Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 25 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
jimshlif (441 D)
07 May 07 UTC
"Due now?"
I'm new to phpdiplomacy, so forgive me if this should be obvious, but what does "End of phase: due now" mean? Orders have apparently been "due" for hours without being processed.

Thanks in advance for the explanation!
3 replies
Open
Chrispminis (916 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Break!
Notice : People who are in my games may have noticed that I missed my turn. I've been having internet problems, and as such, have very unpredictable connectivity. As well, RL is preventing me from devoting too much time to Diplomacy, so until the summer starts...

I will be taking a break of phpDip. I will finish off the games that I am currently playing, to the best of my ability, but I will not participate further until more free time clears itself up. I expect to be back within a little over a month. Have fun, and good luck everyone!
2 replies
Open
Nemesis (100 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Don't forget the Diplomacy widows, Sunday.
"A man’s own actions, will from the start give him such a name that it will require a long course of opposite conduct to destroy it." - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Discourses. 1517.

0 replies
Open
aoe3rules (949 D)
11 May 07 UTC
Look what I found on Google...
ANAGRAMS (1) [HR:Sep02]
Some amusing Diplomacy-related anagrams:
"The Game of Diplomacy" -> Employ magic of death.
"The Abyssinian Prince" -> Brainy, nice thespians; Piranha by insistence; An inane, bitchy pisser.
France-Austria-Russia: Saucier anus farts air.

DIPLOMACY.AZ (1) [HR:Dec92]
Diplomacy AZ is phun,
Especially when it's all done!
Proof-reading's a chore,
And a terrible bore,
And printed, it must weigh a ton!
[Gets more and more pertinent with each issue!!]

DIPLOMACY DEFINITIONS (1) [Mike Guest and Bill Michell, 1988]
Ally: Someone who has misheard you.
Close Ally: Someone who you are blackmailing.
Bad Player: Someone who can't lipread.
"Think Ahead" Player: Someone who diplomes before the countries have been picked.
Paranoid Player: Someone who insists on being there when his drink is being poured.
Good Player: Someone who seems to win every week, but does it so quietly that no-one seems to notice.
Demilitarized zone: The Black Sea
Confidence: An Austrian who bothers to draw up a seat, or an Italian who asks what 4+1 is.
Optimism: Russian F(GOB) - Swe in Fall 1901
Trust: A weapon to use only when all else fails.

DIPLOMACY EMOTIONS (1) [HR:Apr92]
Satisfaction: That your moves went off as planned.
Delight: That your backstab worked.
Glee: The opponent you stabbed was also stabbed by someone else.
Gloating: Seeing an opponent who critically stabbed you get crushed.
Exultation: When it's you who delivers the coup de grace.
Bliss: 18 supply centres.
Anxiety: Wondering how many of your neighbours are plotting against you.
Fear: Finding that it's all of them.
Desperation: Trying to get their neighbours to stab them.
Despair: When they insist on fighting each other.
Exasperation: Just when you've fought off 2 of your neighbours, the third comes barging in.
Frustration: Getting a build when all your home dots are occupied.
Vexation: Getting a build when someone else is occupying your home SCs!
Shock: Getting unexpected support from another player.
Loneliness: Exile in Iceland.
Sympathy: What's that?

DIPLOMACY QUOTATIONS (1) [HR:Apr92]

1. Diplomacy dichotomy: Getting stabbed is as much fun as sucking lemons when you have the mumps, but stabbing someone is as much fun as switching his chocolate bar with one of Ex-Lax.
2. Famous last words of a Diplomacy player: "But you promised...!"
3. Playing Diplomacy is like juggling knives on a greased floor. Make one slip and you'll get stabbed.
4. The Ultimate Compliment: "I'm glad I'm not your neighbour!"

DIPLOMAT (2) [SS:Jan95]

1. A diplomat is a man who can convince his wife she'd look stout in a fur coat. Anonymous.
2. A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age. Robert Frost
3. How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. Karl Kraus (1874-1936)
4. A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you'll look forward to the trip. Anonymous

HELL (1) [HR:Apr92]
There is a special place in Hell reserved for Diplomacy players. It's called Carebearland. Everyone is forced to play cooperative games, with no lying, cheating, double-dealing or backstabbing allowed!

HYORK [PG:Nov93]
'Tag' used by Dick Martin, Bob Olsen and other early-80s Dipsters to denote sardonic laughter. Example: "Your mother was a simple-minded antelope, hyork hyork."

LIE (1) [MB:Jun80]
The telling of an untruth is one of the most overused diplomatic procedures, yet sometimes is unavoidable. The value you hope to gain from the lie must be balanced against (1) The chance of it being discovered too soon, (2) The loss of credibility (3) the possibility that the same result could be accomplished, albeit more slowly, in a more "diplomatic" manner.

LIFE (1) [HR:Oct02]
Those regular, recurring events that are usually unavoidable and serve only to interfere with the playing of Diplomacy. Eating, sleeping, family (especially children) and work are the worst offenders. Paradoxically, work also brings in the money that is required to maintain the ability to play Diplomacy...

