Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Page 50 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

public apolopy

I hereby publicly apologize. I was new, I screwed up sawellesley and I wanted a clean break from it. I hereby surrender all sawellesley games, anybody in my games can take as they please. I shall stick to my present account, and I hope this is satisfactory. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused.

1 reply

(S)

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Draw agreed

Kestas, please end the game Sicily (ID 11554) with draw, as all the players have accepted it. Players - please post Your confirmation here!

7 replies

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Which convoy rules?

I had armies in Bulgaria, Greece, fleets in the Aegean and Ionian. Turkey had army in Constantinople, fleet in Smyrna.

I convoyed Albania to Constantinople, supported by the army in Bulgaria.
Turkey attacked the fleet from Smyrna.

02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your army at Albania is being convoyed to Constantinople.
02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your fleet at Ionian Sea is convoying the army at Albania through to Constantinople.
02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your fleet at Aegean Sea is convoying the army at Albania through to Constantinople.
02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your fleet at Aegean Sea was attacked by the fleet at Smyrna, but sucessfully defended.
02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your army at Albania attempted to attack the army at Constantinople, but failed.
02:53 AM Spring 1903, Diplomacy: Your army at Bulgaria's move support wasn't accepted by the unit which support was being given to.

So what gives? Attacking a convoying fleet isn't supposed to disrupt the convoy unless it's displaced.
Nothing shows any attack on Bulgaria, and even if he had, attacking the unit supporting an attack on that unit doesn't cut support.

11 replies

saradomian (206

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Cheater again!

From what i heard, Budlight and ChairmanMao are the same person.....i know they sound strange, esp one very similar to the enquirer....but since we are classmates, the guy who was the multi-accounter knew his classmates accounts and he tried to frame the others by using names similar to the others. Previously, he had used the name of another boy "adrianlo" and also the name of one of our teachers “ngsuenluen” to camouflage himself from the others, now he is back again…….would someone please have a second check on this trouble-maker, and keep justice around here…

PS: the real one is Chairman Mao, with a space

0 replies

Chairman Mao (340

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

not again.....Case unsolved?

remember some time ago, there was a guy "smartjason1993" and his other 3 accounts who were banned from playing because of metagaming?.. i heard recently that the guy had been reactive in another four accounts recently, and he is on the run......from my previous experience, i simply hate to play with such multiple account metagamers....so if anyone has a clue....please tell everyone so that we can be aware of such people.......

1 reply

(G)

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Seem to be getting problems in multiple games...

The system is not allowing me and other players to build units even though we have open home SCs and have increased the SC count during the year...

Even worse! One of my most treacherous rivals has lost SCs but not had to remove anything (apparently).

Is anyone else experiencing this sort of problem?

5 replies

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

unit placment bug?

I'm playing as England and control Norway. It's pink, there no army/fleet there(mine or otherwise) yet in my unit placing phase I have the option to place at any of my empty SC's except for Norway.

I couldn't find anything to explain why I cannot place there in the intro, FAQ or the forums. If someone could tell me why it would be mostly appreciated.

4 replies

)
19 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Karazan

New game for all levels. The name has to do with WOW so if you play it come on down we'd love to have ya.

0 replies

Chairman Mao (340

)
18 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

A bug?

(http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2147)
In this Tournament Game, I entered St. Petersburg via Norway in Spring (i.e. North Coast, ya?) and then i was forced out by the army of Moscow and the army of Livonia........theoratically, i should be allowed to retreat into Barent Sea, which was NEVER occupied in the game...i was not given any choices for retreat (where "Barent Sea" should appear)

would anyone or Kestas please explain this?

6 replies

)
18 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Game stuck, Kestas please come to the rescue!!

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2123

thanks!

0 replies

arthurmklo (879

)
18 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

this is so....unbelievable

In http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1860, I am Turkey, although I have no hope of winning, I simply dont understand what is between Italy and England. Italy is simply in the mercy of the English but England actually convoyed 2 Italian army from Albania to Norway and Naples to Holland, which both are English lands. Also, even though Italy attacked England, he doesnt even tries to attack Italy, which he will definetely suceed if he do so...

