Messages - webDiplomacy

Chat archive

23 Mar 18 UTC	Spring, 1997: Good game, France!
28 Mar 18 UTC	Spring, 1998: I am the new Austria Hungary
28 Mar 18 UTC	Spring, 1998: Poland*
28 Mar 18 UTC	Spring, 1998: Replacements are always appreciated! Good luck.
05 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2000: I smell a Ukrainian solo coming.
05 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2000: Oh yeah, I could literally take Serbia, Bulgaria, Iran, and probably Istanbul with no force to stop me? Cos like im a ruthless ALPHA male and i will do whatever it takes to WIN WIN WIN! yeah nope
05 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2000: With old Soviet technology? Unlikely.
05 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2000: you're right, my shit breaks down in conflicts below 45 degree lat snow required
12 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2002: It took me far to long to see why my convoy failed. Not sure why I always think that the Ionian meets the Tyrrhenian. Probably due to the classic map.
16 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2003: why are there no air units in this game? there should be highly mobile, support-only air units
16 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2003: I think there's an email you can use for ideas like that
17 Apr 18 UTC	Autumn, 2003: would they actually implement that though? doubt, this game could be a lot better with some minor changes
17 Apr 18 UTC	Autumn, 2003: they should add an alliance system so people can't cheaply backstab and so you could help allies better (but muh preparation and awareness for backstab is strategy! no)
19 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: I think the whole point is the simplicity. You literally teach someone in 5 minutes. New units would just complicate it. As far as an alliance system, that would ruin the game. Might as well add dice.
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: I doubt adding highly-mobile, support-only air units would complicate that much. Perhaps 15 minutes to learn? The game is kind of dead already, might as well experiment for dynamism. How would an alliance system ruin the game? I would imagine an alliance system to have adjustable lengths and transparency to all, it would force actual, strategic diplomacy. I would imagine you would be limited to 2 or 3 alliances. If anything, alliances would make the game several leagues more complicated now that I think about it - I like that lmao
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: Tactics are thin, no great depth. The depth is in the negotiation which is 100% secret and no one is held to. It is a perfect game of incomplete information.
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: I guess its relative to what your overall goal for the game is. I would prefer a more realistic, strategic game. It appears that this game can offer what civ, eu (or paradox games in general), sc, cant offer: real diplomacy. The game is boring and too easy (depending on your situation) from a strategic point of view, and I guess the covert nature of the diplomacy makes up for that. Still, I would prefer a game wherein backstabs are harder to execute because there is an overall trend wherein country A and Country B attack Country C, C dies and, depending on the situation which can be predicated on the decisions of country C (thus luck is involved), either A or B comes out with more SC or better positions. They fight, and, again, depending on the situation which can be determined on the decisions you cannot foresee for some off chance, Country D may just swoop in and btfo both A and B. Paradox games have a good mechanic against this (mercenaries + other shit), and so does civ (declarations of friendship) but less so. I do not know, I would believe adding some sort of alliance system would decrease the overall luck involved, and proportionally increase the amount of strategy. Sorry for the wall of text
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: No worries, this is a fun chat. I see the game as pure negotiation and game theory, often unbalanced (i.e. Russia vs. Austria in classic). Anything that lessened that would make them game less unique. CK2, EU4, Stellaris are all great fun, but the experience is totally different.
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: I have noticed that as well. When one applies game theory, an ability to forecast the events of the game well beyond the time forecasted, and basic behavioral psychology, the game has an unique flair. Still, they should at least experiment with air-units, it would be interesting to see how games would turn out with such fast things
20 Apr 18 UTC	Spring, 2004: if they had two moves, the ability to fly over land and sea units unless there is another air unit in the tile you want to fly to (exercising a zone of control) would be interesting