LIGHTBULBS (1) [MN:May94]
How many Diplomacy players does it take to screw in a light bulb?
John Doucette:
Seven, unless they're named Loeb, then it takes nine.
It depends on the variant of the lightbulb.
Two, but it takes them a week to negotiate it.
Only one, if you give him Hall of Fame points for it.
One can do it, but it takes years, and a one-way lightbulb is much more satisfying than a three-way one.

Timothy Ferguson:
A: It doesn't matter how many you have to change the bulb, none will trust the others to hold the chair steady.
(taken from a rec.games.diplomacy post, 26th May 1994.)

LIMERICKS (1) [HR:Dec92]
In Diplomacy to be a winner,
one must be a terrible sinner.
The teller of lies,
Grows to a frightening size,
While the virtuous only get thinner.

PLAYING TOO MUCH DIPLOMACY (1) [BJ:Sep95]
You Know You've Been Playing Too Much Diplomacy When...
You're lying in bed (half asleep) with your significant other. Your hand is resting on her (or his) stomach. You consider moving said hand to a 'more sensitive' area, but decide that you can't because:
A. You can't remember the 3-letter abbreviation for that province, and
B. That move will never succeed without support anyway.

QUOTATIONS (1) [MN:Feb93]
"The principle of give and take is the principle of diplomacy-- give one and take ten." - Mark Twain

"The sign of a good negotiation is when both sides walk away aggravated." - Kevin Gershan

"If you had had the decency to lie to me, we could have worked together". Steve Hutton, as Turkey, to Robert Lowes, as Austria, during the finalists' tourny at Can-Con 1988. (From Passchendaele 70, October 1988.)

"Any time two allies stab a third, at least one of those allies is making a mistake." (Michael Sany, RGD post 2nd March 1996.)

RETREAT FROM PORTUGAL (1) [MB:Jun80]
Diplomacy's rarest manuver. Needs more skill than has ever been had.

RUSTY BOLTS (1) [MN:Apr93]
An exercise in irony on the hobby and its members. They were first ran, originally intended as a one-off, by Ken Bain in _NMR_! from 1982-1985. In 1986 Nick Kinzett took them over. Each year there were ten different categories, although the categories changed from year to year.

Example categories: The Chris Tringham Nearly Famous Award for Upstart of the Year, The MidCon Tony Wheatley Award for Being Who They Are, The Forden's Epitaph Award for the Least Regretted Fold or for the Most Eagerly Awaited Fold, R.J. Walkerdine Award for the Most Boring Topic of Correspondence, The Gary Piper Award for Tact and Diplomacy, Fairy Sopwith Award for the most absurd game of 1985, The Andy Blakeman "Protest in Earnest" Award for Redundant Prose, Wright-Donley Award for the Most Spectacular Con Attendee, The Mike Benyon Brass Award for Delay or the Least Plausible Reasons for it and The Nick Kinzett award for Anything Not Yet Mentioned.

In 1988 and 1989 the winners received real Rusty Bolts! [Mark Nelson, your humble AZ creator, has won a couple of them.]

SMALLEST ISSUE EVER (1) [JM:Jun92]
John Walker published an issue of _The Alamo City Times_ that measured 2 inches by 2 inches!

TERMINAL TUNISITIS (1) [MB:Mar82]
The result of a country being permanently reduced to a sole unit, usually an army in Tunis or Portugal. It may survive there a long time. [HR:Oct02] This gives the player the chance to deluge the others with silly press, since s/he doesn't have to worry about strategy...
4 replies
Open
Rait (10151 D(S))
26 Apr 07 UTC
Another piece of demographics - males/females
I just got into a funny experience-sharing with one of the co-players here - both of us have been accused of beeing gay boys during the 'diplomacy' :) This brought me to an idea that for some reason people assume that all the other people here on the site are male

