• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Did Blade! actually approve any of this?

Then again, this is the OT forum games forum and no longer the Werewolf forum.

As far as everything I've seen in the rules thread here, the forum rules thread, and the OT rules thread, I don't find anything prohibiting the creation of a new type of game.

Though I guess I can use the Blade!phone and see what he has to say about it.
 
#3rd Rule in WW Forum Rules and Regulation

"There shall be no more than 1 large WW game. There shall be no more than 2 WW Lite and 1 WW Micro games at any one time, but no player may play in more than 1 WW Lite/Micro game at a time. There shall be no more than one of any other individual other game at one time (e.g. there can be a Zombie game and a Battlestar game going on, but not 2 Zombie games. Some larger, quasi-RP games, may have supplementary threads for data consolidation with mod approval.)"

...

So as long as we limit our Diplomacy threads to one game at a time we should be good.

What we don't have is mod approval for a data consolidation thread (and I think that applies as well to a general planning thread, like what this would turn into, but I'm not sure).
 
1900blankdiptool.png


Not cut off anywhere, easier (IMO) lines to recolor with, and none of that annoying transparent crap with the water provinces.

Tell me if I made an obvious mistake somewhere please.
 
For you, my dear tamius...

1900blankdiptool.png
 
Since joebthegreat was awesome enough to moderate a diplo game, and since France is perennially on Death's door now...

I'm thinking about moderating Diplomacy II.

My preference is to stick with the standard rules and map. People good with that?
 
Since joebthegreat was awesome enough to moderate a diplo game, and since France is perennially on Death's door now...

I'm thinking about moderating Diplomacy II.

My preference is to stick with the standard rules and map. People good with that?

Very much so. Lets get the basics down, weed out any particular issues that arises out of the games and once firmly established the one off 'off standard theme' game could be quite fun. Like Diplomacy 2150 - Battle for the Solar Planets!
 
My opinion is this: only once we've established the core game should we fool around with variants. And we might be able to establish such variants as separate games to be played alongside the standard game. (Maybe a rule such as: 1 core Diplomacy and 1 variant Diplomacy at any one time).

There are still things to work out in the forum Diplomacy Rules. Involving how we run deadlines so the game can go as fast as possible while still giving enough time for everyone to contact each other, how we select countries for players, and how we handle multiple diplomats in the same country. There are plenty of things to worry about clearing up before we move on to variants.
 
... how we select countries for players...

If player wants, then his/her fate could be decided by GM. GM can use random.org to choose his/her country. Chosen country mustn't have more diplomats any other countries unless all countries have same number of diplomats.

... how we handle multiple diplomats in the same country...

Senior diplomat: Has absolute power, he/she says last word on the all matters.
Junior diplomat: He/she can make order, but his/her order won't valid if senior diplomat already issued or later issues.
Junior diplomat / army or fleet advisor: He/she will be advisor of certain army or fleet and this right will be given from senior diplomat. His/her order on this army/fleet will be final, even if there is different senior diplomat order. The senior diplomat has right to dislodge his/her army, if senior diplomat wants to destroy power of "junior diplomat / army or fleet advisor".

This way there could be civil war. :)

Edited: Also I think it will be interesting for RPG and other things.
 
Junior diplomat / army or fleet advisor: He/she will be advisor of certain army or fleet and this right will be given from senior diplomat. His/her order on this army/fleet will be final, even if there is different senior diplomat order. The senior diplomat has right to dislodge his/her army, if senior diplomat wants to destroy power of "junior diplomat / army or fleet advisor".

This way there could be civil war. :)

Yuck. Talk about unneccessarily complicating things. Besides, why would an army/fleed advisor want civil war when it would directly lead to disbandments in game and thus ruin their own career?
 
You don't want to make it utterly impossible for a junior diplomat to override a senior one - what if an interesting deal presents itself after the senior diplomat has left for the day, or if the senior diplomat has made a glaring mistake? It should only be possible if the junior diplomat declares that they're overriding the senior one, risking their wrath, in my opinion.
 
Yuck. Talk about unneccessarily complicating things. Besides, why would an army/fleed advisor want civil war when it would directly lead to disbandments in game and thus ruin their own career?

Yeah, I understand that this makes the game more complicating. But we have to make distinct roles for senior and junior diplomats. I do support Capt. Kiwi's suggestion, but we need implementation.
 
You don't want to make it utterly impossible for a junior diplomat to override a senior one - what if an interesting deal presents itself after the senior diplomat has left for the day, or if the senior diplomat has made a glaring mistake? It should only be possible if the junior diplomat declares that they're overriding the senior one, risking their wrath, in my opinion.

"preliminary orders can, as usual, be overwritten by junior diplomats,

signed,
senior diplomat"
 
So recently I've been looking over a few Diplomacy articles here, and it got me thinking.

I think it's important we be more clear in using a system for how we score games, so people understand what to expect and how they will be rewarded.

Specifically, I was thinking of using the Calhamer Points system. A win is worth 1 point. A draw gives (1/n) --where n is the number of players alive for the draw-- points to each survivor. A loss is 0 points. For the purposes of this system, having 16 supply centers to another power's 18 counts as a loss and 0 points.

I think this system favors winning if at all possible, and drawing if that's your only other option.

I might want to edit the Calhamer Points system slightly, to give more points to the single player with the most supply centers that gets forced to a draw. Considering a draw tends to be everyone versus one, I think a player should be rewarded for, if not securing an outright victory, at least being the dominant country in Europe. I'm thinking of making it (3/2) * (1/n) points for the winner, and the standard 1/n points for the others in the draw. This means the dominant player in a 3 way draw gets 1/2 points (same as if he were the equal share in a 2 way draw), while the others get 1/3. From there the points would decrease for everyone, but the dominant player would be the one with the most points.

Such an edit would still favor winning if at all possible, and drawing if that's your only other option, but then it would also provide more incentive for players to try and get to a point where they can stand on their own. I also don't think it's fair for a system to reward a 1 province minor the same as a 17 province behemoth.

What do you guys think? How should we score the game in the event of draws?