personally, I'd love to have MadMarx and Jacob in that group.

What sort of commitment are you looking at here?

figles - I'll be back on tonight to answer that good question... but if texas or djbent read this or maybe one of the commentators from previous SoW's they can shed light on this important question too.

in reality - there is no concrete job description - so each analyst/commentator will have their own flair and put their own touch on the role. more to come.

Why can't observers make their own comments?

I'd be interested in commentary.

Based on our experiences during the School of War series, when random observers try to become commentators, not only does the quality and utility of the analysis go down, but they also tend to stray from the few rules that do exist. For example they will give specific move suggestions, or make outlandish statements. Of preference rather than staying neutral.

I guess the rules for the 'approved analysts' are that 1. They stay neutral and try to be analytical 2. They don't provide specific move suggestions or tactical options to the players. 3. Provide strategic insights that are useful specially to newer players.

But really its about trusting the insights of those top players who formally join to comment.

I will go and search for the old SoW commentary threads, and I think the SoW blog Ghost created is still around.

you all stink! hows that?

Would players be incouraged/discouraged from looking at the commentary?
Might it not spoil the 'purity' of the game, as what people read will unavoidably influence their decisions, even if they try to avoid it?

How do you prevent random comments from observers without adopting a policy of censorship?

Indeed, how do you stop ghost-written comments (no pun intended there)?

I for one can see ghosted comments being used as an extra level of diplomacy.

Are you talking about ghost rankings, or webdip rankings?

Who?

The game is based on Ghost rankings for entry...

I understand. But for the commentation.

Hm. With a two day phase, it's feasible for me to take this on, with the caveat that I will *not* be able to check the game more than once a day on weekdays, and not at all on the weekends - so in the (unlikely) event that people finalize prior to the deadline, I wouldn't be able to commit to 'two comment per game year'. Frankly, I'm not 100% confident I can commit to more than once a game year, although I'd obviously try to keep up on the action when exciting things are afoot.

One of the SoW threads is here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=431997


Of course, Babak, as this is your baby, and you've expressed a certain lack of enthusiasm for my playstyle in the past, I have no interest in pooping in your sandbox - if you'd prefer I keep my yap shut, I'm fine with that ;)

how do i get in on the actual action, i emailed ghost awhile back...

I could help you to join if you agree to support me through thick and thin in the game... ; )

otto - there was a thread seeting up a GR-Challange World game - it is now full.

Strategos - I dont remember saying that about your style - most likely I was trying to psyche you out in a game or something =P but you'd be MOST welcome to comment. and its understandable if once in a while you'd not get a chance to comment... but a game year will be 5x48 hours so 10 days or so for most game-years. plenty of time for two comments I think.

hopefully we'll get 3 more ppl to commit to analyze the game within the next 2-4 days, or else we might just pass on this idea.

flash, dave, and others - these are very good questions - the way we have made things work in the past (SoW experience is what I'm going off of here) is that

1) yes, there is a chance of comments influencing players just as there is a chance that the myriad strategy articles out there might influence players. but these are some of the top ranked players on the site and wont be easily influenced.

2) ghost-commentary as you call it is an interesting idea, and maybe a few people are not above trying it- but its effect will be minimal at best I think even if attempted.

3) players can look or not look - it would be up to them

4) random observers WILL end up commenting - but if the rule is set, then the analysts and other observers will politely ask them to post their 'comments' in the form of open-ended questions... there are many great examples of this in the SoW threads.

i hope I've been able to paint a clear picture of what I'm envisioning... but if there is not a lot of interest, i'm fine with scrapping the idea. in the end, I felt the whole community would benefit in that we'd get some expert analysis of this World Map which is a pretty rare variant of the game and we could all use more insight.

Fair nuff; I'll give my peanut galleryness in a few days; we have a day and a half to go for the first phase

As a previous commentator and participant, it is immensely interesting from both sides of the coin. I find as a player, having people critique your moves makes you play to your best (ish) and a commentator, there is a real challenge in finding constructive comments without making suggestions (overtly or otherwise).