I would like to know how many male/female players we actually have here? Is Diplomacy really a boys game? I have to admit that in FTF games I've played more with girls than boys....
51 replies
Open
LucusVonLucus (1551 D)
12 May 07 UTC
rules clarification
In the game CROOK, I moved into a neutral SC in spring (Spain) then moved the same unit into another neutral SC (Portugal) in Autumn and Spain went back to Neutral. Is this correct? The same thing happened to Turkey; he moved to Bulgaria to Greece.
If this is in Error could Kestas help us out?
2 replies
Open
your majesty (970 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Game WWIII is stuck at "due now"
please fix it as soon as possible :)
0 replies
Open
posseman (105 D)
12 May 07 UTC
New Game: Full Character
This will be a full character game, all players will communicate as if they were the heads of their countries. No predetermined allies and please follow through and complete the game.
0 replies
Open
Civil Disorder
After how long does someone become "civil disordered"?
1 reply
Open
braddles31 (100 D)
11 May 07 UTC
error in games of play
WHY does it still count games that you are out of, such as when one plays Austria in a game and is eliminated and cant join more games as "you are playing too many"
why doesnt the system recognise that you are NOT active in those games and delete them so you can play another game?????????
hmmmmm
3 replies
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
12 May 07 UTC
What happened?
Kestas, I know you log all moves to help in confusions or possible rule errors, and I'm wondering if I could ask for help here. In one of my games (#701), Russia and Austria both claim to be allied with me. However, I know that one of these supported a hold by Germany - who was supposidly a shared enemy. Could you tell me which of the two sent a support hold please.
The units in question are Mid Atlantic Ocean, one of my fleets and either Spain or Portugal.
3 replies
Open
Writhdar (949 D(S))
12 May 07 UTC
Game for mature adults (of all ages)
"Vercingetorix" is being created for players who can act maturely and responsibly - no obscenities or other undiplomatic speech, no pre-formed alliances, no multiple identities. Role playing (pre-WWI European diplomats) and a sense/knowledge of history would be welcome.
0 replies
Open
Evilduck (322 D)
11 May 07 UTC
An Error
An assertion, $this->mode != DIPLOMACY or (count($this->USERMEMBERSHIPS) == 7 and count($this->MEMBERSHIPS) == 7), was not met as required..

Whenever I try to go to my games I get the following error. The problem may well be on my end because my browser recently wiped all my saved favorites
>.< (d'oh)

I'm running Firefox
2 replies
Open
zoople (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
Newbies
Hi people, I'm relitively new to this game. I've played a few games before, but still a bit innexperienced. Is there any newbie areas or newbie guides? It mostly so that I know the protocols of play so that I don't hold the game up or ruin it.
2 replies
Open
Smokodanko (618 D)
11 May 07 UTC
Been Gone, sorry for inactive games
My connection has been screwy all week, so I'm guessing I missed several turns. Sorry to any allies who needed me to be active.
0 replies
Open
Chrispminis (916 D)
03 May 07 UTC
Last to post wins!
Ah! Since the phpDiplomacy community has grown so much, I think it's time our forum got it's own "Last person to post wins!" contest.

The rules are simple. The last person to post in this thread wins.

The goal?
1. Create a thread where any sort of discussion can happen.
2. Create the longest thread.
3. Explore the unknown regions of incredibly high post counts, and see if there truly is an end of the thread.

Oh, and don't spam, so keep double posting down to a minimum.

Oh, and I'm winning. :D
Page 3 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Rait (10151 D(S))
06 May 07 UTC
Locke: We had the greatest empire that the world has ever seen, greater even than the Romans, in fact we were one of the few european countries whose fate did not directly depend on Rome in the middle ages.

I'm not English, but I think I know something about England. Although the Roman influence wasn't that huge in the middle ages, I think they did their job well enough already before that - basically half of the England south to the Hadrian's Wall was a well governed Roman province for a long time and their influence to English culture (and early economy) was enormous. One could even argue that perhaps Your imeprialistic traits could be inherited from Romans. If someone denies Roman influence to English, then one could see Monty Python's Life of Brian seeking answer to the question "What have the Romans ever done for us?" :)

I think that Estonia was much less ifluenced by Romans than English (...haha ...as nobody simply cared ;) ...). Estonian 'empire' was in its high peak (after the Estonian War of Independence 1920) about 25 000 sq miles, extending nearly to the Saint Petersburg and Pskov in north/east (Russia) & Cēsis in south (Latvia - which is covered by Livonia in Diplomacy map) .

See that is an achievement to be mentioned :) I think that few European nations have beaten Russians in recent centuries in their own war which resulted in Russians surrendering & seeking peace.
Worldbeing (1063 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Sorry, just to correct Locke, it wasn't predictions that the sun would never set on the empire, it was that the sun did never set on the empire; it being a reference to the fact that it was always daytime somewhere in the Empire.
It was a reference to expanse, not duration.
And AntoniusRex: didn't know that, but which Empire is remembered for it?
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Thanks you worldbeing, i got a bit lax in remembering that quote!

Rait, if you count the middle ages as being from about 500s to 1500s then rome did have much less influence on britain than other european countries. True we did get a lot of culture from them but we got a lot from the invading saxans and vikings and they were 'hardcore' pagans whom Rome never conquered/subdued.

I was also talking about the religious aspect of it, saying rome to mean the holy see. Britain was much less influenced by the pope than other european countries and we were one of the first significant countries to split from Rome, Germany was part of the holy roman empire in those days and was heavily influenced by the pope, France was strongly catholic if we overlook the cathars and even housed the papacy in avignion for a while. Spain also was very strongly catholic and even sent an armada against independent England (albeit later).

I might have come across slightly strong earlier and i did exaggerate some points but i wasn't having a go at anyone, i was merely trying to prove that Bristish and European history had worldwide implications and was very diverse and interesting. May i thank Worldbeing and Rait for their corrections/disputes.
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
'Right because Europe has a rich history of tolerance, acceptance, and peace in general.'

