Known World 901 ???

[esther]

Is Known World 901 a good variant? would people play?

So few games of this have been played on the server, i wonder if it's a bogus variant or something?

thx,
e

[eliwhitney]

I've played a couple, Known World 901... they were very enjoyable.

[esther]

Anyone know why it's not an active choice presently. It shows up on the variants page. Was thinking of gm'ing one.

[Mercy]

Known World 901 is playable on vdiplomacy.net. It is generally considered to be a (very) good variant, and hence the webDip staff decided to port the variant over to this site, too. Unfortunately the code on webDip allows for fewer rule changes than the code on vDip, which caused the special rule in the Known World 901 variant to transform armies into fleets and vice versa to mess with the webDip code. This is why the staff then decided to disable the variant.

[David E. Cohen]

I just saw this. If the transform rule is the reason why this implementation is buggy, just get rid of that rule. It is NOT standard to the variant, but was added only when the variant was adapted to vDip.

[Claesar]

I've been told it's "buggy" when ported to webDip, but I don't know the specifics.

[bo_sox48]

It's not "buggy"; it destroys the site. Literally.

Definitely play KW901 on vDip. It's a fantastic variant, one of the best big world maps for sure.

[David E. Cohen]

It's not "buggy"; it destroys the site. Literally.

Definitely play KW901 on vDip. It's a fantastic variant, one of the best big world maps for sure.

Destroys the site? Is that all? LOL

And thanks for the compliment on KW901. I think Dawn of the Enlightenment, the variant I am developing right now may also be to your liking. It is a global variant set in the year 1701, using a wraparound map.

[captainmeme]

I believe it's the Neutral units that break it, although transform might be a problem if the units didn't break it first. This site does not like having units not belong to a player.

[Claesar]

I suppose having them owned by webDipdummy04 automatically would require too much extra coding.

[David E. Cohen]

I suppose having them owned by webDipdummy04 automatically would require too much extra coding.

This does seem like an obvious solution.

[jmo1121109]

I suppose having them owned by webDipdummy04 automatically would require too much extra coding.

This does seem like an obvious solution.

On the surface it does. But if you assign an extra unit to a member that isn't in the game do you know what happens to voting pause/cancel/draw, end game point distribution, message boxes along the top of the game? I suspect any/all of those would get messed up with an extra member actually owning units on the board. Unfortunately there isn't a quick and simple solution that I have been able to find. Oli at vDip had to make larger changes to the adjudicator code to make this (and many other variants) over on vDip work properly. And those changes are not really safe or simple to move into the main code base. So while at some point in the future I'd love to re-enable this variant and bring along some others from vDip, it's simply not possible for now.

[Claesar]

I suppose having them owned by webDipdummy04 automatically would require too much extra coding.

This does seem like an obvious solution.

On the surface it does. But if you assign an extra unit to a member that isn't in the game do you know what happens to voting pause/cancel/draw, end game point distribution, message boxes along the top of the game? I suspect any/all of those would get messed up with an extra member actually owning units on the board. Unfortunately there isn't a quick and simple solution that I have been able to find. Oli at vDip had to make larger changes to the adjudicator code to make this (and many other variants) over on vDip work properly. And those changes are not really safe or simple to move into the main code base. So while at some point in the future I'd love to re-enable this variant and bring along some others from vDip, it's simply not possible for now.

Yup, that would be a challenge. We'd have to CD the dummy, but without opening up the position for a replacement. I doubt that's possible within the current code.

[bo_sox48]

Maybe I’m crazy, but I think that we did the right thing by delisting a broken variant instead of rewriting the entire site’s code to match the requirements of a convoluted solution necessitating active moderator intervention in every single game played...

[Claesar]

I doubt anyone disagrees. I can't help but try to find solutions to presented problems though, even if I'm uneducated in the subject.

[David E. Cohen]

Pardon my complete coding ignorance. I appreciate the effort that people put in here. Certainly, there are many worthy variants that would not require nearly as much effort. Mine and others! LOL

[bo_sox48]

Nah, the code issues are on this site's end, there was nothing you could have planned for. It works perfectly on vDip. We may find a workaround at some point that lets it run on webDip as well but I don't know.

[LakersFan]

It is a really fun variant, definitely worth playing on vdip.