Board Game Late Summer Diplomacy - Signup Thread

Okay, sounds good!

I'm fine with whatever. I think all the points listed so far have their merits and I would be fine with any of the house rules/variants discussed so far although personally I think sticking as close to vanilla Diplomacy as possible will lead to the best experience and be most agreeable with everyone.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Imo Stratos/Walrein/LN should have higher priority due to not playing in the last game. Plus if LN+billy is a team then you pretty much just have one signup there, not two.

Also are Bass and Outlaw not signing up? I'd at least like each of your thoughts on the game formats due to your diplomacy experience, even if neither of you want to play in this one.
 

LonelyNess

Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
i wanna play but the thought of having a partner that allows me to not be the sole responsible person for orders sounds very appealing

if i must ride solo i will jason derulo it up.
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
yeah Agape i told u on irc that i was in but i guess the message didnt get thru, so im making it formal now: in

also i feel like having two people responsible for one country would be a huge pain in the ass for the other six players
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The only problem with two people being partners is that it makes diplomacy confusing and makes it harder to trust one person's word. If anything I'd think that it would operate as a disadvantage due to these factors making it harder to convince people to help you, though it also would be an advantage in that you could stab and claim it was the other person. That being said that's kind of annoying so I'd prefer (if LN is willing) for people to play by themselves.

Also Agape given we have 7 already could you post up the possible games (probably the strongest support would be for vanilla, just Milan variant, and Milan+Winter 1900+NaF Supply Center) and have people vote on them? It doesn't look like anyone is unwilling to play any given variant (except I'd probably prefer not playing a completely vanilla game), so you can pick players while the players also finalize the game type. This way the game could be started in a few days (honestly given we have seven I'd support starting ASAP, like tonight or tomorrow, if people could swing it) without there being any further delays.

For the record I'm rescinding support for the alliances game and voting for the Milan+Winter 1900+NaF Supply Center variant. I feel that the alliance game structure would be interesting but would need a more dedicated playerbase to work properly, and throwing too many new ideas at once in would make it less accessible. I think that all of these variant changes are relatively minor in that they don't alter game balance a ton when taken in sum, it's just that they offer a LOT more options and interesting/unique gameplay, particularly for Italy (who, let's face it, has pretty horrible options in a typical game). I think that every country would be highly competitive and that results would be based much more highly on being able to come up with new strategies if we did something that's (probably) never been done before but also isn't too far from the vanilla game mode. Also, 35 SCs in combination with no draw votes allowed would guarantee that there is a sole winner, and so would allow people to fully play to win without feeling like stabbing is morally wrong.

Oh and Gale Wing Srock get your ass in this game.
 
options put in the OP, please vote for the different categories clearly, otherwise assuming that you're neutral on all matters

if you want me to add something, nudge me to do so
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
my votes:

3
2
1
2
1

edit actually


17:55 UncleSam: OR move back to held supply centers
17:55 UncleSam: and then support hold
17:56 UncleSam: ie if england is in nao and eng channel and nmrs eng should move back to london and nao to liv

i support this for sub outs
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I support the support hold option for NMRs, the 'move back to supply centers and then support hold' option for permanent NMRs due to subbing, and the voting option for subbing.
 
01:03 <&Agape> any of the houserules can be overruled if all players agree
01:03 <&Agape> even mid-game

There is no forfeit. You can ghetto forfeit by announcing in the thread that you'll NMR forever and do so.
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
Build: winter 1900
Map: EITHER Milan or Milan +NAf (whichever garners more support)
NMR: Hold closes
Meta: can be changed midgame by reasonable support of the game (unanimous would be preferred, but exceptions should be made in the event that one player is voting against the change because he is clearly abusing the current ruling)

Rest: abstain due to ambivalence

I'll be out of the house until quite late tonight but I'll try my best to respond to any discussion that pops up in-thread.
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
Oh, and:

Alliances: vanilla

Editing this in to avoid triple posting: I agree that players who were uninvolved in the last game should receive priority. I also think that we should run two tables in the event of 14+ signups, though I can understand if that would be too much work (and its not looking like we'll make it that far anyways)
 
Casting my votes:

Map options: Milan
Build Options: Vanilla
Win Conditions: Vanilla
NMR's: Hold Closest
Subbing Out: 4th option
Meta-Houserules: I feel like we should avoid changing the rules as much as possible once the game actually begins to remain consistent. But things do happen and I think that if it's absolutely necessary and we get like 6/7 players to agree or something of that nature then a small alteration of a rule is acceptable.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Just wanted to say that people voting for the Milan variant are making a BIG mistake. It's even worse in terms of balance than the standard map is without the NaF SC buff to France or 1900 Winter nerfing England and making Russia marginally competitive.

That being said I call dibs on England/Turkey if we do end up on simple Milan variant xD
 
I'll close signups on monday. I'm fine with those not being involved in the last game at all having priority. We'll decide on draw rules and country dibs after monday. I don't have opinions on the draws part. Also I'll set up an unoffocial scoreboard that'll track the winners of this game as per the mini-discussion of last game.
 
map option: Milan (cause Italy kinda needs a buff, IMO)
build option: not 1988, it sounds kinda hard to pull this off for mr
win condition: anything works
NMR: support closest own center to Hold
subbing out: units move to defend closest sc's with priority on home sc's, remaining players vote on whether a sub in should happen
meta house rules: if all surviving players agree, the rules may be changed or temporarily not enforced
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Alright last push: Milan + NaF is better than simple Milan because France desperately needs help in this variant (and Italy could still use the help as well). As an added bonus, it ensures that there will be one sole winner, which will let people play to win rather than playing for stalemate lines or pre-arranged draws. For all of these reasons, Milan + NaF is superior to vanilla Milan.
 

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

Top