2 replies

Nick Douglas (408

)
18 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New game: "Talk a lot" Password: yak

Like "Talkative players," only this one will, you know, work. It's for people who play to win and like to discuss a lot.

URL: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2223
Password: yak

1 reply

Nick Douglas (408

)
17 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New game: "Talkative players"

For people who like to really hash out their moves in complete sentences. The bid is 50, and playing to win (second place is the first loser) is encouraged. Password: yakyak

6 replies

Noodlebug (1812

)
14 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Playing To Win

I wish to post a retraction. I have stated before that all players should always play to win, however bad the situation.
My thinking has changed, I have found that in a situation where one player is really strong, yet stoppable with a co-ordinated effort, and yet for reasons unknown co-ordination with other players does not seem possible, there is little point in trying to win. All that will happen is your would-be allies will take more and more pieces out of you while you are concentrating on the guy who is within sight of the winning post. The result is, not only do you not win, you probably finish just as weak or weaker as the other players, who have gained at your expense.
I think in such situations my "playing to win" philosophy is at best Quixotic, at worst suicidal. At least if I concentrate on securing myself against the weaker opponents, there is a slender possibility they may realise the error of their ways, particularly as they won't profit through my desperation. And if that happens, then the game can still be won.

I don't pretend to understand the mentality of the weaker countries who refuse to attack the guy who is going to win, but they are a reality of Diplomacy and you have to develop a strategy for dealing with them, and sadly elimination isn't always possible.

Rait (10151 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

:) I think that I know what You are talking about :) But You are perfectly describing the incentives, why smaller countries could attack 'middle size' or second best countries rather than the leader (which is definitely not the general rule, more like one of the possibilities) .

At one point You realize that You have very low (or basically no) possibilities to win the game - at least 85-90% of the times the victory goes to the one of the two leaders if one country has already reached the size over 10-12 SC-s (I have had rare exceptions). It is also obvious that You can't win the game with bunch of small countries - after You have gangbanged the leader, there will be a new leader (probably the second best, and as they say, why trade one tyrant against the other tyrant - who guarantees You that the other one will be better?). In Diplomacy game, the bigger countries need to take less SC-s to win the game - thus there is higher chance that You can survive along with them instead of fighting them (You can rarely succeed to destroy totally the leader country, usually the second biggest tries to get bits & pieces also from the former smaller allies). There is Your answer, this is the realpolitik ;)

figlesquidge (2131 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

The argument is sound, and strengthens my theory that it is hardest to win if you get to the third stage of the game in 2nd place!
This doesn't mean that people should never play to win - that should always be the first aim, and only once that is a very unlikely possibility should the aims change.

Noodlebug (1812 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

In most games I've played, most of the people I've played will attack whoever is winning to stop them winning. Particularly if it is me..! If the alliance is successful and someone else becomes the new leader, then they switch targets.

This situation I described in my original post is fortunately qyute rare, where almost every other player refuses to try to save the game and effectively allies with the leader to help him win. I suspect it's a little less rare under the new points system, but that's a whole different kettle of fish..!

Chrispminis (916 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

Oh Noodlebug, I'm a little sad to tell you the truth. You and I have always been advocates of play to win style, especially before the advent of the points system.

This newest post merely reflect that something has changed your values and objectives in Diplomacy, because there was a time when you would dismiss this. Apparently now, you care whether you finish weaker than the rest of the losers, when, before the points system, finishing weaker than the rest, was no worse than finishing as second.

I think the most interesting games are the ones where players are constantly willing to switch up alliances in order to combat each new threat. Despite that Rait thinks that there's no point in fighting the tyrant, if another tyrant rises in it's place, well you should keep on reincarnating tyrant's, until YOU are the tyrant, so then you WIN. Besides, a successful takedown of the leader, typically creates some sort of international bond between the conglomerate alliance, for having fought a common enemy. This gives you a better chance at winning, since you now are on very good terms with the majority of the countries.

I remember my old philosophy went something like this,
1. Win the game.
2. Don't let anyone else win the game.

