Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Forum

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

Page 153 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Log on problems

On my other PC I can log in, but every time I click on a game or one of the links up top it logs me out and says Welcome, Guest. Anyone have an idea how to fix this?

7 replies

Polar Bear (1038

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

League Links and Progress

Would someone be kind enough to post the links to the league games please? I am interested to see what's going on in other groups.

Have any of the games actually completed yet?

24 replies

)
18 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Game-Great wall II

18 hr turns/ 50 point buy in.

0 replies

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

What McCain said during the last debate...

About 25 minutes into the debate McCain (in reference to townhall meetings) said, "The way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do before the intervention (touches nose & corrects himself)... the tragedy at Dallas."

21 replies

DingleberryJones (4469

(B)

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Game 103 points PPSC

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=6220

Called Cole's Law

3 replies

)
11 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Controversy

What is the most controversial thing you can think of to type in here? Why is it controversial?

110 replies

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Who will be the next President of the United States?

Now that the debates are over and with only weeks to go before the election, who do you think will win the Presidency and (if you are inclined) why?

59 replies

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

We need two more players in Dreadnought Spring

Playing shorthanded sucks balls. Someone get in there.

1 reply

Churchill (2280

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

To pause or not to pause... that is the question

In one of my games, a user requested to pause the game as he was not able to enter moves. I have chosen to accept, but the thought of not accepting crossed my mind (one reason being that the player is in no way bound by their pledge to start it again at a certain time).

12 replies

PirateJack (400

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Welcome to the Jungle

Created a new 50 point, 24 hour game called Welcome to the Jungle. Join if you wish.

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=6227

1 reply

EdiBirsan (1469

(B)

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EOG OO3c I18 E15 A1

003c Autumn 1910 Game won by EdiBirsan (75)
Points-per-supply-center 24 hours/phase: Normal pace
Pot: 61

10 replies

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Email News Article

I initiated hostilities in SP01 with Russia. Here's what he sent out to the group as a News Brief.

15 replies

EmperorTapia (0

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Some play once told me that the spirit of the game was to back stab people. Thoughts?

I think, reputation is key since many players end up playing with each again.

10 replies

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Firefox keeps crashing on this website

Argh

33 replies

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Dreadnought Spring

For any noobies wanting to start out, get in there for Dreadnought Spring. 10 point ante.

1 reply

)
15 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

No restriction on joining winner takes all games

Looking at some of the Winner takes all games, it appears that the stated restriction about >100 points to join doesn't apply. Does anyone know why? (Possibly this was in a previous post I missed)

4 replies

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Your fine will be Zero! Zero?!?!

I had never seen someone so constipated as McCain. This scene reminded me of a department store special offer commercial.

0 replies

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

End of Game Statements. Brief explanation?

I read of the existence of EOG statements in some other post, but - not having finished a game yet - I do not exactly know what this means (who does it? What is the typical content of it? Etc...)

Anybody would like to explain? Thanks!

3 replies

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Can't log off!

hey i keep trying to log off but it keeps signing me in, you think that's a problem with my internet provider or the site?

0 replies

DeliciousWolf (112

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

3rd Presidential Debate: Best Moment ?

For me, the best moment was when McCain asked Obama how much his fine on Businesses ('Joe the Plumber') is if they didn't provide healthcare. He really hammered Obama on it. And Obama replied "zero, I provide an exception for small businesses." McCain was just floored, stunned, and looked like a dear in the headlights, a shocked/blank expression for a full minute.

21 replies

Blackheath Wanderer (0

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

McCain is purposefully throwing the election.

Do you agree or disagree?

18 replies

DeliciousWolf (112

)
17 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Stalingrad Chacha -- ToeJam

[ENGLAND] Hey ToeJam, just wanted to say thanks for the convoy to Belgium. You were true to your word.

0 replies

nhonerkamp (687

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

BloodyBounty

Looking for players we need more bounty!

0 replies

TheGhostmaker (1545

)
15 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

League replacement

This is your last chance to join the leagues with a fair chance of placing yourself in a high league for next year, as Churchill has withdrawn from Group E.

Please sign up by emailing me or responding to this post with an unhidden email address. You will play three games, the first starting in approximately a week.

