Board Game Late Summer Diplomacy - Signup Thread

best thread title ever

Time to play Diplomacy again!

At the start of the last game, I promised to host the next Diplomacy game and to guarantee Walrein a spot in it. During the game, Unclesam discussed possible variants with me. As part of signups, tell what sort of variant you'd like to play, or if you want to play vanilla, say that as well. I'm open for any and all variants like alternate maps or win conditions (like team games or joint wins/alliances).

Some options:
- Milan
- Winter 1900 (pick your own starting units)
- Alliances as per Walrein's Westeros map (or an improved version)

Houserules should be discussed here as well, I'm open for anything and the rulings can be changed even mid-game if all players agree. What I propose is:
- 72h S1901 deadline and then after 48h deadlines.
- NO_DIAS enforced.
- If a player idles, then anyone can sub in their place by sending in actions, including the original player, except other players (original player has priority).

Do you disagree? Something missing? Let's use Walrein's #thegame as this game's channel, because Walrein is nice and #thegame is already the de facto Diplomacy channel. After we have 7 signups, we'll agree on the play mode and rules. If there'll be more than 7 players, I'll randomize those who get in.


Signups:
- Walrein
- Unclesam
- Stratos
- Kiritsugu
- billymills
- lonelyness
- aura guardian
- drawesome532
-
-
-
-

Map options:
1) Vanilla
2) Milan AG, Drawesome
3) Milan+Supply in NaF US, Stratos, LN, Kiritsugu

Build options:
1) Vanilla Drawesome
2) Winter 1900 US, Stratos, LN
3) Winter 1898 AG

Win condition options: (DIAS will be decided afterwards)
1) Vanilla US, AG, Stratos, Walrein, Drawesome
2) Alliances as per Walrein's Westeros
3) Unclesam's Variant (fixed allies+lockdown)

NMRs:
1) NMR is Hold
2) NMR is support closest own center to Hold US, AG, Stratos, Walrein, Drawesome, Kiritsugu
3) host sends in credible orders for the nmr'd party

subbing out:
1) no subbing out ever allowed ---> subbing out=perpetual NMR
2) players vote if the game should be frozen on a subbing out till a sub is found, on a negative result subbing out=perpetual NMR
3) something else? AG(time-delay)
4) sub out -> units move to defend closest sc's with priority on home sc's, remaining players vote on whether a sub in should happen US, Stratos, Drawesome, Kiritsugu

meta-houserules:
1) these voted houserules cannot be changed after the game starts by any means
2) if all surviving players agree, the rules may be changed or temporarily not enforced Kiritsugu
3) same as above but with supermajority instead of everyone Walrein, Drawesome, AG
 
Last edited:

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
I could not possibly be more in.

Re: variants, Winter 1900 sounds like it could be pretty interesting. Barring that I'd prefer either fleet Rome or straight up vanilla, though I might be able to be persuaded into alliances should my shitty system be sufficiently improved on.

EDIT: I'm unfamiliar with the Milan variant, maybe a quick overview is in order?
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The idea of picking one's own starting units is interesting; personally I don't like the 72h deadline for S1901 because I think it sets a poor standard for how often to get actions in, and I think that retreats and builds should obviously be on a 24 hour deadline. I also think that draws should be disallowed in all cases outside of stalemates (at the discretion of the host); I think that disallowing draw votes would encourage people to play to win.

In terms of variants Milan would be interesting as a change of pace, though the variant itself is arguably even worse in terms of balance than the standard version is (just Italy is middle-of-the-pack and Russia/France are horrible). Winter 1900 would be ok as well if Russia is disallowed from building F Stp NC - the guaranteed Norway and denial from England make that far too strong, unless we are ALSO playing the Milan variant, in which case England might need the nerf and Russia the buff. If we do a variant of this kind I'd prefer to do both at the same time, as only Turkey would be disproportionately powerful (and the stronger Austria/Russia from Winter 1900 would limit that somewhat as well).

In terms of alliances I discussed a number of possibilities with you privately Agape, and still feel that a 'You win if you and X control a majority of the supply centers', where X is NOT mutual and a winner's supply centers lock immediately upon victory, would be a really interesting variant if you could balance it properly. The Western triangle would be easy (France wins if it+Germany hold 18, Germany if it+England, England if it+France), but it's not obvious how to fit Italy into this and frankly I'm not sure how many variants on variants people would want to do. Personally I'd prefer as many as possible because standard diplomacy has well-established strategies and I'd prefer a game that forces people to think for themselves.