Those were my only priorities. Of course, the points system created a new atmosphere, in which survival and relative success enter the equation, which is probably the reason for your shifting in values. I suppose it's like chivalry in our time, a little outdated, but still with an air of nobility and purpose.

alealeale (268 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

I think a crucial point for a weaker player to move against the potential winner is to find at least one valuable and reliable ally.
If during the game you get convinced that the only one(s) that could help stopping the potential winner are not reliable, why forcing a possibly failing alliance with them only for this idealistic target of stopping the would-be winner? You are probably just going to be backstabbed.

TOgilvie (845 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

If draws were permitted within the structure of the rules, compromise might be possible. Until that time, in the words of Rorschach from Watchmen, 'not even in the face of Armageddon; never compromise.'

PolishTeaParty (389 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

Would you like a tissue?

fwancophile (164 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

amen chris. nothing is worse than a game where players are consciously siding with the winner for the hope of a percentage of the loser-pot points. nothing more pathetic. i mean, play as you want, its not like your soul is pathetic, its just as a diplomacy player...

Noodlebug (1812 )
15 Nov 07 UTC

Don't get me wrong, I still want to win, but when has driving into a brick wall ever won a game? It's not about settling for second, it's about staying in the game so that if things beyond my control change, I am still in with a shout. If I keep driving at that brick wall the outcome isn't going to change. It's like attacking Sevastopol repeatedly with 1 unit in the hope that Russia might, just might move his fleet out of the way. It's stupid and pointless and a waste of resources.

Also the game which prompted this is an unusual case in that I don't really have a direct front line with the leading player, if I did then continuing the fight would be not only easier but necessary. But the only threat to my territory is coming from those people I need to help me (yes they need me to help them too, they just don't understand that!). It's a catch 22 kinda thing I guess.

anlari (8640 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

I think there's a worse case (which I have encountered a lot lately), when people don't aim to win or survive, but rather take down another player with them :S

Wooble (450 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

I don't personally share the purist view that the aim of the game should always be to win, especially since the point system was created, but I did find it rather amusing that in one game a player offered to not attack me if I let him win (by taking the other remaining player's SCs) as long as I didn't expand into his territory (which, oddly enough, he left practically unguarded). I'm all for accepting the points from a strong second if it's obvious I can't possibly stop the leading player from winning, but that was almost insulting as a diplomacy player. As was the player's statement that my predictable stab made him want to delete his account on this site.

Of course, a different player's stated acceptance of losing and letting me win as long as I didn't do it by taking his (also, incredibly, unguarded) territory and his subsequent shock when I went ahead and took his territory and the game wasn't much better.

alamothe (3367 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

you can't blame anyone for playing for second place with the current point system. you can't tell them they're doing anything wrong when they're earning points

ChairmanMao (99 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

you shouldnt be playing to win as a first priority. The priorities are.
1. survival. after all, you cant win if youre eliminated
2. draw. dont immediately start gaining too much ground too fast. have enough power to defend attacks and slowly build proprtionately to other's strengths, otherwise, they will eliminate you.
3. win. when you have a good position and three or four countries are eliminated, this is when you go all out and hope to win before the others can get organized.

fastspawn (1625 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

on point 2, it depends. If the other players seem disorganized, you shouldn't worry too much about expanding really fast.

Majaii (825 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

Wooble, I need to answer your post since it's mostly about me (I am the first player he was talking about). I did not offer to leave you alone so I could win, I did not think I could win at the time, my offer was to not finish killing you off, and that I would instead go for england who had stabbed me. At that point in the game, I could choose to either kill you off and by doing so let england win, or abandon you entirely and try to kill england instead. I knew you would expand to what I would leave wide open, but that didn't mean I didn't want to ask you to stay out of it, why would I not ask that? It was no surprise to me in the slightest that you took the empty SCSs, I had actually counted on it. So if I worded my offer badly I apologize, but it had nothing to do with letting me win.

And as to saying that game made me want to delete my account, that had nothing to do with your moves either, or even about winning, I was merely frustrated that some moves that I thought were logical had not happened (no offense to the other player ). I was merely frustrated that I had made 17 SCs 3 times, but still had not won lol. So please do not slander what I wrote to you in what was a very upsetting time of the game for me.

Majaii (825 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

In thinking more about this, I realize that I am a much better Tactical player then diplomatic, and I've been trying to improve that part of it by communicating more, so it's probably my fault you didn't understand my comments. I said some things to signalseven in another game that I looked at after I wrote them and realized they were totaly worthless, so I apologize for that.

