Unforunately, that would mean EVERY drop down would have to list EVERY province no the board. It would get quick unwieldy!

It would also be likely to confuse newbies. They might assume that they had the choice of moving anywhere on the drop-down list...

I was under the impression that this site is to get new players into the game, as well as be a place for more experienced players to play. I played my first game of diplomacy on this site, and I found the limited options very useful.

Still, I understand your point. It might be interesting to allow any orders in higher pot games, as an option chosen beforehand?

I agree with dingleberry. it would have to list a riciculous amount of provinces and the list would be so long it would take forever to actually find the territory you want.

I certainly don't think the default should be changed, but there is a strong arguement for allowing invalid orders to be entered based on a game-start setting. Saying that, I think that would increase the server load running the adjudicator as it would have to check every order for authenticity, which it doesn't have to currently (although it might - haven't looked through the 0.8 adjudication script)

Game-start settings are definitely the way to go. Options:

illegal moves
no CD takeovers
Shorter retreat/build phases

All of these don't involve a variant, so they should be reasonable to code.

Other options:

Enforced gunboat - only global for pause/draw/etc.
Public global, i.e. Global can actually be read by people not in the game?

Basically, gunboat and public press would be set up the same, and it's just the rules you set down as to whether you use the global for anything other than game mechanics.

I think I remember someone saying the next version will actually have a draw button, instead of having to type /draw. So that would mean you actually could totally restrict press for gunboat games.

not 100%. Even gunboat games need to pause, and in that case, you need to agree on an unpause time. That requires communication.

I sort of strongly disagree. I believe that there should be further checks built into the system to screen out incorrect orders. For example you are allowed to issue a convoy order by a fleet and then have the army move some where else.
I believe that catching incorrect orders is more of a positive for new players avoiding drop out due to ignorance and sloppiness than for any gains by the veterans players calling for the 'sneakiness' of intentional missorders to screw up their allies.
A reasonable compromise might be to have the ability of the full check and the 'no check' coded as an option in the game at the start. Therefore all general games are automatically set up with Full Checking and you can then have veteran games- maybe put a minimum entry fee of 250 points or something like that, available for those that want a game with miss orders.
In Gunboat games, players abuse the concept of Gunboat by trying to communicate with Miss orders on other sites. For example often I will see an opening move with something like
Army Venice Supports Vienna to Ankara
This is not exactly a Non -Communication game move. While there is plenty of options to get the idea across with legal moves allowing illegal moves just pushes things out there too much for my own personal taste,

I would not support it unless it was an option at game creation, and was strongly discouraged for new players. I don't think I'd ever use it. I think a lot of the purpose is diminished if people are expecting it to happen though.

Edi - I've never played FtF - but isn't the idea of a 'London support Mun->Bur' exactly how gunboat is supposed to be played? i.e. an offer of an alliance through your orders?

and I _definitely_ think it has to be a game creation option, along with variable times for turns, no CD takeovers, and only global press.

Although I think the illegal move option would be A) the most dificult to implement and B) is the least important.

EdiBirsan, that's actually intended to be part of the game in gunboat games.


I agree with Chrispminis.

I don't know how reasonable it would be to write as it's been a while since I've looked at the code, but I would think it would be better to have it as an advanced option on a per-player basis, like something you can set in your profile, for example. And of course it would have a note about how you shouldn't enable this option unless you really know what you're doing, etc.

I think we should be allowed to enter illegal orders and also write our own such as "Berlin moves to the corner and cries". Paris does a victory lap around Mars", "Trieste looks menicingly at Venice" Bring back the fun to the game and compensate for all this back stabbing.

That's what Global is for. A far too little used option in too many of my games. So many people are SO serious about this - I play to win, but more importantly, I play to have fun. And I comment in global a lot - and some people seem to get annoyed.

Too bad :-)

I agree, it'd be fun to use global actually for press, for example "German troops capture Paris! Kaizer buys a new rug in celebration."

But I expect doing that in any of my games would just get some funny (cyber) looks.

