Looks very interesting.

Play a forum version to test it. Would require a very enthusiasic admin, but if you want to create buzz for a variant, you'll have to try it!

I'm not suggesting that anyone really try to implement or even that people should play it.

I just though it was neat, so I posted it on the forum.

Wow. That is the most stupid variant I have ever seen.

I guess there are a couple of similar variants
http://www.maproom.co.uk/maps/deluge/deluge.html
http://www.maproom.co.uk/maps/sahara/sahara.html

It's an interesting concept, but like the Wall of Ice, they don't seem very playable.

Weird. Just weird.

What makes it "stupid" jamie?

What makes it stupid is that it gives such an absurd disadvantage to England, in particular, and to a lesser extent Germany and Russia.

Sorry, but there seem to me to be lots and lots of variants and, to be honest, most of them are awful.

The way I see, it is fun to think about the possibilities this variant brings but to actually put those ideas to practice? No way.

Exactly.

I think it would be interesting to try out a variant with a dynamic map. Is there any sort of procedure for (perhaps temporarily) introducing a new variant?

There might be a significant number of players on this site that would like to at least try a dynamic map variant.

There is a site called vdiplomacy.com with the intended purpose of testing and playing variants.

Thank you, Lando. I might try it.

Any variant that uses some form of chance or probability takes away from the true nature of the game. I'm all up for new maps, but any dice roll destroys the spirit of the game, IMHO.

having said that, i'm going to go ahead any be a hypocrite.... ;)

I've often thought about armies that just don't follow orders. I have no idea how you'd implement it, but if you were attacking an opponent, then work out an alliance and will back off... well, maybe two army generals don't like that and want to continue on... so they deliberately disobey the orders you put in and continue the strike.... definitely calls for a heck of a lot more diplomacy when your generals go bananas.... may require you hiring/firing generals, each with stats or something... I dunno... probably adds a hell of a lot more complication on top of the already complicated rules, but I just like the idea of having to apologize for the mistakes of your underlings.... and maybe 'encouraging' your underlings to go rogue and being able to give yourself plausible deniability.

@fortknox, re:generals idea
Are you talking about actually using additional players to act as generals? That would be one way of doing it without having to use dice, stats, and other game mechanics.

I have read about a massive variant of diplomacy, that lasted for several years, that added several new complex game mechanics and allowed for new rules to be introduced by vote. The game was less of a competitive, tactical contest, but more of an ongoing role-playing experience. One of it's features was that if a power became too strong, it would be split up into several sub-powers (maybe they were allowed to share builds) each controlled by a different player. They would often agree to continue working together, but it added the possibilities that you are describing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobbovia

RE: Wall of ice is stupid because it's way overbalanced

Even classic is overbalanced. Every dip variant is overbalanced. The only thing that makes it work is that through time and experience, we have learnt which powers are to be feared and taken this into account. In Wall of Ice, this would take less time: Italy, France and Turkey would obviously have a hard time making friends, whereas Germany England and Russia would be relatively likely to form a three-way alliance.

@Yebellz: actually I was thinking random/dice (hence why I called myself a hypocrite), but using actual 'people' as generals is quite a grand idea... would require a group of people willing to jump in the game at a moments notice (every build cycle), and would REALLY cause communication to go through the roof (maybe only generals can communicate to each other.... and only when one is in a home center, it can communicate with the diplomat?)... sorry, haven't really thought this through, but I may run with it if I get time to really work it through.

fort, that gives me an idea and I'm just typing it out as it spews forth from my head... Feel free to tweak as necessary.

How about this, you start with the same "countries" and starting units. Except each unit is captained (generalled?) by a single person. Each country also has a leader. For example, Austria would have four players, the leader plus three generals, one for each unit.

The leaders may all talk to each other like normal. The generals and leader of each individual country may talk to each other. Generals may not talk to other countries' leaders. Generals can talk to other countries' generals if they are adjacent.

Builds - The leader decides what will be built, and which of their generals gets that unit. So each general can gain more units to control.

Disbands - The leader decides which general loses a unit. If it is that generals only unit, the general no longer has any units, but could be brought back in later on if the country gets a build. But would not have to be.

Movement/retreats - the leader will coordinate what moves the generals should order, but it is up to the generals to decide what to really do. A general that doesn't behave may lose their unit on a disband, or not get awarded additional units on builds. Or they might.

Overthrow - if all the generals of a country unanimously vote for one of them to replace the leader, then it is done. The ascending general's units are then assigned by the new leader to the other generals. The old leader is considered a unitless general and could be brought back in.

Note, this means that if a country is down to 1 unit, that general can just take over as leader if they choose to do so.