I can see what you mean saying that but that is a very general statement and in many ways is unfair.

Firstly america came along long after the enlightenment and the renaissance, we all new a lot better after that and understood the way the world works in terms of science rather than god.

Constitutional america was founded on principles of the intelligentsia that wrote your declaration of independence, our governments evolved over years and the Aristocracy who rather liked the idea of an empire were very influential in reforms and policies.

Most european countries admittedly went down the path of empire building, but that was because our weapons were much more advanced than non-european countries. America can't wash her hands of interfering in other countries, they just did it slightly more subtely, through proxy warfare.

Europe was like the guinea pig, we had to go through several centuries of ignorance and wrong decisions before we arrived at a civilised point, but america should have learned from the mistakes of Europe the create an ideal society and know how to treat other countries in order to avoid warfare, unfortunately America didn't do this and repeated many of Europes mistakes while it was developing, mistakes that should have been avoided.

America is a great country and stands for a lot that is good and pleasent about humanity, but they have made their fair share of mistakes in the past and are not always the most peaceful, tolerant or accepting of nations.
Zxylon (0 DX)
06 May 07 UTC
I live in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and im about to graduate High School. Last year I took AP US history. We have a "Global Connections" Program which is supposed to cover world history. In GCIII, we only seem to focus on America. Mainly because its 20th century focus and America was the center of the world in 20th century history. I was hoping that we could actually learn about other things that are admitedly unimportant relative to Vietnam, but we dont. A large number of schools around my area have a AP Euopean History class which starts around 1492 and goes up to present day. I love history and I feel I missed out of an opportunity to learn a great deal about Europe.

I still know a ton about US History though. If that means anything.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Well it's not as if the atrocities I mentioned simply stopped in Europe after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on a Wittenberg church, or Thomas Hobbes wrote "Leviathan". I would argue that Europe was never truly "civilized" until after World War II, when the European Union was founded. Before that, yes, even after the enlightenment, Europe was a powder keg, not to mention an awful place to live if you're a Jew.

I acknowledge American mistakes. For one thing, our little escapades in Vietnam and Iraq are shameful, as is our history of genocide and slavery. But I believe in America, to quote one Mr. Bonasera. One must only look at the huge influx of immigrants, in the past and present, to see why America is the greatest country in the world. I'm sure I'll be criticized for that statement, but please remember it's my own opinion.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
That's interesting, do you go to public school? I live in New York and I guess it's my liberal private school education that refuses to teach about the country we live in.
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I actually go to a state school but it is very small and in many ways is like a private school.

First Zxylon, it's nice to talk to somebody that shares my interest in History and i was not trying to dismiss americas colourful history, but just saying that Europes is every bit as interesting.

Tucobenedicto, i find myself agreeing with some of your statements but i would still argue that Europe was well on its way to civilization in around the Edwardian era.

But am i right in thinking that if the confederates had won the war then America might not have been as free as it is today?
My knowledge on the confederates is basic, but i think you could have said that they were more american than the North, and the North was far more European in it's outlook, that is, freedom and equality for all.

Please think about that point carefully, i might be offending national pride or whatever, but it is possible that if the true 'americans' had won the war then america would have stood for something completely different.
fastspawn (1625 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Confederates didn't fight for ~slavery~. They fought for the side of self-determinism. Slavery was one of the points brought into contention, but the concept of whether the union of states was a confederation or a federation was overarching. If the confederates had won, it wouldn't mean that USA would be different. It would mean the USA would be half its size (or smaller).
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I see, but surely if the confederates had won then they would have brought the other states into the confederation, rather than the union. Therefore the issues that confederates believed in would have had a place in the foreground of U.S politics, they might have come around to the European way of thinking in the end but it would still have taken longer than it actually did. After all, the powerful backers of the confederation wouldn't have wanted to give up their slaves just because Europe didn't do it any more.

The entire economy of North America would have been supported by slaves if the Confederates had won.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Not necessarily. The Civil War was a war of independence, not of expansion. It's probable that in the long run the Confederacy would have expanded, however I don't think they would have "taken over the Union". Did the US expand into Canada?

It's also definite that the Confederacy would have abandoned their "Southern ideals" eventually, take the Brazilian Empire (emancipation of all slaves by 1888). There was a modest abolitionist presence in the South at the time, and it's a well known fact that Robert E. Lee didn't share all of his colleagues' opinions regarding slavery. That doesn't mean that he was an abolitionist, however he was quite liberal compared to other Confederate leaders and he was also a favorite to succeed Jefferson Davis.

Another reason slavery would be abandoned eventually is the fact that it is, in fact, cheaper to hire freedmen to work the plantations instead of paying for food, housing, and clothes for entire families. The racism factor plays a major part in this though.

There's no doubt that if the Confederacy had won, they would have faced an absolutely enormous (no exaggeration here) economic depression due to other competitors in the cotton market (mainly India and Egypt) gaining a foothold in the market during the war. Also, it's safe to assume that there would eventually not be as great a demand for cotton.