14 replies

stratagos (3269

(S)

)
15 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Noob's First Month: Lessons Learned

So I've only really managed to play this game for the last five weeks or so. What I've learned so far:

21 replies

dagonspawn24 (100

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Fate of man

the world is at war, people are dieing, and the fate of mankind is in your hands, please join to fight in the war to end all wars!!!!!

4 replies

)
14 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

What's the capital of Iceland?

About £3.50!!

20 replies

EdiBirsan (1469

(B)

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Opinions on introduction of Concessions

How about we introduce the idea of concessions, where there is a vote to concede the game to a winner who is in the lead *not tied for the lead?

EdiBirsan (1469 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

Currently we have a 'kill' system of Draws include all survivors.
By that I mean that if there is a draw all survivors share.
If you do not want people to share then you have to kill them off.

We also do not have a concession function.
What this means is that at various times it might be expedient to have the game
conceded to a major power to end the game and avoid the dragging out of the mindless order writing.
This would also allow for a series of techniques where people could negotiate for a concession and get a win, while everyone shares in points per supply center, So that while the Winner would get less than a 18/34 share of the pot, they would get he 'glory' or recognition of the win. It might be an interesting way to pressure people into ending the game in a social manner rather than a Kill manner since people whose center count
is going down may want to surrender the game before his points crash.
Then again there are the intersection of different game culture values that come to play such as forcing people to fight it to the bitter end, or people just giving up, and of course the ever popular cheating by multiples/close cliques/clubs to push one of their own forward.
Anyway there you go for a few discussions.

Archonix (246 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

IMO it would have to be done by total consensus. Everyone would have to agree because it effectively takes out end-game play. This would probably make it happen very rarely and I think that as a whole it'd pretty useless. If that's what you meant by vote I'd be ok with it but otherwise I don't like it at all. It effectively takes out an essential aspect of the game.

Braveheart (2408 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

How is the outcome determined? What if 3 mid-size powers agreed to vote for a draw excluding the largest power?

In a game of gentleman i think this function would add value - but I think it would provide considerable potential for abuse on a site like this which is open to anyone (though the vast majority I play with seem to be excellent gentleman cads).

figlesquidge (2131 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

I agree with Braveheart here. Also, whilst as Chris pointed out it doesn't always happen, there are many groups of friends who would exploit this.

Chrispminis (916 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

I think he wants it to be completely unanimous, but the players that would have been killed can agree to a draw that excludes them to allow the game to finish earlier and without the humiliation of total defeat.

It's nice, but I don't know how important such a feature would be, and it seems like it might be a source of confusion for new players.

Braveheart (2408 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

Ah - gotcha.... that kind of makes sense - though perhaps more relevant to tournaments/FtF or mail days, when there were more time constraints and effort involved in continuing.

I am more of a fight to to finish kind of guy anyway.

EdiBirsan (1469 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

Some details first...
Draw or concession votes would be unanimous for all surviving players.
Concessions could only be done to the player with the lead and we could say they have to have say 14 centers or whatever.

I agree that one argument is that it curtails the end game play. However,
should that not be the decision of the players since any one of them could veto it?
The argument in favor of it, is that is allows the weaker powers who are facing elimination to bring the game to an acceptable end by yielding the
'victory' which mostly irrelevant in a points per center game, and allow the leader to trade off points for recognition of a win while reducing the game's
Kill Factor thus giving people some incentives to negotiate endings rather than drop out or simply be bored waiting for the inevitable.

Anyway there are valid points on both sides, it was the discussion that I wanted to see.

aoe3rules (949 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

Good idea. This way people would not have as many "loss"es on their records, when they were only eliminated because of the draw.

DingleberryJones (4469 )
16 Oct 08 UTC

I do not like this at all. There are already too many people focusing solely on points, rather than trying to win. Even is PPSC games, the goal should still be to win. As soon as you offer people a easy way out to get points quickly, their strategy will change. 'Vote for concession or I stop trying to do my best and just focus on giving away my SCs to your enemy..' Granted that could happen anyway, but it would get abused. 18 SCs was originally built into the rules to avoid the kill factor b making someone get all 34. Why lower that number even more?

9 replies

Otto Von Bismark (653

)
16 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Huge Game 500 points : Points Per Center

Whose in?

6 replies

DeliciousWolf (112

)
15 Oct 08 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

First player to break 10,000 ?

Bets?

15 replies

Page 153 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last