with everyone else that's interested) will sign up and log in. ;)
Please don't wait. The technical stuff won't interfere with the games on the known location. The location where I'll work on the extensions will be completely separate.

[Michael]

Since you're messing with the technical stuff, I want to wait until you tell me to sign up. When everything is ready, post here and I (along with everyone else that's interested) will sign up and log in. ;)
See my post above. Game is ready to join...

[Michael]

Bloody software. If proper number of players don't join within 24 hours, the game just evaporates.

I've opened up another one called "New Game". Everyone is invited to join.

[dilettante]

You might want to send out some PMs too, to encourage people to notice the game in the next 24 hours.

[Michael]

You might want to send out some PMs too, to encourage people to notice the game in the next 24 hours.
Roger that!

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm in. Guess it's time to read the rules, huh?

[Michael]

I'm in. Guess it's time to read the rules, huh?
Good plan. :lol:

See the first page of this thread - there are some links there to the official game rules and some strategy/help guides as well.

Dilettante is the only experienced one here so far. Apparently all the rest of us here are fairly new to the game. You can also see the "DWF-game" in progress.

[Dominick]

Come on, one more player and the number is complete. With six, Italy is the "civil disorder" one, which is actually not all that historically incongruent.

[Michael]

Come on, one more player and the number is complete. With six, Italy is the "civil disorder" one, which is actually not all that historically incongruent.
Well, I'm happy to have six at least. I can live with Italy out of the fray, but without Germany, things seem odd.

Besides, according to game statistics, Italy has by far the lowest 'win-ratio'.

[dilettante]

Well, I'm happy to have six at least. I can live with Italy out of the fray, but without Germany, things seem odd.

Besides, according to game statistics, Italy has by far the lowest 'win-ratio'.

Yeah, playing Italy is pretty rough; you can only possibly get one neutral SC in the first year (Tunis), where as the two major powers to either side (Austria and France) can each get two fairly easily. And then your only real options are to attack one of those two powers...and they both know it.

[Michael]

The game is afoot!

(and Korimyr got Russia again!)

[The Drunk Guy]

Are we taking time for actual diplomacy?

[Michael]

Are we taking time for actual diplomacy?
Ostensibly, yes. Though England and France seem to have gone ahead with their moves quickly. I'm certainly waiting to hear back from some of the other players before I arrange my initial opening moves. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Ostensibly, yes. Though England and France seem to have gone ahead with their moves quickly. I'm certainly waiting to hear back from some of the other players before I arrange my initial opening moves. :)
How can you tell when the moves have been chosen?

[Michael]

How can you tell when the moves have been chosen?
Little green check-mark beside the name in the main game display means they've done their move.

Little red 'x' means your move is due. If you don't get your move in by the deadline, you go into "civil disorder" and the game moves on without you. :)

If all the players have green checkmarks, then the game will advance before the deadline.

[Dominick]

Ostensibly, yes. Though England and France seem to have gone ahead with their moves quickly. I'm certainly waiting to hear back from some of the other players before I arrange my initial opening moves. :)
There's nothing in it in the first move for England. No challenges, no threats, so the moves are innocent :angel:

[Michael]

There's nothing in it in the first move for England. No challenges, no threats, so the moves are innocent :angel:
There is nothing innocent about an English Fleet in the English Channel. :sneaky:

[The Drunk Guy]

We could get two turns in today. :D

[The Drunk Guy]

Anyway we could pick up the pace 8 hours for the next game?

[dilettante]

Anyway we could pick up the pace 8 hours for the next game?

I think 10-12 is as fast as I'd be willing to go; there's always the chance that a phase will end at 11:30 at night or something, in which case (with an 8 hour game) you'd need to do your evaluation, Diplomacy, and ordering before 7:30 AM the next morning.

I played a 1-hr/phase game on the other site at the beginning of the year to see how everything worked. It gave me a good feel for how things could play out, but it sucked up a whole day's worth of time. I've got a 10-hr/phase game going there now and it takes up more time than I'd really like, what with trying to carry on negotiations and all.

The 24-hr thing works best for me. It's fast enough so that I remember what's going on, but it isn't a time sink.

[Michael]

Yes, I too like the 24 hour cycle. It does move faster sometimes, but mostly it is steady on one turn per day.