It's always unwise to base an entire economy around one commodity.
opripom (2853 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Rait, as I remember, Russia was held up with a lot of changes around 1920 (starting from the revolution of 1917). That's why România succeded in uniting with Moldova (and other smaller territories) and creating România Mare - Great Romania (barbarian-like name, right? :D) right after WWI was over.

I must say I was captivated by the discussion, I found out a lot of interesting things over different political and historical issues. Please go on. :)

As for communism - a great idea badly applied. It's quite paradoxical that, although the root from which communism rose, marxism, was developed by a middle-class man (a bourgeois, if I may), the ideology was dedicated to all social classes, and since the majority was always formed by lower-class men... you can see where I'm going with the paradox. :)
Locke (1846 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Tucobenedicto,

You've made an interesting set of points there and i will accept that you're correct because i don't really know that much about the American civil war, and you plainly do!

One thing that we should remember is that Britain and America have never been directly at war with each other since the independence (we might have given the confederates a few battleships from time to time, whoops....), with the exception of our joint efforts on Germany and Nazi Germany. We obviously are similar enough that we can get along very well, and today our governments are very proud of our 'special relationship'.

Britain was the economic and military leader of the past and America is that of the present, in all likelyhood we will both be made shadows by Chinas growing might. Our joint dependence on oil will probably be the weakness that we will regret going into the future, our societies both have a huge demand for it and both would grind to a halt without our pipelines.

If there is one thing from the past that we should both regret it is the slave trade, unfortunately it is difficult to feel genuine sorrow since both our countries were made rich by it. We both have the same strategic defense in times of war as well because technically we are both basically islands, not really in the geographical sense maybe but none of our enemies are in close proximity to us.

Finally for numerous reasons both of us face a serious threat from the middle east going into the future, perhaps we are slightly better off than you because Europe has been invading the middle east on and off throughout history!!
Zxylon (0 DX)
07 May 07 UTC
Locke, You're forgetting the war of 1812. The United States Declared war on Britain and we Britain took over Washington DC and burned it to the ground.

The thing about the American Civil War is that the Confederates had no way of "winning" the war. The only thing they could hope for was foreign recognition which they failed to do because of their position on slavery. Or that the Union would give up, which it almost did several times. It all came down to Virginia. If Virginia didnt secede from the Union, Generals such as Lee or Jackson would have fought for the Union and war would likely have ended in about a year. Authors have speculated (alternare history) what would happen if the Civil war was abandoned by the Union. Ultimately slavery became outdated by technology. Today 1 farmer with technology can out produce hundreds of slaves or Africans. That barrior breakdown would probably have caused a reunification.

Slaves are an overrated commodity. Industry was taking off in the north and the economy was no longer going to stay rural. The center of the country was always the northeast and it continues to this day. We have land so we farm, but farmers cant make a long term profit due to their perfectilly competitive market structure. Since the 1930's the government has paid farmers not to produce so prices dont go too low.

Basically what im trying to say is that during the civil war COTTON WAS NOT KING. They thought foreign dependance could win them recognition and the war. The southern cause was doomed.
Locke (1846 D)
07 May 07 UTC
ahh, thank you. I must admit i had absolutely no idea about that one. Slaves are indeed overrated although some industries still seem to do quite well on them.

I think that the World Wars would have killed off slavery as well, after all Britain gave up much of it's empire because they had fought for us in our war and we couldn't really rule them as masters after that, i think that much the same would have happened with American slaves. They would have undoubtedly had to fight for america and as a result of that would have demanded their independence, alternatively if they didn't fight they would have taken on white collar jobs and been free because of that.

I realise that technology would have killed it off eventually though, after all it would be pretty hard for the telecommunications industry to use forced labour!!
Chrispminis (916 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Phew, what have I done?

Oh, as to my Dawkinist views, I'll be frank, his logic appeals to me greatly, although I don't necessarily condone his violent atheism, growing up in Canada, where tolerance is the law. As to altruism, Dawkins doesn't say himself that atheism does not exist, he just says that if it were to exist, it would only be extremely temporary, and that selection pressures would immediately put an end to genetic altruism.

As to this whole new political talk... very interesting. Personally I've been quite bored with my Canadian history, and I must say I enjoy European history a lot more than American history. As to America never trying to expand into Canada, that's not exactly true... the War of 1812 reeks of American expansion to the North, and it is said that without that, Canada would not have developed as a nation independant of the United States, because a separate nationalistic sentiment would not have evolved.

To this day in fact, Canadians are united in the thought that the war of 1812 was a victory since we repelled the American invasion, as well as took the war as far south as New Orleans, whereas the Americans are more united in the thought that the War of 1812 was a victory for them because the final battle of New Orleans was a victory on their side.