My GR is appalling at the moment (and given the pace of games I play not liable to imprve any time soon), so I'll respectfully shut up now

Pete - despite your rating, I know the quality player that you are from our FB-dip experience. if you would honor us with your analysis, we would gladly take it.

stratagos, I will start a thread for the commentary within the next 24 hours, so you can post your first comment here until that is up, then copy/paste it to the actual commentary thread.

I'm pretty confident we'll get more commenters soon based on some PMs. and hopefully Pete will accept to join as analyst #2.

Babak - how can I refuse after that. I'll happily report a view from the gallery. Just point me at the thread (and the game....)

First deadline-Spring 2000-in only 7 hours! Commentators are you ready?

Waiting with baited breath. I'm amused that a couple countries are offering to draw already ;)

I'm being dense (or failing to spot the obvious). Can someone post a link (or PM me a link) to the actual game?

It makes commentating all the harder if you can't see the game ;)

I will commentate from 25th June onwards, if you want me to.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=31170

I'm going to post my S2000 commentray here (for now). It'll be easy for me to copy it to a new thread if needed, as I did the whole thing in word.

@strat. Thanks for the link

Ah, the World Map. 17 players, some bizarre old SCs, and some interesting challenges.

The biggest challenge is to get the local (continental) dynamics right, whilst keeping an eye on the Global picture. It’s also to vital to remember the wrap-around in the Pacific.

Fleets are far more important in this variant – I don’t think it’s remotely possible to win without a significant naval presence at some point. In addition, the victory target, and lack of clearly defined or obvious stalemate lines, make it very hard to stop an effective ‘stop the leader’ alliance forming if anyone looks like they might be beginning to dominate. Also, as the game progresses it can be increasingly hard to move new units to the front line, as that is liable to be a long way from your home SCs.

As usual for Turn 1, everyone is looking to pick up neutrals, and avoid getting stuck in a bad position. They’ll also be hoping their allies stuck to the plan....

So having made the point about a global view, I’m going to try and commentate by looking at regions – both land and sea, rather than 17 individual countries.

Land:
1. North America: A 3-way fight – USA v Quebec v Western Canada. A classic triangle, so I’m fully expecting to see a 2 v 1 develop, and I suspect that’s what we’re getting. USA & Quebec both look good for 2 builds, while W Can has 1 (and no more). A nice play by USA to deny Ind Terr to W Can and ensure he took it – W Can using Alberta as a staging post would have resulted in USA occupation, and a unit available to support the hold.

2. South America – Brazil vs Argentina. If one nation gets a victory here, then a land invasion becomes incredibly hard. Interesting that Argentina didn’t take Uru, instead heading south. Brazil is looking at 1-3 SCs, depending on the diplomatic situation.

3. Antarctica/Oz – kind of lump these together. Frozen & Oz have similar challenges. Look isolated, no/few direct neighbours, lots of sea around them. The bounce helps Oz more.

4. Africa – The middle of the map. 4 nations, vying for 8/9 neutrals. South Africa has the added challenge of having one SC on a different continent. Libya is also right next to Near East. A strong alliance is vital here, otherwise you’ll fight each other to death and then realise the rest of the world has turned up to divide the continent up. Right now they’ve all go issues, although Kenya has less than the others, and is in a position to at least try to force the issue. This is one where I’d really like to know what the players are thinking, and I really hope we get some EOGs

5. Europe/ Middle East – Europe v Russia v Near East. Personally I think Europe is about the worst draw on the map. It requires a lot of diplomatic skill to be successful, and it’s kind of the Italy of the World Map. Only 1 build for sure, and then a challenge to locate the next one. Russia has made a great start (potential +3), and Near East a bold one. Time will tell if the Trieste style grab of Egypt was the right move

6. Asia. – India v China v Pac Russia. Another triangle, but with a huge chunk of empty territory in the middle. I don’t think anyone yet has a real idea of how to deal with the central Asian steppes. Again, fairly safe stuff, although we might see some India/China tension. I’m personally really interested to see where Irkutsk goes next – that move strikes me as a little odd, given that Korea was open. It seems to defend nowhere, and threaten nowhere, but I could well be wrong

Sea: In general, you really have to pay attention to where those fleets can reach. Some of the sea spaces touch an awful lot more than people realise.