When the game first started, I wanted it to go faster too, but now that I've got a game going, I'm happy with the one-turn-per-day routine. Its easy to keep up with and doesn't suck up my life. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

That is true. I suppose all my free time on the weekends is giving me a different impression of the pace. Some are less available on the weekends than during the week.

And you guys wouldn't last a week on Tribal Wars (http://www.tribalwars.net). ;)

[Michael]

That is true. I suppose all my free time on the weekends is giving me a different impression of the pace. Some are less available on the weekends than during the week.

And you guys wouldn't last a week on Tribal Wars (http://www.tribalwars.net). ;)
Some of us do have a life outside of a computer. Not many of us I'll admit, but some of us do. ;)

And yes, the games do tend to move a bit quicker during the week than on the weekend - just like this forum. ;)

[Dominick]

8-hour phases wouldn't work because of time zone differences.

What you can do though is start a game called 'Fast Game' or something and ask if all participants would act as fast as they seem fit without forcing anyone to move/act.

[The Drunk Guy]

8-hour phases wouldn't work because of time zone differences.

What you can do though is start a game called 'Fast Game' or something and ask if all participants would act as fast as they seem fit without forcing anyone to move/act.
No, I was thinking 8 hours less, 16 hours. But I understand that things come up to distract those who are less dedicated to the idea of global domination. :D

[Michael]

And now you have your wish... looks like all moves are in, the game should flip over to Fall 1902 very soon...

Correction... it is now Autumn 1902... two turns in one day! :)

[Dominick]

No, I was thinking 8 hours less, 16 hours. But I understand that things come up to distract those who are less dedicated to the idea of global domination. :D
:D

What I can do though is make the script that processes things run every minute instead of every five minutes. That at least shortens the waiting time once everybody has finalized.

[Michael]

:D

What I can do though is make the script that processes things run every minute instead of every five minutes. That at least shortens the waiting time once everybody has finalized.
What does seem like it would be helpful is that the 24hour turn cycle seems to be on by default for this game installation. It might be nice if we could set something different when the game is setup. Some people may eventually prefer a 48 hour cycle, or a turn per week (year long games) or maybe some people want to play all day online with 30 minute turn cycle. Whatever.

Personally, I like the 24-hour turn cycle just fine, but it would be nice to have an option to change it at game setup.

[Dominick]

New games are now configurable from 1 to 72 hour phases :)

[Michael]

New games are now configurable from 1 to 72 hour phases :)
Excellent! I think 24 is best, but others at some time might want a different setting.

72 hour turns would a seriously liesurely pace.

[The Drunk Guy]

Excellent! I think 24 is best, but others at some time might want a different setting.

72 hour turns would a seriously liesurely pace.
Oh, I couldn't do that. It would drive me crazy. I over think every turn. Having that much time to consider all the variables would drive me insane.

[Americano]

Oh, I couldn't do that. It would drive me crazy. I over think every turn. Having that much time to consider all the variables would drive me insane.

Periodic instances of insanity can be amusing.

[Michael]

Periodic instances of insanity can be amusing.
I prefer my 'bouts' to be drug induced. That way I have something to blame the consequences on besides myself. ;)

[Americano]

I prefer my 'bouts' to be drug induced. That way I have something to blame the consequences on besides myself. ;)

So do I. I do know people who experience both, but I tend to keep them at arm's length.

[Michael]

Anxiously awaiting Dominick... both games are waiting on him right now. ;)

[Dominick]

Anxiously awaiting Dominick...
To have a good laugh I bet :rofl:

[Dominick]

God, what blunders again. I just can't retain the rules of this game. (Hey, I'm an anarchist :D)

[Michael]

To have a good laugh I bet :rofl:
No laughter. I consider the success of my move to be due to my strategic and tactical brilliance rather than any deficiency on your part. :D

[Korimyr the Rat]

Heh. Anyone interested in a game in which I'm not Russia?

[Michael]

Heh. Anyone interested in a game in which I'm not Russia?
:rofl:

As soon as the DWF Game ends, I'll propose another game. Random chance assigns the player-countries.