I get 3 different kinds of responses:

- People get into it and respond in kind
- People are amused, might put in a 'lol', but don't participate
- Assholes get all pissed off.

Interesting thing - I've gotten at least 1 draw and 2 survives and a couple of phpDip friends out of responses to my global press.

Example: From a recent game where an English army unit, way in advance of any other English units, pushed into Kiel from Denmark:

The British 2nd army, after a night of drinking and debauchery with Danish women, woke up hung over, confused - and in the shipyards of Kiel. The British General who led that army, Gen. Mortimer Directionless, was quoted as saying "I thought we were entering Liverpool. It was the fact that all the cars are missing their hubcaps that confused me".

lol :P

We should have a game where a public press statements are obligatory. Pointless, yes, but fun. Although I would struggle to come up with anything quite as spectacular as that.

I like "Berlin moves to the corner and cries". Wish it was a move in some of my games :-)

Figlesquidge said "...Saying that, I think that would increase the server load running the adjudicator as it would have to check every order for authenticity, which it doesn't have to currently"

It most certainly ought to check everything for authenticity. If it just accepts the form input as absolute truth, what's to prevent someone from loading a bit of javascript (with greasemonkey, say) that let's you modify what the dropdown boxes say? The first rule of forms is never, ever trust the user input.

As for all the concerns about information overload and newbs not understanding... I totally agree. Edi, that's an interesting point about gunboat but I think I would argue that the idea is to get your intent across to your ally in as subtle a way possible, and not tip off anyone else. So a move as in your example may do you more harm than good, totally depends on the situation.

I disagree with those that want to use illegal orders in a gunboat game. The point of gunboat is to communicate through military might. A mis-ordering is communicating through the orders, but not through military might.

If you want someone to ally with you, send a valid support hold or support move their way or attack a common enemy or whatever.

Sure you can put in intentional mis-orders in face to face, but you could also all agree to not do it. So just because you can do it, doesn't mean it meets the intent of the variant.

Just my take on it.

Everyone should also keep in mind that a lot of this may change with the new version. I thought it was going away from drop down boxes to actually moving pieces around on the map or something.

@Chalks, the adjudicator doesn't have to, though, only the form postback process does. If you allow invalid orders from the form, then the adjudicator has to take on that role, not the form postback process. As the form postback process only runs when you submit the form, this is less intensive than the adjudicator which runs every 5 minutes.

ah, I misunderstood what was meant by the adjudicator. I thought he meant the adjudicator processed the form submissions directly.

Ald - that is a fair point, and I hadn't considered that. Adding false moves as an option would therefore make the game less realistic.
As for per-player basis: everyone would start asking why they couldn't input an illegal move when their opponent couldn't - would be madness!

@Fig, adding false moves as an option would more accurately represent the boardgame of Diplomacy, where miswritten (sometimes intentionally so) orders happen.

Wait, the new version is doing away with drop-down orders!? The drop-down orders are why I prefer this site!

Where did that come from Onar! Its just a suggestion some people have made. Even under the suggestion all that would happen would be you'd be able to give invalid orders.

I think this would discourage new players from sticking around, and it would flood the forum with at least one weekly posting of WHAT I ORDERED A SPA-NAF AND IT DIDN'T WORK WHAT GIVES?

Depending upon how people see the map, that might also happen with Berlin/Denmark or with fleets at StP(sc) and support to Norway.

For the sake of the Forum and also for the sake of the new players, just no.

I've been in many games with n00bs in which they didn't realize that fleets had to be ordered to convoy if armies were ordered to move via convoy. In Spring 1901 as England, this can be a fatal error that causes a player not to gain Norway. Maybe attention needs to be drawn to this somehow.

figles, what Onar said came from the last paragraph of my post above. I thought I had heard/read something about a map redesign where orders would be input using the map rather than drop down lists. But maybe that was just stuff being considered and not necessarily implemented.

Ah yes, sorry, that's being done - i'm the one writing it.
However I hope that to be an alternative to the drop-downs not a replacement!

Options are good. Thanks for the clarification. :)