I don't know if this is the case in other countries, but here in Canada, the world history course seems desperately tolerant. More emphasis is placed on the contributions of ethnic minorities, especially during times of conflict, such as recently a lot of emphasis has been placed in our world history curriculum on the contributions of the islamic people.

In fact, very little of the contributions of caucasians is mentioned, although the "world" history course centres mostly on western civilization, it seems to take particular care to avoid pointing that out, insisting that each and every culture in the world had an extremely important role to play. It makes me feel that the curriculum is based highly on the fear of being accused of racist.

Tucobenedicto (100 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Hmm. I guess that's true, my mistake. I completely forgot about the invasion of Canada. That's not what the main focus of the War of 1812 was though. Issues such as British Naval impressment of American sailors, British violations of treaties laid out after the Revolutionary War, and the overall economic stubbornness of Britain also contributed greatly to the eventual declaration of war.
Zxylon (0 DX)
07 May 07 UTC
The war of 1812 is a forgotten war. The Us attacked Canada. We always thought Canadians wanted to be America and would embrace us with open arms. We only won defensive battles in that war. The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought after the official armisitce was signed. Information lag.

A neat bit of info about the US civil war. There was a diplomatic incident where a British diplomatic ship was captured by the Union smuggling info into the Confederacy. Britian became furious and massed thousands of troops in Canada and prepared for an invasion which the Union was in no position to fight. Lincoln capitulated to Britain's demands and crisis was averted.

One question for the British. When did England become britian. And when did Britian become the United Kingdom. I always assumed when the empire started England became Britian. I use them as synonyms. Please explain the differences.
Zxylon (0 DX)
07 May 07 UTC
BTW 1812 the US almost went to war against France Before we ever even considered going to war against Britain. Its funny really, If Toussant L'Ouverture didnt win the Haitian Revolution Napoleon would have need Louisiana and the US would have never bought it off of the French. Who knows what the world would be like if we never expanded west of the mississippi and it would all stem to the Haitians.
Zxylon (0 DX)
07 May 07 UTC
Locke, you said you're from Glastonberry. I looked it up on wikipedia and it sounds like a facinating place to live with all the myths. It says that King Arthus and Guenivere were buried there.
Chrispminis (916 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Well, in Canadian history, the War of 1812 is quite significant. :P

The thing that pains most Canadians, and is perhaps what fuels most anti-American sentiment in Canada, is that we seem to get little recognition on the global stage. I had always been proud to be Canadian but I always thought our accomplishments paled in comparison to the parading patriotism of our southern neighbours.

It has been a long running joke that if you went to America, they would not be able to tell you the most trivial information about the rest of the world.

But then... I went to Australia! Great country, loved it there. Anyways, one of the first things I noticed when I went there, was that, on Australian TV, they mention Canadians, and refer to our leaders by name instead of just by title! People in Australia know who the Prime Minister of Canada is, they know of our major cities, and I proudly noted that the Canadian $ was just a tad higher than the Australian $.

It was then I noticed that I didn't know how Australian government worked at all, and I realized that Canadians are perhaps just as ignorant of Australia as America is of Canada. It's really quite interesting, I thought Canada was underappreciated.
Locke (1846 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Well Zxylon,

Glastonbury is quite interesting historically but only from a cultural and social point of view, nothing interesting politically of militarily happened here. King Arthur was rumoured to have lived and fought around here and the 'isle of avalon' upon which he was buried is Glastonbury Tor. One of the main reasons we associate Arthur with glastonbury is because the monks of Glastonbury abbey wanted to cash in on the myth!!

As for britain, England was England for much of our history and we were neither allied nor conjoined with the rest of Britain. King Edward I spent most of his life conquering our island and he subdued wales, although scotland remained ever elusive.

Wales fought a few times for independence without success, but Scotland was almost unconquerable. Eventually when one of the first queens, Elizabeth I died wothout an hier, James VII of Scotland became James I of England, effectively uniting the two.

Ireland was very difficult for England, they were very proud people, King Henry II was the first to invade and he managed to get some power over the ruling irish nobles, eventually English law was introduced and aside for a few rebellions it has been British ever since, excluding the republic of Ireland of course.

By the time of the empire there were several irish companies within the army and they got a reputation, along with the scots as being some of the fiercest troops in our army.
The Mahatma (1195 D)
07 May 07 UTC
Locke: My background is Indian, and, to me, "great empire" sounds an awful lot like an oxymoron. As for this comment: "The Americans as a fledgling democracy undoubtadly looked at the british model and marvelled at its success," countries in the developing world historically looked to the US in the 20th century because they admired its anti-imperialism, so, in that respect, US developed along an opposite path of England.

Empire left India in a mess, as it did many of the part of the world the English think they "civilized". Empire has always been about commerce and to pretend it's about anything else is an insult to the intelligence.