[The Drunk Guy]

:rofl:

As soon as the DWF Game ends, I'll propose another game. Random chance assigns the player-countries.
Which do you think is better? I mean the board and ease of play, not your chances of victory. ;)

[Michael]

Which do you think is better? I mean the board and ease of play, not your chances of victory. ;)
So far, I've found England very challenging to play and Austria rather much easier. For England, one has to plan moves years in advance. For Austria, it is easier to play along with how the game goes given the central position.

But of course, I've only played those two - and as I noted elsewhere, Austria benefits from the absence of Italy, so that colors my experience of the matter. I probably wouldn't like Austria in a 7 player game.

I'd love to play Russia, Germany, France and Turkey. Then I'll be able to give a better answer to this question. :)

[Michael]

In our first official game of Diplomacy here at DWF, England pulls off a 'come-from-behind' victory, rising from 4th place in the early game (after a surprise French capture of London), to win it all. :cavalry:

There were celebrations in the streets of London, Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin and St. Petersburg. :banana: :bigclap: :party:

[dilettante]

One game down! Who's up for starting another?

I think it'd be interesting to try the WWI scenario with 6 players. England/France/Russia vs Germany/Austria/Turkey. It would be less about choosing who/when to back-stab and more about which side could work together efficiently.

[Michael]

Sure, I'm in! :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Sure, I'm in! :)
Me, too. I feel bad playing to win.

[dilettante]

I'll start one up and send off some PMs to everyone playing now.

[Michael]

Newbie players are certainly welcome. :)

We are all mostly newbies to the game here so don't feel shy.

[dilettante]

New game started (WWI Team Game); sign ups welcome: http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=9

If people decide they don't like the teams idea, I'm fine to just play it as a regular game as well; provided we're all clear from the beginning which it is :)

[Michael]

If we were to play the WW1 idea, according to the rules in the book, Italy is supposed to be not just 'neutral' but "inviolate" (meaning, don't touch it).

What do you think about that issue?

[Greendruid]

That sounds really limiting to the theatres of conflict in such a polarised game. I vote that we ignore this rule.

[dilettante]

If we were to play the WW1 idea, according to the rules in the book, Italy is supposed to be not just 'neutral' but "inviolate" (meaning, don't touch it).

What do you think about that issue?

I'm willing to try it either way. My guess would be that making Italy inviolate is meant to keep the Central Powers from having a quick advantage; Austria is in a much better position to invade Italy than France is, especially if she doesn't have to worry about Germany or Turkey.

[Michael]

I'm willing to try it either way. My guess would be that making Italy inviolate is meant to keep the Central Powers from having a quick advantage; Austria is in a much better position to invade Italy than France is, especially if she doesn't have to worry about Germany or Turkey.
Yes, and the Balkans are Austria-Turkey freebees as well.

Anyway, I'm willing to play with Itay 'neutral' only just for the heck of it. I just thought I'd raise the issue.

[Michael]

New game started (WWI Team Game); sign ups welcome: http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=9

If people decide they don't like the teams idea, I'm fine to just play it as a regular game as well; provided we're all clear from the beginning which it is :)
We still need a 6th player!

[Dominick]

We still need a 6th player!
If nobody else does, I'll fill up the gap before the deadline. Can I be Monaco or Andorra ? :D

[Michael]

If nobody else does, I'll fill up the gap before the deadline. Can I be Monaco or Andorra ? :D
We're looking at playing WW1 (England-France-Russia vs Germany-Austria-Turkey).

Btw, how did this game get away with calling Britain "England"??? :eek:

[Korimyr the Rat]

Me, too. I feel bad playing to win.

There are other reasons to play?

[Michael]

There are other reasons to play?
I can think of several.

Indeed, in quite a few games I play regularly, I make it a policy not to win since if I win too much, that discourages other players and thus, no game playing at all. Thus, if one enjoys playing games, and if one is good at them, then one soon learns the value of strategic losing. Indeed, there is 'art' there in hiding this from one's opponents.

[Michael]

I'm not sure about this two-team game of WW1... (as Korimyr notes, it eliminates one of the most important aspects of the game).

Its not like we've exhausted the regular game yet with just 2 games. I'd like to play WW1, but really only as a 2 player game (that sounds like a tactical challenge game).

If we have six players, I'd rather play a regular game. I've not played Russia, Germany, France or Turkey yet...

[dilettante]

I'm fine with going just sticking to the regular rules; I'll just have to focus on encouraging my sinister and deceptive side.

