I agree, up to a point, that the disband/rebuild trick may sometimes seem like a way to circumvent the rules, but it can happen in regular games too. I just did something similar, or even worse, in a Classic game: disbanded a dislodged army in Pie and rebuilt a much needed fleet in Mar, so not only I retreated to a contended region but I also changed the unit type at the same time.

But I think that when the number of SCs on the board gets higher the build anywhere option becomes increasingly useful. I must say I miss it in American Empire, not to mention World Dip. For instance, in Empire, Texas often has a good start, but then it is almost impossible for them to put together a useful naval force which can work outside Gulf of Mexico, and in mid-game this is a big handicap that the build anywhere rule may relieve.

I wonder how difficult would it be to make the build anywhere feature an option that you can enable/disable at creation time in any variant?

Might be off topic, but...
I've become a fan of the Modern Diplomacy II variant. But one thing really bugs me - the build anywhere feature. The primary reason is that it doesn't reflect economic realities. A few examples. Egypt could raise an army or navy in Monaco. Sure, you could capture a navy, but how to raise an army? Britian could lose all of its homeland SCs, yet still raise armies and navies and win the game without its homeland. So not a new variant, as much as a rules change to reflect the Classic - armies and navies built only in the homeland.
There is another problem with the build anywhere. You cannot retreat to a province that was a subject of conflict. But if you control the province subject to a conflict, got dislodged from an adjacent province, you could disband the unit and rebuild in the province that was the subject of conflict. Effectively, you retreated to the province that was a subject of conflict.

I was just joking. It was that splinter site that SYnapse set up when he rage quit this website due to forum moderation arguments.

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:43 am

I do not know DipRepublic.

I don't either. But hum a few bars and i can fake it...

I do not know DipRepublic.

David E. Cohen wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:15 pm

Since you guys are not commercial, unlike a certain other site which shall remain nameless, LOL, I have no problem with you implementing any of my variants. I beleive most of them, with a couple of exception, do not have problematic rule changes. I would be glad to discuss privately and in depth, as necessary.

He's talking about DipRepublic, isn't he?

Since you guys are not commercial, unlike a certain other site which shall remain nameless, LOL, I have no problem with you implementing any of my variants. I beleive most of them, with a couple of exception, do not have problematic rule changes. I would be glad to discuss privately and in depth, as necessary.

tobi1 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 14, 2023 7:44 pm

Especially for 1900 the code base was adjusted at several places beyond the variant’s folder.

Awwww

I'll throw in a pitch for South China Sea:

https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=148

It's a new variant, still in playtest mode. It's quite different from anything we have on webdip. Different geography, different rules for the two key sea regions: South China Sea and Dangerous Ground. Up to 6 units can be in each at the same time. Here are how a couple of finished games have played out, you can see the dynamics of these spaces:

https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=55024#gamePanel

https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=55040#gamePanel

(Copying variants over is pretty trivial, so this isn't a development focus just something I thought might be fun)

Be aware that while variants should be fully compatible with the main webdip branch, variants may rely on subtle changes in the vdip code base like it once was the case here with Known World. Compatibility needs to be tested.

Especially for 1900 the code base was adjusted at several places beyond the variant’s folder.

I also want to put forward Sengoku as an idea. I think it'd play much differently than anything currently on this site.

I would love to see Known World 901 back on the site.

It was originally taken off because the transform rule wasn't compatible with the site. However, the map creator (David E. Cohen) said the transform rule was NOT part of the original design, and was added by someone else for unknown reasons (source).

By all accounts it seems to be an excellent variant, so there's no reason why it shouldn't return to the site in its original, intended form.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 11, 2023 3:37 pm

The option of "grey" press sounds super fun, though maybe that's harder to implement than new maps.

It would be cool to just include it as a new press type when creating a game.

The correct version of Modern Dip where Murmansk is an army and not a fleet

The option of "grey" press sounds super fun, though maybe that's harder to implement than new maps.

1600 and especially 1900

I'd be interested in Fog of War, but if we got a new map it would be nice to have a non-euro option. I've liked Canton Diplomacy when I've played it, but I'm not sure whether its the best balanced.

I thought it might be time to add a new variant to the site and official release, so went to the source of half of webDip's good ideas, our impressive sister site vDip, to see what's the most popular variant we don't have here, but it wasn't as cut and dry as I expected.

Does anyone think there's a variant there that'd be fun to bring over to the official release, or should we focus on what we've got (I always thought fog of war would be a fun one)?

https://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php

(Copying variants over is pretty trivial, so this isn't a development focus just something I thought might be fun)