To the OP so this post has some meaning, I agree that you should follow ChairmanMao's 3 rules, and that sometimes your just butting your head against a wall by attacking the winner just because they are winning. It can be a really dumb tactical move sometimes, yet people do it because they don't want anyone but themselves to win. By my thinking that can ruin the game as bad or worse then what people say happens when someone plays for second, because you are hurting the player who legitimately played well to be winning, at no benefit to you, and letting someone else who has not played as well win because you decided you wanted to die and take the winner out with you.

bihary (2782 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

I have said it before and will say it again: Any approach is legitimate in a game of diplomacy between 7 humans. No point in arguing how others should relate to a given game situation. Indeed, you should adapt to them to your advantage. The winner will be the player who not only grabs tactical and strategical opportunities, but also who adapts best to the sociological flow of the game.
This is tough, and oftentimes I also get frustrated, but, after all, this is the drug we came to take, isnt it?

Chrispminis (916 )
17 Nov 07 UTC

bihary is right. The diversity in the game comes from different objectives. If everyone has their own unique objectives, the game becomes more interesting.

ChairmanMao's rules are much more relevant in the face of the new points system. But back in the old day, it was,

Win or don't let anyone else win.

TeutonicPlague (250 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

I also agree with the unique objectives approach to Diplomacy. Say what you want about people being losers or pathetic for playing for something other than 'the true objective,' but in my mind, it only adds to the intrigue. It makes the game much harder to predict when you don't know if your ally is going to stab you to try for the win or if he is going to stick by you for a lions share of the 'loser pot.' You also don't know if he's doing it because he just wants the points or if he's trying to build up some goodwill for the next time you play together. Trying to see into his mental machinations, you have to decide if you will trust him, thereby gaining some goodwill yourself; stab him, hopefully winning the game yourself but ruining your relationship; or something in between, hopefully enough for victory but guarded in case he tries to stab you. The point is that you have to weigh your options and act for your best present and future benefit. If you know that your ally is going to try to 'win at all costs,' it takes all of the guesswork out and makes the game, in my opinion, more predictable and boring.

In a related topic, I think it would be fun to see the idea of different objectives taken to a new level. Perhaps have a game where each country has a seperate and secret goal: Turkey has to take over all of Austria's home SCs, Italy has to put a unit in Moscow, etc. Points are awarded based on achieving your specific objective that nobody else knows. It would take away the predictability of our motives and encourage cooperation, since multiple people can successfully achieve their goals.

TeutonicPlague (250 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

Don't be too hard on yourself, Majaii. Lots of people are horrible tactically and diplomatically. At least you've got half of it. :)

Noodlebug (1812 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

I just don't see the point in not trying to win WHEN it is possible. To me it is pretty much cheating if your only objective is to help another player or to hurt another player. It upsets the game balance, it makes winning virtually impossible for anyone but "the chosen one" and renders the whole game pointless as a competition.
This game I'm in was meant to be a flagship for the most talented players, instead it has become a procession. Austria has done nothing wrong, of course, just taken advantage of his good fortune. Turkey and England (me) made an effort to turn the game into a competition, but I've seen nothing but very lazy, sloppy play from the rest to allow this situation to arise and then continue. They are making it very tempting for me to actually approach Austria to help him win before I am destroyed... but I don't think I could go that far, I would be sinking to their level then!

Rait (10151 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

As the game is still in process, I'm not going to give any 'in-depth' analyzes, but there are many things You are missing Noodlebug. Taking how You have treated rest of the players still in game (both France and Germany, especially Germany - I think You have stabbed him twice after promising to cooperate - thus You killed the will to cooperate before it even could arise).

Rait (10151 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

...but after the game is ended, perhaps we could analyze the game together, all the players commenting the history of the game (perhaps turn by turn?), motivating their moves and alliances, illustrating the history with pieces of communication etc. The other players could also comment how they interpreted the moves of the other parties etc. Perhaps it becomes more clear then.