So, in essence, I'd like:
- Winter 1900 AND Milan variant
- Non-mutual pseudo-alliances involving winners having locked-out centers upon victory. If properly balanced this could make for a VERY interesting game, because people would have various incentives to help others (but would always still have an incentive to help themselves first and foremost). Perhaps having two other powers' centers added to one's own would be the best option; I'm going to go ahead and suggest the following, given that Turkey is strong, England is a tad weak (strong due to Milan variant but difficult to play due to Russia having A or F Stp NC at the start of the game), Russia/Italy/Austria are average and Germany/France are bottom-of-the-barrel:
France: Wins with 18 centers held by French, German, and Turkish units
England: Wins with 18 centers held by English, French, and Austrian units
Germany: Wins with 18 centers held by German, Italian, and English units
Italy: Wins with 18 centers held by Italian, Turkish, and Austrian units
Turkey: Wins with 18 centers held by Turkish, English, and Russian units
Austria: Wins with 18 centers held by Austrian, Russian, or German units
Russia: Wins with 18 centers held by Russian, French, or Italian units

Basically, every power has two potential allies, but those allies do not share any common allies with you nor do they see you as an ally. Additionally, every single country's 'allies' would love to see their own allies work with them against you. There would be WAY more variables to take into account when determining moves, and everyone would have something to sell to everyone else (more or less). The most important thing about this is that it is incredibly difficult for any group of three to stay together, as the locked-out supply centers upon victory would make it very difficult. The most broken thing I think that could potentially arise would be a France+England+Russia trio where England and Russia simply support France into every neutral highlands and scandanavia/German supply center, which would be difficult to stop even in the Milan+Winter 1900 variants where Italy could launch an early attack on France quite easily and Germany would be more than willing to ally with Italy against France (while England would have plenty of incentive to join in if it got the majority of the spoils, which would of course be ok with Germany in this scenario). Of course, one final rule that could be included to ensure balance would be a maximum of two winners and no draws ever; if this were instituted, then no three-way alliance could ever survive without constant intrigue as to who the odd man out would be.

I think this would be significantly more interesting than any sort of standard diplomacy game. If we want to play standard diplo then we can do so easily in the live format, because there is much less thinking/diplomacy that would be required for a game of that type. That being said, people might not want to put in the thought required to do well in a game like this, so I'll say that I'll sign up for anything other than the purely bog standard variant.
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.

not in i fuckin hate this game ~_~


ps for variants: the only one ive ever played is base game but im down to try out other stuff. just googled milan variant and it looks cool. that alliances game sam suggested looks really challenging and between a job, an anime to-watch list a mile long, and all my dou smogon duties i'd rather not have to deal with both the brain burn of that and learning the milan/winter 1900 variants (although if everyone else is in favor of all three variants i can certainly suck it up and try—already not promising i wont be eliminated early so w/e)
 
If a player idles, then anyone can sub in their place by sending in actions, including the original player, except other players (original player has priority).

Whyyyyy
 
it ensures no country ever NMRs 2 times in a row

something like autopiloting self-support for hold might also work

everything is open to discussion, those were my initial starting points for talking!
 
it's up to discussion, just a starting point in houseruling

I'm not enforcing any rules at this point except that I'll host a game of Diplomacy on Smogon
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
There's an easy work-around to this: if someone idles, they idle. They are not allowed to resign, but no subbing and no NMR'ing (it isn't very easy to take advantage of an opponent constantly holding unless you're getting large in the other direction already).

Also I had one more idea for how to make the variant monster that people are considering more fair without going to the alliance structure that most people seem to shy away from (though I think it would be a lot more fun in actuality :(...): add a SC in North africa. It would still require 18 SCs to win, and under the Winter 1900+Milan variants France desperately needs the boost (and Italy could still use it).

Still in support of the alliance game if people are willing to give it a try, it wouldn't change the game as much as it seems at a glance but would add a new, interesting element to plan around that would justify 48 hour deadlines in my opinion, while also adding a LOT more actual diplomacy to the game. If people are absolutely not willing to try it, then I'd prefer doing all three variants simultaneously (North Africa SC + Winter 1900 + Milan), as I think they balance each other reasonably well (actually really well honestly, only Turkey could really be said to be significantly stronger than the other powers but they also have the fewest diplomatic bargaining chips to make up for it).
 
They are not allowed to resign
I disagree strongly with this part, though in the event of NMR, I wouldn't mind an autopilot hold method. In the previous game, I came across a situation that forfeit was the only way to get a result desired.

