And let his word flow forth and touch the four corners of the world, forever changing the way we play Diplomacy.
but yes I agree

(insert Handel's Hallelujah)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHksDFHTQI

And after the war the English said:
Thank Edi for that
The Germans said:
Edi straffe Englant
And with Edi this, Edi that and Edi the other
Good Edi! said Edi,
I have my work cut out!
(can anyone guess which poem I'm deliberately misquoting?)

Meh, I'd rather play with 5 or 6 players than none. But then again, in general I play in private passworded games with friends, so I play with as many friends as agree to play (rather than leaving things open to the general public to fill).

Edi, if you have so many suggestions, perhaps you should learn to program.

I've had games frequently start with less than 7. A quick post in the forum usually fills out the table ather quickly.

i have been complaining about this bug numerous times, but nothing has changed. i hope that your voice Edi will make the difference

bug? its not great to play with less than seven but its hardly the worst thing in the world.

heresy? are we a religion now?

Could do a couple of things:
- make a games that starts 1901 with a CD player not count towards official play
- games drawn in 1901 do not count towards your stats

So you can start a game with 6 but you have a serious incentive to find a 7th immediately and you are also not punished in your stats for drawing a game where with incomplete players.

official play - means appears on your stats and is not played for any points.

How about a game that starts that has a Spring 01 NMR is NOT adjudicated.
The player is tossed out and a replacement is made, the game is delayed.
This actually worked quite well in the postal games 40 years ago by the way so it is not like it is a untested approach.

As for me programing because I have so many suggestions... I wish I could but it is not for me...I would rather make the suggestions, test them out, admit when they stink and go on trying to make things better.

Or even simpler... how about we remove the time limit of the Pre-game phase and just have every game wait indefinitely until 7 players have joined? The site has enough members that this shouldn't matter too much.

A related problem that's much harder to do something about is games that start with 7 players but 1 or 2 drop out almost immediately.

ye but that really really boring waitig ad then there will be some games where there wont be the 7th person for like a month. i think people should be given the option weher to start the game without 7 people or to keep waiting

Is that true? Most games fill up to 5 or 6 within a day... so why would the 7th take so long?

Giwald: You've actually hit the nail on the head as far as another issue goes. I don't know if this is true any more, but it used to be the case that a game's pre-game phase lasted as long as the regular game phases, so that a fast game would have to be filled up within only a few hours.

In cases like that, I can see why having it be indefinite would be a good idea.

The point of having a fast game fill up so quickly is because you wouldn't want to be surprised with an hour long phase game starting at any old time, you need a guarantee.

Indefinite times for start up does not feel right. People may sign up for a game and then could have dropped everything in the meantime. It would seem reasonable to have a game open for say 7 days or so and then warn everyone that a 6th or 7th is needed.... or how about a post to the Forum that game X needs a 6th or 7th...or is that too messy.
Not too sure on the best way to proceed on the issue of waiting to fill the game but I certainly feel that it is wrong to start one with 5 or 6 players.
then again maybe people want to play with 5 or 6 so why not have that as an option at sign up: play ONLY in a 7 player game?

My suggestion to Edi, make a list of absolutely everything that you think needs doing to the site. Then prioritise it.
Here's an example (my priority preferences)
beginners can start WTA games and required consequential betting limit of 45% of your WTA games on points (reduces points inflation)
option when starting a game that the game doesn't start until 7 players join
option when starting a game to set the time before it is deleted
method of dropping out of a game that hasn't started yet without penalty
resignation offer method
automatic disbands if there is no retreat

We follow the rules here :-| if you want to cancel a game you can always draw it

(To clarify when I say the rules I mean the rulebook specifically. We try to stick to them as closely as possible and we do follow what it says about setting up Germany and Italy when there are 5/6 players. It's not something I would never change but the way we deal with having too few players isn't taken out of thin air)

The board game Diplomacy did not exist two generations ago, Edi.

how longs a generation?

depends...
for ipods a generation less than 2 years.
for humans about 25

I'm not even sure if Edi was referring to the former or latter meaning of the word...

Whilst I haven't actually read the rule book for a number of years - is gunboat and other variants mentioned / sanctioned? If not should we prohibit them aswell?

Edi, you make a lot of suggestions - which are all very good in a perfect world - but can't really work here (or on a similar site). This is not a solid group of people who've played many games and are always eager to play till the end, not get religious, not go CD, etc. We have thousands of random people here - some of whom have never played Diplomacy before.
You have dozens of years head start - an exception rather than the rule - and rules are meant to manage the majority or the population (user-base).
What is the point of suggesting actions that cannot be implemented. We're not stupid and there's no need to preach and 'enlighten' us about basic :) - everyone prefers 7-player games - and everyone knows leaving Italy as a CD means hte game is not so well balanced. But even in FTF play, if you have a no-show you'll play with 6 people. Such is life :)

Let's make practical suggestions :)

I would consider 1935-ish to be two generations ago.

are you mad two generations ago from the children today would be the 80s

I'm not the one with a g-spot up my ass, pal.....

Only two? That's 70+ years ago? Depends on what you define as a 'generation' - but I'd say 5 generations is more like it?
1. Post-war (50-ies)
2. 60-ties/Vietnam/Hippies
3. Late 70s-80s
4. 90s-present
From what I've read a generation (from cultural/social point of view) is considered to cover ~15 years. The last 'mark' being 1991/2.

yes you are

And I'm part of a different conversation hopefully :) - not related to to any human parts :)

Hahahaha mapleleaf.

But seriously I would support Braveheart's suggestions. And I support all the Ivo has said.

Can we stop making threads with titles that misuse the word "less", where it should be "fewer"?