The US has now become the imperialist power, and Tony Blair is not being bullied around, he a willing participant, a mendacious fool who is nostalgic for the glory days of Empire. US claimed they went to Afghanistan to liberate the women; another example of imperialism being coated in the varnish of civilizing the natives. To those proud Anglos: did you know that the British Forces asked the Americans to hold back and let them be the first to march into Basra? And (let me test your knowledge of history) do you know why?
Locke (1846 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Well, i must admit that i am an overly proud and arrogant Englishman and that i was putting my own spin and interpretation on the events of the past.

However the facts remain, Britain did build the greatest empire the world has ever seen and we should be proud of that. I would say that imperialism works, after all if we look around the globe the great empires of the past are all very wealthy and powerful.

Britain left India because india wanted her independence and we virtually got kicked out, if we had stayed then india might not have got into the mess it did.

The empire was undoubtedly about commerce and expansion and again there were reasons for this, Britain needed the money to fight napoleon and restore peace and sovereignty to the rest of Europe, if Britain did not take india then Imperial France would have done, for example france was supplying weapons and officers to the Tippo Sultan in the hope that he could hold off britain for long enough for France to get a foothold in india. As it was the fall of Seringapatam and the death of the sultan gave britain control of southern india. So in a way the war in Europe was one of the principle reasons for taking control of india.

Interestingly The 'sepoy general' Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington for whom i have enourmous respect learned his trade in india. He beat the Mahrattas army at the Battle of Assaye even though they were being led by a European and this proved his generalship to the lawyers and accountants eho would eventually send him to continental Europe to fight the frence. The Mahrattas fought very hard for their independence but at the end of the day their armies were no match for the discipline of british troops, so the colonization of india was an act of conquest against a foe that had been defeated in battle, that has been happening throughout history, independent india herself has fought wars over kashmir with pakistan. It is the right of the conquerer to subdue the conquered.

I don't actually know why britain wanted to march into basra first, perhaps it was because if they were the only ones fighting in basra then the americans couldn't shoot them?
dangermouse (5551 D)
08 May 07 UTC
I've no clue to the Basra question.

Also, I don't believe that anyone (with the possible exception of the president) believes or has made the claim that we, the US, went to Afghanistan primarily to liberate women. We went there because Osama killed a bunch of people in NY and DC. Since we couldn't declare war directly on an individual or small group of individuals, we chose the next closest thing...mostly I think because people's natural reaction is not to "turn the other cheek" but to hit back. Whether it,or any of our subsequent actions in the middle east, were in any way appropriate responses is another matter.

As for the war of 1812, I never claimed to be a student of history; but I always thought it was between the U.S. and Britain. Canada was still considered a part of Britain, and because it was the part that wasn't 3000 miles away we sent some troops that way. Is this not true in some way?
The Mahatma (1195 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Basra - Britain asked US to allow them to march into Basra first because that was the final outpost when Britain left Iraq as a colonial ruler.
1812 - Canada was a part of Britain in 1812. The notion that Canada defeated the US in 1812 is nationalistic propaganda.
"Imperialism works" - this is a matter of perspective. As you point out, Locke, it works for the imperialist, and the imperial powers are still thriving thanks to the cheap labour (sometimes free) and natural resources of the colonies. On the other hand, it does not work for the colonized. Imperialism flies in the face of allowing people the right of self-determination. You are as entitled to be proud and arrogant as any other person in the world, but being an Englishman does not give you a natural right to rule others. The history of the British Raj in India is very complicated and it is all too easy to blame the British for the post-independence turmoil. But certainly the policy of divide and rule has left lasting scars in terms of India's religious unity.
-Women. Certainly the claim was not made that US went to Afghanistan primarily for women. I did laugh when Americans started talking about the importance of liberating the women of Afghanistan, however, but did not carry this out. Why try to cloak what was pure militarism with humanitarian overtones?
Zxylon (0 DX)
08 May 07 UTC
I know very little about India other than what comes from my friend who is a Seik and came from Northern India. All I learned about is the Seepoy Rebellion and shows on the History Channel.

I still dont understand why the US didnt put all of its efforts into catching the culprit for 911, Bin Laden. He is still at large. Persoanlly I have no problem if the US just wanted Iraq for imperialistic reasons, but for going there to spread "freedom" in the form of Democracy was one of the stupiest ideas Ive ever heard. Its like our litte project which costs 6 Billion a month. Thats $30 from every US citizen a month. When we leave the Iraqi government will fall into anarchy and civil war will engulf the country. The US should just keep a military presence there to assure safe distribution of the Oil reserves.

Unfortunately, I am not very patriotic which is quite common amungst Americans. Some people would be very angry because Im not a blind follower of government. Our country is idiotic. All we have is American football and good television, although everyone loves Planet Earth which first aired on the BBC.

The only self assurance I have is that our Economy is strong and our military could obliterate the world 300 times over.

As for imperialism. The US only began imperialism so late because we had our own continent to take over first. We fought an Iraqi type war with the Phillipinos from 1898 to 1904 and we controlled them until WWII. We also own Guam, Puerto Rico, and some other insignificant possessions.