Noodlebug (1812 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

I hope so, I'd love to know what's going on inside France's head. And please don't try and spin things before the event: I didn't make the first stab against anyone - I anticipated Germany using his fleets against me and we moved against each other simultaneously, I attacked France in retaliation for his incursion into the Irish Sea, and changed my orders to attack Russia at the last moment when he didn't put any orders in. I've been betrayed far more times than I've been the betrayer (if any)!

Chrispminis (916 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

Well, actually a game where everyone just wants to win, is not very predictable at all. It's very fun, in fact, some of my funnest games have been with all players with a strong will to win. It creates an atmosphere, where stabbing your ally comes every two years, but that doesn't matter, because if the situation changes, your enemy becomes your ally if you see that it will bump you that much closer to victory. It becomes about the balance of power.

Noodlebug, I respect that you play to win, since I probably do as well, for most of my games, but some people play Diplomacy and set different objectives... like to try to have as much fun as they can, in their eyes. Whether this means trying to organize a massive convoy, or demanding Tunis, as France, because it's a french-speaking nation, they're all legitimate objectives outside the realm of victory.

Noodlebug (1812 )
18 Nov 07 UTC

Hey, I've done the convoy from StP to North Africa, AND gone on to win the game! You can have as much fun as you want once you're clear of the pack. Not wishing to second-guess Rait, but he's in a nice position to savour the endgame, taking the loyal-to-his-allies route to victory rather than the most efficient. Which is even more bad news for me, if I needed it!

I agree with you in that the most fun and unpredictable games I've played are where three or four countries have all had a chance of winning and have all been desperate to stop anyone else doing it (and all had the capability to work with each other to this end). Processions are no fun for anyone, unless you're the one who is cruising to victory!

26 replies

figlesquidge (2131

)
08 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

The story so far...

Long Long ago, when the world was just recovering from the great apocalyptic nightmare that gave rise to the wonderllama metagaming! It was because no one had thought to ask whether wonderllama was an actual llama. Apparently he was. No one cared.
"Who just farted?" said the inspector, as he danced the can-can happily.
Deciding to investigate Rait's high score, which wasn't high, but not reputation was an inspiration was simply stopped, so he decided to murder on the case "wonderllama" being a llama!
Fortunately for him, it turned out that wonderllama was really Kestas in a pretty sun-dress disguised with a big cowboy hat and a satin Noel Coward Cravatte, which was stolen by an angry dwarf that can't count, who sold it for magic beans and a young whipper-snapper came along and bit his sister in law (she enjoyed it) because she was most certainly not a good nun. In fact , she was actually a woman known for her ability to get men to digest thousands of giant seedless cherries that turn purple in the sun.
However, when they were eaten by even bigger cherries, they caused great distress among the ecclesiastical community. This meant that a apocalyptic nightmare was affecting the world, until Bush resigned. So I said:
"Hey what's up?"
"The llama's here"
"Or is he?"
A plane crashed into the White House some victims were found eating other with tartare sauce. Many people thought but most didn't correctly assign poodles to the newly resigned Gorilla and that's why we need to learn to love and be happy! Anyways, tasty teddy bears are always gummy, and full of that special sauce that makes children sometimes violently explode in the most spontaneous and random clothing. Meanwhile, in Vienna, their tarts were caught sniffing the newly discovered crisp mini S and being arrested for flagrant disregard and recklessly ignoring the toxic smell.

89 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

this latest version of phpdiplomacy

is possible to download this version of phpdiplomacy? not the one on source forge that is older?

where i can find it?

thank you very much!

2 replies

)
13 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Grand Festive Diplomacy Tournament 2007

To summarize:

Game 1: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2132
Status: started with 7 players

Game 2: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2149
Status: starting in 57 minutes, missing 2 players

Game 3: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2154
Status: starting in 16 hours, missing 2 players

Game 4: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2147
Status: started with 7 players

Game 5: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2144
Status: started with 7 players

Game 6: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2136
Status: started with 7 players

Game 7: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2151
Status: starting in 5 hours, missing 2 players

2 replies

)
17 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

game stuck

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1813

It's been sitting unprocessed for quite some time despite all countries having green checkmarks showing orders finalized and manually running gamemaster.php.

0 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

zero points?

what happen if somebody reach zero points?
he can play for ever only in game with bet = 0?