[Michael]

I'm fine with going just sticking to the regular rules; I'll just have to focus on encouraging my sinister and deceptive side.
Take lessons from Rat. :D

[Michael]

The countries have been assigned - Dominick, DrunkDude and Dilettante are all assigned repeats to the current game (England, Germany and Turkey).

I suggest that we cancel the game and try a different random assignment. I'm willing to play it as is, but I'm just as willing to forget it and restart the game.

[Dominick]

The countries have been assigned - Dominick, DrunkDude and Dilettante are all assigned repeats to the current game (England, Germany and Turkey).

I suggest that we cancel the game and try a different random assignment. I'm willing to play it as is, but I'm just as willing to forget it and restart the game.
That's merely the nature of true randomness. Every player getting seven different countries in seven games is extremely unlikely (I can do the math for you :D). You can wait or retry till kingdom come and still you will get such patterns. In fact, there's a discussion going on in the development circles of the game whether it would not be a good idea to de-randomize the game to achieve the effect you seem to be seeking.

[dilettante]

The countries have been assigned - Dominick, DrunkDude and Dilettante are all assigned repeats to the current game (England, Germany and Turkey).

I suggest that we cancel the game and try a different random assignment. I'm willing to play it as is, but I'm just as willing to forget it and restart the game.

If you want to start a new one, we can all join and see if we get a better mix of countries.

[Michael]

That's merely the nature of true randomness. Every player getting seven different countries in seven games is extremely unlikely (I can do the math for you :D). You can wait or retry till kingdom come and still you will get such patterns. In fact, there's a discussion going on in the development circles of the game whether it would not be a good idea to de-randomize the game to achieve the effect you seem to be seeking.
Yes, I understand the process. Korimyr was Russia in the first two games. That seems reasonable given the process.

Three players out of six repeating the same countries in a game at the same time as another game seems like 'too much'.

I say we all just 'pause' it and leave it. Maybe come back to it later and try luck with a new game and new random assignments. I'm sure one, maybe two players might repeat a country, but not three at the same time!

If you want to start a new one, we can all join and see if we get a better mix of countries.
Okay. Just vote for a 'pause' in the first one.

[Americano]

That's merely the nature of true randomness. Every player getting seven different countries in seven games is extremely unlikely (I can do the math for you :D). You can wait or retry till kingdom come and still you will get such patterns. In fact, there's a discussion going on in the development circles of the game whether it would not be a good idea to de-randomize the game to achieve the effect you seem to be seeking.

From a layman's viewpoint, multiple lottery winners, not unusual, attest to that. 3-million or more to one odds with repeat winners.

[The Drunk Guy]

You guys are going to kill me this weekend. The little lady is working Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, so I'll be here, hovering over the games while you are off gallivanting and what-not. I'll be a nervous wreck.

[Dominick]

You guys are going to kill me this weekend. The little lady is working Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, so I'll be here, hovering over the games while you are off gallivanting and what-not. I'll be a nervous wreck.
Well, at least you get this week's award for Best Addition to the DWF Vocabulary.

to gallivant; gallivanting; I love it.

[The Drunk Guy]

Well, at least you get this week's award for Best Addition to the DWF Vocabulary.

to gallivant; gallivanting; I love it.
I'm from Eastern Kentucky. We still speak Olde English. It's eloquent and quaint all at the same time.

"Y'seen them boys therr? They been off gallivantin' an' ramblin' like young'uns all atternoon, I say."

[Americano]

I'm from Eastern Kentucky. We still speak Olde English. It's eloquent and quaint all at the same time.

"Y'seen them boys therr? They been off gallivantin' an' ramblin' like young'uns all atternoon, I say."

I was raised in Texas and lived a few years in Atlanta as an adult. I worked hard to successfully lose the accent and after moving to Atalanta felt like I was bilingual. I traveled much of the South from Atlanta on business and being able to slip into a drawl was instant peer acceptance. My wife says I still pronounce tiger like a hillbilly.