I am more familiar with US history in WWII, Civil War, and Revolutionary wars.
Locke (1846 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Iraq is a mess. We should strip the country of all it's worth and get out as soon as possible.

Don't ask me to justify that with politics or history~purely personal opinion.
Locke (1846 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Actually either that or stay on and govern the country under martial law.
Chrispminis (916 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Phew, we got a lot of very strong opinions flying around here. It is interesting to note some of the diction in this thread. I've noticed that despite the fact that people definitely know more about the history of their OWN country, people arguing against them, claim bias and propoganda. It is probably true that people are biased, but I find that there are two kinds of people in this thread, the ones that assert their opinions with strong active language, as if that there can be no doubt in what they say, and the ones that bend backwards to be tolerant and not incite anyone, and are very willing to make some concessions.

Personally, there is probably nobody who can claim that they are unbiased, and so, while keeping in mind everyone's origins and prejudices, also remember that accusing someone of bias is a little redundant, and the accusation pf propoganda, is probably not without the influence of propoganda itself.

As to the invulnerability of America, I do believe that China has near a trillion dollars in USD, hard currency, in it's treasury. The economy of USA would be in quite a pickle if China were to say, dump that currency into the ocean. Of course it's highly unlikely China would dump that much money, I'm just saying, that hypothetically, it would be disastrous.

Page 3 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

133 replies
arbiter bessone (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
the spanish american war
"remember the Maine"....

....join up and revenge your country.


just started a new game. join if you want.
0 replies
Open
kestasjk (64 DMod(P))
10 May 07 UTC
Downtime
There was some downtime as I tried to speed things up by removing some clutter from some tables. Not only did it not speed anything up, I also screwed some data up in the process. There was a brief window where you may have entered orders or messages and they have been erased since they weren't in the backup.

Apologies, if things continue to be slow I'll send another ticket, and see if anything gets done :-(
3 replies
Open
dtown (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
Quick Question
When a country is in civil disorder, does the gamemaster still wait for the them to make a move or does it just skip over them?
2 replies
Open
azapcap (0 D)
10 May 07 UTC
I got this notice
Autumn 1902, Diplomacy: Your fleet at North Sea disrupted the fleet at North Sea's convoy order.

I think it was meant the North Sea disrupting the English Channel's Convoy order as France has an army in Picardy and a fleet in the Channel.

Game:http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1038&msgmembershipid=0
0 replies
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
10 May 07 UTC
Mediocre Diplomacy 2
Our game has been stuck on "due now" for 2 days. If you could manually fix this, I'd appriciate it.
0 replies
Open
norwegian nerd (100 D)
09 May 07 UTC
My messages are being coverd by the map
Is this happening to every one or just me. I have to copy paste them to read them.
12 replies
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
Why is Russia so powerful?
Why would the creators of Diplomacy give Russia 4 units to start and the ability to create 4 units every turn when all of the other nations in the game only have 3. Were they Communists or something : )
30 replies
Open
Druadan (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I'm sorry, end of phase in HOW long?
Duncan Smells: Spring 1901, Diplomacy
* End of phase: in 27 hours


Vankessel: Spring 1905, Retreats
* End of phase: in 45 hours


[Game Name Here]: Spring 1905, Retreats
* End of phase: in 47 hours


2nd battlw of kamino: Spring 1904, Diplomacy
* End of phase: in 34 hours


What's going on?
7 replies
Open
llama (379 D)
09 May 07 UTC
Away, apologies
To anyone in games with me: sorry about disappearing and holding up the games, but I'm on a road trip with very occasional internet.
0 replies
Open
Iguard52 (673 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Possible Problem
In my game, D.U. League Game #1, last phase, Spring 1908, all of my move orders were off. I told my army in Trieste to move to Serbia and it moved to Tyrolia which cut off a support move I was doing. My army in Budapest moved to Serbia when I told it to move to Rumania and my fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea moved to Naples when I told it to move to the Ionian Sea. I know I could have put in the wrong orders, but I know for a fact that I told my fleet to move to the Ionian Sea. In fact he only move action that I made that didn't go wrong was a move to Bohemia, but because of my move to Tyrolia it didn't work. Any idea why this happened? (It didn't mess up my holds and support actions just the moves)

the game id is 837
5 replies
Open
stoni90 (780 D)
09 May 07 UTC
My Game..
My game Suck Fuck Dick...is now officially open...noobs only...
3 replies
Open
Locke (1846 D)
08 May 07 UTC
War of 1812
Starting the war of 1812 series, hopefully i will make it the longest running series on the site. Preferably intermediate to good players. Got the name from our lively discussion on the last to post wins thread.
0 replies
Open
Rait (10151 D(S))
08 May 07 UTC
The game 'The Fast Game' is hanging once again
GID 810
1 reply
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
08 May 07 UTC
Favorite Country
Of all of the countries in Diplomacy which one is your favorite to play as.

Mine is Germany.
9 replies
Open
Page 25 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top