4 replies

saulberardo (2111

)
09 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

For God's sake! Please, someone help me!

Hello Folk,

Please, listen my considerations and say me if you realize something weirdo happening with these players:
- phpdiplomacystaff93
- ngsuenluen

1) the first joined at 30 Oct, and the second just two days after, at 01 Nov.

2) look their mails: the first is [email protected]. And the second: [email protected] . Can you realize something that doesn't sound good? (-:

3) The first joined 5 games, of what 4 was together with the other! And the other played 4 games, all games with his "friend"!

4) Look at this game I'm playing with then:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2043

After 5 years (since the begin of the game) which phpdiplomacystaff93 was trying to attack me without having success I tried hard to ask him why he didn't attack Austria (ngsuenluen) and listen the absurd he said to me!

I said to him:
01:23 PM I can't understand what you are trying to do...How you are going to take a center from me? We will stay stopped forever. And now, it's worst to you, seen England is not attacking me any more. Why don't you attack Austria????? It's simple!!!!
You must be a meta-player.....it is the unique reason...why to keep attacking me????

He answered me:
03:38 PM What is a meta player
03:39 PM Austria is my classmate!
03:40 PM Why attack a friend???

5) What else to say??????????????????

Please, oh God, oh kestas! Do something or this game is completely lost to me!

32 replies

)
15 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Draw in GrosseKekette

ummite and I are in a 17-17 split at http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1875, can Kestas end the game in a draw?

5 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

new game

I just started a new game 'game for anyone' bets 5 pls join.

0 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Computer problem

I logged in to play my games from a different computer than my own & though I can call the games up & so on I can't make any orders. Has this happened to anybody else? Any advice?

0 replies

)
15 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Problem(s) with point system

I was in the game "cool war" where the bet was 30. I finished the game with 11 units, which gave me about one third of the pot, or 67 points. However, I was also awarded an additional 30 points because I recieved my bet back when I was under 100 points.
Also, since 11/34 times 210 is 67.9, shouldn't the point value be rounded up? If all points are rounded down, the total number of points distributed will be less than the total number of points put into the pot.

2 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

150 point game

Hello I just created a 150 points game. the name its Hypercube. Feel free to join.

0 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Selecting a Coast...

I just wrote an order to move a fleet from the mid-atlantic ocean into spain. it appears that the mid-atlantic ocean borders both coasts of spain but i was given no option to choose. when will it allow me to choose? i really dont want to get my fleet stuck on the wrong coast, effectively taking it out of play for 2 more turns...

2 replies

)
16 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Join Superduck

All members invited. 51 Points

0 replies

)
13 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

metagaming?

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2177
in this game there are some users very strange...
in a particular way those 2 users

http://phpdiplomacy.net/profile.php?uid=3806
http://phpdiplomacy.net/profile.php?uid=3811

look at the email....

12 replies

EricHerboso (836

)
15 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Posting a Sample Game

What do you guys think of creating a game where every player agrees in advance that at the end of the game, all the press sent between players will be copied as well as the gamemaster judgments, and then we create a webpage with all of this info to showcase a real step-by-step diplomacy game from start to finish? That way newer players could look through the press of a real game to get a feel of what diplomacy is really like.

Does this sound like a good idea?
If so, should the volunteering players have to pledge to be more diplomatic, or should they be encouraged to play as they usually do?
What about requiring each player to write up a short commentary about what they're thinking at the beginning of every move?
Should there be a requirement that each player have a certain minimum number of points, and, if so, how many should it be?
Or does this whole concept sound stupid to everyone else?

I would be willing to host the sample game on my site, if kestas isn't interested in putting it in the help section over here. But first I need to know what level of interest you guys would have in this sort of thing.

4 replies

Jabberwocky (135

)
15 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

game stuck

Teh Geek War Autumn 1910, Unit placing
End of phase: in 4 hours
Pot: 42
Players:

Meer (34) as England (): 4 units
ummite (73) as France (): 0 units
Lohengramm (127) as Italy (): 12 units
Pro7B (15) as Germany
spwhitton (50) as Austria
adrianmclo (30) as Turkey
Jabberwocky (52) as Russia (): 16 units
Enter game

2 replies

Page 50 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last