[The Drunk Guy]

I was raised in Texas and lived a few years in Atlanta as an adult. I worked hard to successfully lose the accent and after moving to Atalanta felt like I was bilingual. I traveled much of the South from Atlanta on business and being able to slip into a drawl was instant peer acceptance. My wife says I still pronounce tiger like a hillbilly.
My accent isn't southern. We truly sound like a cross between a country accent and an Irish accent. We don't have that slow, southern cadence. Rather, we speak quick, choppy words that sound foreign to people not from here.

I used to be self-conscious about my accent, but I've come to like it and appreciate it. It is true that scholars consider it the closest living example of Olde English in the world, but I also love that even the most ignorant, backwoods folk have a broader vocabulary than the average American. Add to that the pacing and odd emphasis and you have an exotic sound that is complex and challenging.

[Michael]

Well, at least you get this week's award for Best Addition to the DWF Vocabulary.

to gallivant; gallivanting; I love it.
My English-born mother often uses that term, usually in the phrase, "out gallivanting around".

[Dominick]

Dil and Kor seem to have missed the last phase. Now what ?

[dilettante]

Dil and Kor seem to have missed the last phase. Now what ?

Sorry about that. I don't seem to be hurt by it, so I'm fine to just carry on.

[Dominick]

Although I'd actually like to see the games move faster, I'm still going to propose that new games are put on the 48 or even 72 hour cycle. If everyone is around it makes no difference, but at least it allows people who are not glued to their screens 24/7, unlike Michael, uh, Dominick, uh some, to have a chance to make every turn.

[Michael]

Although I'd actually like to see the games move faster, I'm still going to propose that new games are put on the 48 or even 72 hour cycle. If everyone is around it makes no difference, but at least it allows people who are not glued to their screens 24/7, unlike Michael, uh, Dominick, uh some, to have a chance to make every turn.
I certainly don't hang out at this site, I just check in regularly a couple times a day.

But you are entirely correct. Games have featured missed turns by Korimyr, Greendruid, Maeson and dilettante, and repeat misses as well.

[dilettante]

Well, the 2nd game has come to a close. Shall we start another?

[Michael]

Well, to be honest, I'm having a hard time 'getting into' a game where the whole goal/purpose of the game is to setup and capitalize upon a double-cross.

Its just not in me to like games based on deceit. I've never liked poker for the same reason.

So, I'd much rather play a "gunboat" game with zero diplomacy (winner take all the pot), or a 2-player game of WW1 (each side plays three players).

I'll play along with a group game if you need the players to make quarum. I don't want to kill the game if others are into it.

[dilettante]

Well, to be honest, I'm having a hard time 'getting into' a game where the whole goal/purpose of the game is to setup and capitalize upon a double-cross.

Its just not in me to like games based on deceit. I've never liked poker for the same reason.

So, I'd much rather play a "gunboat" game with zero diplomacy (winner take all the pot), or a 2-player game of WW1 (each side plays three players).

I'll play along with a group game if you need the players to make quarum. I don't want to kill the game if others are into it.

I'm up for a gunboat game. We could limit all conversation to the "general" chat window.

[Dominick]

We could limit all conversation to the "general" chat window.
Don't you already do that ? ;)

[dilettante]

Don't you already do that ? ;)

See, I'm one step ahead. :)

[Michael]

I'm up for a gunboat game. We could limit all conversation to the "general" chat window.
Sure, but what do the other players want to do?

[Dominick]

I'm cool with any proposal.

[The Drunk Guy]

JUST START IT, ALREADY!:devil:

[dilettante]

JUST START IT, ALREADY!:devil:

Done:
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=11

[Michael]

I'm up for a gunboat game. We could limit all conversation to the "general" chat window.
General conversations sure.

But "gunboat" diplomacy is diplomacy at the point of a sword (that's it, that's all).

You seem to be suggesting that alliances/diplomacy can still be done 'in public' via the 'general' chat window.

As far as I'm concerned, if alliances are permitted, alliances are required. And if alliances are permitted/required, the whole game becomes just a contest to see who can deliver the most effective backstab (whether alliances are secret or public makes no difference to this dynamic - best backstabber wins!).

[dilettante]

General conversations sure.

But "gunboat" diplomacy is diplomacy at the point of a sword (that's it, that's all).

You seem to be suggesting that alliances/diplomacy can still be done 'in public' via the 'general' chat window.

