I find this interesting, but I think some of the proposed objectives would need clarification.

Take the first one, "Eliminate Turkey and England". Would you win if those two powers were eliminated, even if you did not take their last SC?

In terms of the short-term objectives, so if someone has the short-term objective "Keep Belgium neutral in 1901 and 1902" does the game immediately end in 1902, and they're the winner, if that happens?

i am also interested. what about if you need to eliminate turkey and england, it has to be done in a specific order

yes, you can claim that objective once both England and Turkey are defeated. You don't need to be the one having defeated them. The order doesn't matter. (of course, these are just proposals, I'm all for brainstorming and changing them). The short-term objectives would be really fun to have in the set, because it'll alter the way people play in the opening, either because they're chasing an objective, or because they want to avoid somebody else making theirs. However, the short-term ones wouldn't be too much fun if someone got them, because it ends the game.

Me. In.

Sounds interesting I would try.

I think there's a potential problem in the fact that the objectives are secret AND can be achieved without any direct act on the part of the player with that objective. You might cause another player to suddenly win, by bringing about the conditions of their objective - BUT you'd have no way of knowing that was at risk of occurring as a result of your action.

Hence I think all potential objectives used in a particular game should be listed somewhere and chosen randomly from. So, for instance, if there were 19 objectives and everyone received one, you know which 18 others might have. If you complete an objective on the potential objectives-list, you willingly take a 33% risk that someone else wins.

I'd be willing to give this a shot. I am busy though, so I'll reconsider before the game starts. For now I'm in.

I think it would be more interesting if the objectives were known, actually. It's not like "get to 18 SCs" is secret, yet it happens all the time.

You could even have the list of possible objectives, and let countries pick one publically after country assignments.

If you pick the same objectives as someone else, and it wins, you draw?

Is there some way of building short-term objectives so they don't end the game?

Also they would be more interesting if they were separated into regions.

So keeping belguim neutral would be something the one of the western powers got. You could have a list of six 'western' short-term objectives; six northern; six eastern; and six southern. ( there are three power in each group )

And then let each player choose two.

Russia could take an eastern and northern objective for example.

Then you need some alternative to ending the game.

Maybe in winter 1903 everyone reveals which short term objectives they got, and if you completed one you get to order your troops in 1904; and if you completed two you get to move in 1904 and 1905. (Or is spring and fall strong enough)

Again, as steephie suggested these should be picked randonly from a public list. And maybe you should also have everyone announce publically whether they are picking objectives in each region.

Could make objectives worth SCs, and increase the victory condition appropriately. How you decide how many SCs an objective is worth is a bit tricky though.

Well, the final objective could be reaching a certain amount of points like 20 and each player could have, say, three objectives at a time to try and reach for a specified amount of points. After the objective is reached, the player gets a new objective.

Possibly, the amount of SCs you hold is added to your point total as well, so SCs matter as well.

I cross-posted with thorfi and interestinly it seems like we're on the same track except I fleshed it out more.

(I'm just game design kibitzing, BTW, I don't have time for press games currently.)

So as Turkey I could win by moving to EAS/SYR/ARM and holding while also making sure France & Germany gang up on England?

If you lose all centers first and then E/T get eliminated, you win?

Yes, the idea is that the objectives get picked randomly and nobody knows who has which objectives, but they do not the set of all possible ones. And certain objectives would be uncompatible with certain countries: being Turkey and having to eliminate Turkey + England is kinda pointless. Also, the objectives are designed such that you cannot achieve them just on your own: the whole point of diplomacy is to get other players to make moves that advance your agenda.

I think having the objectives secret will make the game much more fun. First of all, once you know someone's objective (for example the "build more fleets than everyone else combined"), it's really easy to stop. So players will spend a lot of time guessing each other's objectives, and maybe even pretending to have different ones than they really have. Also, many objectives will impact the game strongly just by being in the set of possibilities.

Oh, and Nikola Maric Eto brings up a good point: you can't win by completing your objective if you're eliminated. I suppose there are other technical rules that we have to agree on, like what happens when two players simultaneously hit their objectives.

Player list:
1. krellin
2. ND
3. steephie?

IM im already an afterthought?

@"I think having the objectives secret will make the game much more fun. First of all, once you know someone's objective"

Yes, from a set of known objectives... So you can then lie t your opponent about your objective and get them to tell you theirs in exchange (so you can both help the other achieve their objective)

Maybe some objectives to help italy/austria or otherwise balance the relative advantsges of certain countries ( france? Who wins most on webdip?? )

Sorry, ssorenn

Player list:
1. ssorenn
2. krellin
3. ND
4. steephie?

I think we need a list of ~15-20 objectives, so each one has a small but reasonable chance to be in play. Do you guys have suggestions? Also feel free to modify the ones I came up with. Maybe some are too hard/too easy.

Russia/France are the strongest powers in traditional diplomacy, but Italy is great at affecting the entire board, which is going to be really important in this game.

are you not playing Bas?

Sadly not. I'm in three full-press WTA games, that's about as much as I can handle. But it'll be fun to watch, and I'll act as GM.

i am too--------more=better

Ssssorren... My old nemesis. You and I need a winning scenario where we each win if we can manager to play one game without stabbing each other! ;)

Stabbing you is sooooooo fun though.

I've got the lube...extra large and tinglym

No one doubts you krellbell.

When does this start? I might have a go but I've got my hands full right now

We need to have 7 players and agreement on the rules. For now we mainly need inspiration for fun objectives. If you have cool ideas, please help me brainstorm :)

I think you're either going to want a different set of possible goals for each country, or a way of writing the goals so that they can be applied to all countries that will result in equivalent difficulty.

I think the latter might be better, e.g.:

* Eliminate three countries, player's choice.
* Eliminate two countries before the start of 1908, player's choice.
* Move all of your starting units to a distance of N (4? 5? 6?) from their original starting supply centre (automatically fail if any of those units are destroyed).
* Never have a unit dislodged, never lose a home SC, and never capture another player's home SC.

Ah, and there should be some opposed goals to make things interesting:

* Do not have any countries eliminated before the start of 1908.
* Have all three of your starting units dislodged, and lose half (rounded up) of your home SCs.

(Maybe that last one is too hard - maybe dislodged or disbanded will do).