Also, re: other rule proposals: If draws are allowed, I strongly favor DIAS over NO_DIAS, possibly with a limit on victors, except for stalemates.
 
going to sleep now

I think stratos' post was a singups post and that first sentence meant the opposite it read as. The sign-ups will be up for at least next week, I'll update the signups list whenever I read new signup posts. I won't necessarily comment on the brainstorming going on here, because I'm fine with mostly everything the players agree to eventually.
 
/in

as for rules, I liked them, especially the sub part if you idled once, it's a good rule. (unless actions sent in were to hold intentionally for some strategic reasons, but that must be mentioned in PM, IMO)

I liked the 1900 Winter build rule, but I also agree with US that Russia should not get North StP build, it is kinda OP if it does. I don't fully understand the Milan variant yet, so, I will refrain from commenting on it, but, I won't mind trying it out.
 
I have no objections to Milan and, provided there are a few restrictions on what certain powers can build (no army/fleet NC in StP, only ever fleet WC), am neutral towards winter 1900, though I think 1898 is better than Winter 1900.

However, having read US's post... I feel that alliances of that sort would make the game be seriously undermined. Take a regular opening, where a couple people have slightly better starts than normal, perhaps.
Start with:
A: 3 (A+G+R = 10)
E: 3 (A+E+F = 9)
F: 3 (F+G+T = 9)
G: 3 (E+G+I = 9)
I: 3 (A+I+T = 9)
R: 4 (F+I+R = 10)
T: 3 (E+R+T = 10)
In short, everyone is within 9 centers for victory.

Okay, let's say Winter 1901 that:
Austria takes Serbia (maybe Greece, but with winter 1900, I'll say it goes to Turkey)
England takes Norway
France takes Spain, Portugal, and Belgium
Germany takes Denmark and Holland
Italy takes Tunis
Russia takes Sweden and Rumania
Turkey takes Bulgaria and Greece

A: 4 (A+G+R = 15)
E: 4 (A+E+F = 14)
F: 6 (F+G+T = 16)
G: 5 (E+G+I = 13)
I: 4 (A+I+T = 13)
R: 6 (F+I+R = 16)
T: 5 (E+R+T = 14)

Two guys are just 2 centers away, right after the first year. This might be good for a fast game, but it undermines the diplomacy part, and would, in all likelihood, turn into "gang up on whoever's the strongest at the time."

Alliances in the form of "while present, cannot attack each other" is, on the other hand, something that seems like it could work easily enough...

So, In provided US's type of alliance is NOT used, provided that IF we use alliances, it is sorted out completely first, and NO SUBBING except by lots of remaining players agreeing to it. Maybe autopilot-hold instead, and subbing gives some warning first so "vastly different personality suddenly appears in a game where assumptions are made based on personality" does not happen.

EDIT: Though depending on DIAS/NO_DIAS, how alliances are decided, my opinion might change on in/not in
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
AG the problem with what you're saying is that, yes, Russia and France are 'only' two SCs away but you're supposing that every single SC is taken in such a way as to maximize those numbers during 1901. In the course of a typical game neither France nor Russia are going to be gaining that many in 1901 and even if they do, they won't be getting an additional two SCs any time soon, especially not with the alliance format. Sure, someone could probably arrange for a win if they played perfectly through like 1903 or 1904 but if someone plays perfectly for 6-8 cycles then they deserve a win imo. Additionally, remember that the game would not end once one person won.

That being said I am warming to the idea of doing Milan + 1900 Winter + NaF supply center. Milan strengthens Italy at the expense of France/Russia and makes England overpowered, 1900 Winter nerfs England and buffs Russia, and the NaF supply center would buff France and Italy (mostly France). Overall these variants do a much better job, in tandem, of balancing the game then the normal game does, and none of them are a huge change from the original game so people wouldn't have to learn much in addition to the basic rules.
 
It's not a sure thing by any stretch, yet, but I've seen 3-centers-gained France, and the alliances themselves mean the game --- wait, NOT ending on one player winning? ... I actually have no clue how to feel about that.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The whole point is that the winners' centers get locked out and people keep playing until another person wins; otherwise, the game would make literally no sense.
 
Oh no am I too late?

I am so down. But if I didn't make it in time then I understand that too.

Edit: Just read the last line of the opening post. I understand how it will work now.
 
Last edited:
you're on time; the discussion on the game format is going on

but it seems that I'll randomize the player pool at the start of next week, if due to the decided format (simple majority, my vote as tiebreaker) people leave, I'll fill from the people that didn't get in thru the randomization
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top