As far as I'm concerned, if alliances are permitted, alliances are required. And if alliances are permitted/required, the whole game becomes just a contest to see who can deliver the most effective backstab (whether alliances are secret or public makes no difference to this dynamic - best backstabber wins!).

I was thinking of (my understanding of) a "gunboat" game played on an acutal board in which the essential rule was no one was allowed to discuss the game privately with any other player; i.e. all conversation about the game took place openly at the table.

I'm not sure how else to "forbid" alliances, since there is no mechanism for enforcing them anyway. If there is no secrecy, it seems like a blurry line between discussing what's going on in the game and "forming an alliance." E.G. "We should agree to make peace and unite against the Rusian menace" vs "Whoa, somebody needs to stop Russia before they become unbeatable!"

[Michael]

I was thinking of (my understanding of) a "gunboat" game played on an acutal board in which the essential rule was no one was allowed to discuss the game privately with any other player; i.e. all conversation about the game took place openly at the table.
Well, "gunboat" diplomacy is defined in the real world as diplomacy at the point of a gun and that's it.

I'm not sure how else to "forbid" alliances, since there is no mechanism for enforcing them anyway. If there is no secrecy, it seems like a blurry line between discussing what's going on in the game and "forming an alliance." E.G. "We should agree to make peace and unite against the Rusian menace" vs "Whoa, somebody needs to stop Russia before they become unbeatable!"
This only comes about because of your suggestion to keep alliances and discussions going.

If diplomacy is off the table, then I don't see any need for any discussions at all. If you allow discussions, you are allowing alliances. And if you allow alliances, the game becomes all about "he who can setup the best backstab".

[dilettante]

This only comes about because of your suggestion to keep alliances and discussions going.

If diplomacy is off the table, then I don't see any need for any discussions at all. If you allow discussions, you are allowing alliances. And if you allow alliances, the game becomes all about "he who can setup the best backstab".

So a silent game then? I fine to give that a shot, I just wasn't sure what you were after.

[Michael]

So a silent game then? I fine to give that a shot, I just wasn't sure what you were after.
I'm just offering up my view on the topic (as I am wont to do!).

Seems to me that the diplomacy angle just creates the "backstab" dynamic. Gunboat diplomacy is diplomacy at the point of the gun - actions, not words.

I'd like to try that style of game and see if it works. It might not work at all - or it might be a very interesting and challenging game.

[dilettante]

I'm just offering up my view on the topic (as I am wont to do!).

Seems to me that the diplomacy angle just creates the "backstab" dynamic. Gunboat diplomacy is diplomacy at the point of the gun - actions, not words.

I'd like to try that style of game and see if it works. It might not work at all - or it might be a very interesting and challenging game.

Well let's give it a shot. I might just move along pretty quickly. The new game is set to 48 hrs a phase (based on past comments), but I suspect people will enter orders much sooner than that if there's no diplomacy to worry about; I know I've held off on issuing orders before because I was waiting to hear back from someone.

[Michael]

Well let's give it a shot. I might just move along pretty quickly. The new game is set to 48 hrs a phase (based on past comments), but I suspect people will enter orders much sooner than that if there's no diplomacy to worry about; I know I've held off on issuing orders before because I was waiting to hear back from someone.
The 48hour suggestion is probably a good one. Even if 90% of the time the 24hour cycle is no problem, the 1 in 10 times does seem to be a problem for some people with unforeseen circumstances.

[dilettante]

Well, that didn't work. We only had 4 players so it canceled the game.

[Michael]

Well, that didn't work. We only had 4 players so it canceled the game.
Yes, I saw that. I guess Greendruid and Korimyr missed it.

Try again after the weekend?

[dilettante]

Yes, I saw that. I guess Greendruid and Korimyr missed it.

Try again after the weekend?

Will do.

Are you still interested in trying a 2 player WWI game?

[Michael]

Are you still interested in trying a 2 player WWI game?
Yes, I think that might be very interesting. And on 48 hour turns for sure since each player would have to play three nations.

I was thinking about it... that we'd need our own house rule for declaring the winner. The game will look for one nation to hit 18 SC's - but with each player controlling three nations, that might be almost impossible and not really necessary in this game format.

I propose that we declare the winner if one side (3 nations) controls, say 21 or 24 SC's. How's that?

[Dominick]

Yes, I think that might be very interesting. And on 48 hour turns for sure since each player would have to play three nations.