1. Atlantic – One route from Europe to America, and Africa to America. Also a gateway to the south. Lots of action in the South, but units you suspect will on their way again come the fall.

2. Pacific – Empty. The Pac Russian fleet is likely to land in Japan, so no-one is staking a claim to that

3. Indian – The Oz fleet is a good move. Anyone beginning to exert control over an ocean is going to be in a good place.

4. Northern – The Quebecois fleet in Labrador will no doubt dock, but the northern oceans can’t be ignored, as another route from America to and from both Europe and Asia.

5. Southern – The chunks of Atlantic Indian and Pacific around Antarctica can’t be ignored, especially if you are Argentina, S Africa, Oz or Frozen.

Right now, I like the openings of OZ, USA, Russia, Quebec and Kenya the best. I’m interested in Near East’s, because it’s certainly the boldest..

Fall should allow some of the alliances (and there must be some) to become clearer.

So, it begins. Thanks for the hard work. This could be a long game for some of us.

Thank you Pete U for the first commentary - it may well be the first analysis of the World Map ever posted on this site (I could be wrong)...

I will indeed start a new thread soon (working now ha!) so when that occurs, if you could please copy-paste the comment there that would be awesome. meanwile - good luck to all.

...

I will post this evening; I can't really do it during the day, even when I'm at lunch ;)

Look forward to the comments :)

Yes, I am sure we will see my country being praised again and again for its unstoppable march across the globe. I do look forward to this...

Due to unanticipated time constraints this weekend I'll hold my region-specific comments until the fall turn. I will agree with something PeteU stated, however - fleets are critical in this map in the middle game - you can either spend dozens of armies garrisoning your coast or a much smaller number holding onto the oceans outside your owned SCs.

It also helps to invade other people, as well ;)

bump.

So Fall 2000 is in.

1. North America. USA frees up a centre to build in by moving the fleet. W Can gets 1 build, and Quebec does exactly what you would expect. It's stating the obvious, but the builds could change the dynamics here - both in location and type of unit.

2. South America - Good for Argentina. Bad for Brazil. Not sure why the Brazilian unit moved to Brazilia not Uru. You can always build there if you really want an army there

3. Antarctica/Oz - Oz has 2 builds, but where now? The Antarctic continent still has possibilities as well, and the South African centre on the ice looks very vulnerable

4. Africa - Ghana, Libya and Kenya must be happier than SA. Libya took a chance and it paid off, with the Near east fleet popping back home. But that is all the neutrals gone. Something has to give in 2001.

5. Europe/Middle East - Look! An Alliance. Russian support for the European convoy must make Near east nervous, AND he pissed off his African neighbour. Some serious diplomacy required here. Russia gets 3 builds, and we will see if the bounce in St P was planned, or good defensive play. Europe's build will be vital in shaping the future of this area.

6. Asia - The PAcific army continues to transit the steppes. I wonder what part of the map will turn dark green next? Two builds, but all the neutrals are gone. That space around him is a great defensive asset, but also slows progress without help. China gets 3 builds, india 2. Is that a truce, realpolitik or an alliance?