Defection 1 - A unitless general can be given a new position as general of another country if that country's leader wishes. As you gain lots of centers you may want more than 3 generals.

Defection 2 - A general with units may defect to another country, but may only take half, rounded down, of their units. The remaining units will be reassigned by their country's leader. (This seems way too powerful because generals would just defect to flee a sinking ship. Or defect to help push another country, that they are now part of, to a win. Maybe defecting generals can only share in a draw and not a win so by defecting you are removing your chance at winning?)

Maybe each general would have their own primary unit and could only defect with that unit and not any others that were under their control.

Having a unit designated as a primary unit would also mean that you could have a rule that says if other units under your control are a certain number of spaces (4?) away from your primary unit, your leader can reassign that unit during the build/disband phase.

@Alderian: wow that's thought out to quite a lot of detail.

"Note, this means that if a country is down to 1 unit, that general can just take over as leader if they choose to do so."
but when that general becomes the leader he has to give the unit to another general, but then that general could take over as leader, repeating the process indefinitely.

Maybe the leader should always remain in control of at least 1 unit (i.e., like a personal guard). Then control more and more as the power grows (i.e., 2 at 8 SCs, 3 at 12 Scs, 4 at 16 SCs).

What about self-dislodgement between generals belonging to the same power? Should that be allowed?

Maybe the overthrow process shouldn't be so formal requiring a unanimous vote. The generals can use military action to force their opinions. A country could also go through a period of civil war until the players involved agree to resolve things.


The more I think about it.... I think that all of this could all just be done by playing Chaos with the agreement that the players assigned to the same region/country must try to work together initially.

The regions would be the original 7 powers along with Lowlands, Scandinavia, Balkans and Iberia+Tunis.

Or use a 22 player version of chaos, where each home SC of the original 7 powers are individual players, and the remaining are just neutral SCs.

@Defection 2: I would say replace 'unanimous vote' with 'vote of x number of generals controlling 51% of the units under that country's control'.

@yebellz, I would limit the overthrow to once per build/retreat phase, so a single unit country wouldn't change over and over in one turn. As for it happening over and over each year, they would have to be pretty dysfunctional. Think of it from the generals viewpoint. If he takes over, then the next year he may be kicked out and never make it back into the game. If he stays as the general, then he stays in the game.

self-dislodgement? no. not without officially defecting at which point it isn't self-dislodgement.

having the leader control some units? I can see one unit. I wouldn't want to see the leader just take over all the units or the majority of them. That isn't the leaders role. But maybe a quarter of them as you suggest with a minimum of one. That would reduce the required number of players which would help.

I don't know if I like the idea of defecting/civil disorder. Nor the mutiny.
I think generals can talk to each other in their own country, but only to generals of opposing countries if their armies/fleets are touching.
So to replace the mutiny, you have two generals of different countries conspiring to work together against their own countries. Maybe the units can create a new country with only half of their units rounded down? So you have to be pretty massive before you can defect, and when you do, you will only be a minor power... but maybe you worked enough with another country that they'll help protect you and help you grow?

The problem with "Defection 2" is that it essentially creates a situation where a few generals can join in on a victory.

One way to deal with units (which complicates life for the leader) is to give each general control over one home SC. The general commands whatever units are built in that SC. Since there's no mutiny, generals get 1 vote per unit controlled at the end of the fall.

None of this has to be implemented in a very complex manner. Just play a 22 player version of Chaos, where the 12 neutrals remain neutral SCs and the 22 home SCs each belong to one player.

People may choose to naturally "elect" a leader by discussion or fight with the other "generals" in their power (i.e. a civil war)

@ Lando

I looked at vdiplomacy, and it doesn't have any dynamic map variants. Do you know of any other sites?

how i miss goondip

Regarding the actual wall of ice map, I think that England doesn't have such a poor chance if they can play a serious anti-France game and get fleets down ASAP. Russia is well and truly screwed except in octopus because they have to get around England. Alternatively they can plow through Turkey and then along the med. Germany would also have to play seriously against England and France right from the start to try to get through the channel. Italy and France have the obvious edge but a lot of Frances wait to start a med campaign and they would be under serious fire from the north. Turkey would have to plow along the med quickly and Austria would have to build a lot more fleets than normal to get rid of Italy fast.
I think there are two really good ways to fix this variant. One: Octopus. This is a variant where each unit can move two spaces on a turn, regardless of what's going on in the way. This would allow more movement past what seem to be impassable obstacles and would help the northern powers a lot. It would really have to be build anywhere so that the northern powers could forsake their home SCs. Option 2 is to make for last places, one in each corner of the board and have the ice come from the center outwards. This would make it less realistic but would make it more even. Unfortunately though, the central powers would then have all the issues...