I was thinking about it... that we'd need our own house rule for declaring the winner. The game will look for one nation to hit 18 SC's - but with each player controlling three nations, that might be almost impossible and not really necessary in this game format.

I propose that we declare the winner if one side (3 nations) controls, say 21 or 24 SC's. How's that?
I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that can be done. I seem to remember the end-of-game conditions are hardcoded. I'll look into it asap.

[The Drunk Guy]

With three of us, we could play a 2on2on2 war. I think that would be better for a no-talking game. Plus, well, I want another game, dammit! :D

[dilettante]

Yes, I think that might be very interesting. And on 48 hour turns for sure since each player would have to play three nations.

I was thinking about it... that we'd need our own house rule for declaring the winner. The game will look for one nation to hit 18 SC's - but with each player controlling three nations, that might be almost impossible and not really necessary in this game format.

I propose that we declare the winner if one side (3 nations) controls, say 21 or 24 SC's. How's that?

That sounds fine. How do you want to set it up? Are we using all your various Michaels or should we create some new faux-users.

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that can be done. I seem to remember the end-of-game conditions are hardcoded. I'll look into it asap.

I wouldn't work too hard on it. For a 2 player game I'm fine just to play until the "house rules" call a winner and then just have everyone "/draw".

[dilettante]

With three of us, we could play a 2on2on2 war. I think that would be better for a no-talking game. Plus, well, I want another game, dammit! :D

Well, the rules offer the following for less than 5 players:

2 players: England/France/Russia v. Germany/Austria/Turkey

3 players: England/Germany/Austria v. Russia/Italy v. France/Turkey

4 players: England v. Austria/France v. Germany/Turkey v. Russia/Italy

[Dominick]

I'm sorry about missing the turn in the 'Imperial Europe' game. But nobody should backtrack because of it. I thought there were 11 hours in it when I went to bed. I probably forgot to refresh the screen before checking that :rolleyes: Anyway, mea culpa.

[Greendruid]

I think I'm about done with this game guys. Even with a gunboat style of play I dislike the way the game proceeds, I dislike the way the territories are set up and I definitely don't do well at deceit of this type. It's one thing to play a game where you simply don't tell someone a piece of information but to actively mislead someone is just not fun for me.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think I'm about done with this game guys. Even with a gunboat style of play I dislike the way the game proceeds, I dislike the way the territories are set up and I definitely don't do well at deceit of this type. It's one thing to play a game where you simply don't tell someone a piece of information but to actively mislead someone is just not fun for me.
I'm with you on that. And you can only pull something so many times playing with the same folks over and over. I like the strategy aspect much more than the diplomacy. I think having multiple maps to choose from would help, too.

[Michael]

I think I'm about done with this game guys. Even with a gunboat style of play I dislike the way the game proceeds, I dislike the way the territories are set up and I definitely don't do well at deceit of this type. It's one thing to play a game where you simply don't tell someone a piece of information but to actively mislead someone is just not fun for me.
Well, I too don't like the deceit the game requires.

That's why I suggested the gunboat style game. No discussion, no allies, every one for themselves. I think that would change the game dynamic (and get rid of the 'gang-up' dynamic).

If you would try the game once more that would be appreciated. I think this game format could be more interesting and more challenging.

[Michael]

Well, the rules offer the following for less than 5 players:

2 players: England/France/Russia v. Germany/Austria/Turkey

3 players: England/Germany/Austria v. Russia/Italy v. France/Turkey

4 players: England v. Austria/France v. Germany/Turkey v. Russia/Italy
I do like the 2 player WW1 idea. I'm not crazy about these other variations.

Three is a notoriously bad number for games (A attacks B, C wins).

[dilettante]

Ok, here we go again.

Gunboat game, no tactical/strategic discussion of the game allowed (though I think some nation-appropriate posturing and braggadocio should be allowed :)).

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=12

If we don't get 5 players this time I'll generate a bunch of faux-users, start a new game, and hand usernames and passwords based the 4 person set up above.

[Michael]

Ok, here we go again.

Gunboat game, no tactical/strategic discussion of the game allowed (though I think some nation-appropriate posturing and braggadocio should be allowed :)).