Oceans:

1. Atlantic - only the Ghanaian navy stays at sea, but possession is 9/10ths... that fleet can reach 9 territories and 5 SCs now. Another 10 SCs are within 2 moves. The convoy was the right move because of this, and worth the risks

2. Pacific - The W CAn fleet is well placed, and gives him some noce options, which may help his poistion

3. Indian - Oz takes an SC and in return lets the Indian fleet in. Frozen has a natural interest in this ocean, and now has a foothold, plus 2 more fleets ready to sail. This should be a key theatre in 2001

4. Northern. Nothing happening

5. Southern. Frozen has started to push away from his home SCs. APart from that, there is plenty of opportunity for someone to take this area over.

Overall, I can count 2 unoccupied SCs (I think). So after skirmishes and expansion in 2000, 2001 will certainly see war.

So I'm finding this to be a lot more challenging that I thought - not because of the amount of countries, but because of the amount of *territory* - in a standard map it's a lot easier to draw conclusions about possible alliances and wars, but the sheer scale of the map doesn't result in a lot of conflict in the early years.

In North America, everyone netted two territories, but there appears to be conflict between Canada and USA. There's a possibility this was a ruse to leave others confused, but the aforementioned scale issues make the equivalent of the Juggernaut /Western Triple a *lot* harder to pull off - by the time you have a significant number of units on some other continent's border, they're wise to you. So, it'll be interesting to see which way Quebec jumps

In South America, Argentina has three builds, Brazil has one. While Brazil can pick off CAL, he's going to have a hard time holding Agrentina off long enough to exploit the build. Look for future conflict between N and S America as the northern powers worry about their southern border.

Africa is.... busy. Kenya has two builds to South Africa's one, but Libya has *six* - if there is a deal between Libya and Ghana they could sweep the continent pretty quickly. However, Libya trusted Europe a bit more than I would have - I would have bounced ALG and CHA to defeat a possible invasion.

Europe is a mess. It's a four corner war between Middle East, Europe, Russia, and Pacific Russia, and it's hard to tell if anyone is working with someone else. Pacific Russia appears to be ceding Asia to the asian powers, but I'd be leery, since I'm not seeing a lot of conflict between India and China yet

Australia and Antarctica are sparring, and they're going to have a hard time making significant gains against the other before someone else jumps in. India may already be making a play, and if India and China have an agreement, Australia is in trouble.

No real surprises this game, except the Pacific Russia army moves - I did not expect them, and I'll be interested in seeing what happens next.

Nice evaluation. I think you described me pretty well there. ;)

Ah, so you're Libya then... ; )

Texasdeluxe
Rdrivera
Dave bishop
Serioussham
Jimgov
Countess Tillian
Ivo Ivanov
Babak
Chrispminis
Lan Gaidin
Fortknox
crazyter
Ursa
Braveheart
Dunecat
Napoleon of Oz
Zaza
flashman

This is a list of 18 who are in it, for anyone who is interested. I don't know who is left out in the list, though. Does anyone know?

There are only 17 countries

I thought Amon Savag might also be in it, but not sure... I did send him the link and password before the start.

I want to thank the two commenters for their input so far - It has been a lot of fun reading them... and I'm sure that as the game progresses, they will become even more interesting to read, and to write!!

I promised a new thread for the comments - and here it is:
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?newsendtothread=590843&viewthread=590843#postbox

stratagos and pete U - please re-post your comments thus far into that thread when you get the opportunity.

players - I remind you that we should not be posting on the comment thread. specially not about game dynamics. ;)

lets see how our little experiment works.

You must have sent many players the password. I am not in.

Me neither. So that makes 17 ;)

I'll post the 17 on my profile so I don't forget who I'm playing against.

So that would make the 17:

Texasdeluxe
Rdrivera
Dave bishop
Serioussham
Jimgov
Countess Tillian
Ivo Ivanov
Babak
Chrispminis
Lan Gaidin
Fortknox
crazyter
Braveheart
Dunecat
Napoleon of Oz
Zaza
flashman

I was just reminded that Ghostmaker had volunteered to comment starting on the 25th. We would welcome his analysis and comments with open arms and make him an 'official' analyst of the game.

If anyone else wants to apply - please PM me.