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/diplomacy/board.php?gameID=12

If we don't get 5 players this time I'll generate a bunch of faux-users, start a new game, and hand usernames and passwords based the 4 person set up above.
Well sure, posturing and braggadocio are highly appropriate and tend to add some fun and color to the game. :)

Hopefully Korimyr shows up to make 5 if Greendruid isn't in. 5 is playable for a 'gunboat' game with Germany & Italy down - gives lots of room to move around. Six or seven would be better, but five is probably good enough.
I'm not crazy about the four-player game with England solo, but what the heck.

[dilettante]

Well, it looks like its just the four of us. In that case, we can either try a England v. Austria/France v. Germany/Turkey v. Russia/Italy game, OR we could try a little WWI tournament: set up 2 WWI games at once and then, once they're done, have the winners and losers face off in a second round.

Let me know what you guys think (and which side or faction you'd prefer, if any). I can set up all the games and pass out usernames, unless Dominick knows a fast way to do it.

[Michael]

Looks like Korimyr is missing in action. He's certainly active enough at the Diplomacy website with a half dozen games going. :ummm:

Anyway, I'm not crazy about that four player game unless others want to play that game. I do like the 2 player WW1 format.

[Dominick]

Well, it looks like its just the four of us. In that case, we can either try a England v. Austria/France v. Germany/Turkey v. Russia/Italy game, OR we could try a little WWI tournament: set up 2 WWI games at once and then, once they're done, have the winners and losers face off in a second round.

Let me know what you guys think (and which side or faction you'd prefer, if any). I can set up all the games and pass out usernames, unless Dominick knows a fast way to do it.
I like the tournament idea -not that I would make the second round :D
Programmatically entering the users would likely take ten times as long as manually. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm down for whatever. The tournament sounds fun, but I'm not picky at all. If you need to set usernames, just pm me with it.

[dilettante]

OK, two new private games have been set up with 6 players each:

WWI - Greek Game
Players: Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Hermes, Kronos and Hades,

and WWI - Roman Game
Players: Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Pluto, Mercury and Bob.

Games start in ~45 hours at which point I'll flip some coins to decide who plays against who and who plays which side and hand out usernames and passwords.

[Michael]

OK, two new private games have been set up with 6 players each:

WWI - Greek Game
Players: Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Hermes, Kronos and Hades,
Curious mixture of Olympian and Pelagasian Gods there...

[dilettante]

Curious mixture of Olympian and Pelagasian Gods there...

Pretty much just the first six that came to mind.

[Michael]

OK, two new private games have been set up with 6 players each:

WWI - Greek Game
Players: Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Hermes, Kronos and Hades,

and WWI - Roman Game
Players: Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Pluto, Mercury and Bob.

Games start in ~45 hours at which point I'll flip some coins to decide who plays against who and who plays which side and hand out usernames and passwords.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? :D

[dilettante]

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? :D

half an hour...

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sorry about dropping off the radar. I've been away from my computer, and only been able to get online for short stretches.

Missed a lot of turns over at the other site, too.

[Michael]

Sorry about dropping off the radar. I've been away from my computer, and only been able to get online for short stretches.

We wondered what happened to you!

Glad to see ya back. :)

Missed a lot of turns over at the other site, too.
I hope you finished that one we were both playing in (you England, me Austria) that you were looking to win when I was eliminated.

[Korimyr the Rat]

We wondered what happened to you!

Long story not worth telling. I'm back now.

I hope you finished that one we were both playing in (you England, me Austria) that you were looking to win when I was eliminated.

Spring 1914. It's down to three players, with France and Turkey allied against me. I stabbed both of them, so they're probably not going to turn on each other, but I think I've got an unbreakable stalemate line in place.

[Dominick]

I'm sorry but I played my last game of Diplomacy for the time being. Not only do I suck at the game but I think that the game sucks too. It's just too dependent upon the geometry of the locations. :shrug:

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm sorry but I played my last game of Diplomacy for the time being. Not only do I suck at the game but I think that the game sucks too. It's just too dependent upon the geometry of the locations. :shrug:
That's a love/hate issue, I think. I love it because it requires an almost chess level of strategy for each move. I hate it because I'm getting tired of the goddamned front that always forms between Munich and Burgundy, slowing any movement down to a snail's pace in the region. It is also irksome because of the Russian layout.