Marmalade

Also, knock yourself out:
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php
http://vdiplomacy.net/forum.php

The preview button is too close to the other buttons, though.

And it's fixed on vDip.

It looks like previews were implemented in December 2014:
http://webdiplomacy.net/recentchanges.php

So Claesar, no excuse! And to think that you're a mod too. Tsk tsk tsk.

Kingdroid: It wasn't around when we joined.

Looking forward to the details.

To be honest, despite the intent of these changes, I find it very hard to believe that players won't know who is about to NMR anyway based on who hasn't replied to their press. Of course I'm talking about games of Diplomacy with actual diplomacy, not no press games. But even in no press games, past ...

PRINCE WILLIAM wrote: ↑

Wed May 16, 2018 9:58 am

Αnd if for once he had listened to my proposals this solo wouldn't happen.

You were playing in the other game in Group A . . .

Tom Bombadil wrote: ↑

Tue May 15, 2018 1:52 am

I find making requests in super passive aggressive ways works wonderfully. Keep at it

Talk about being passive aggressive, sheesh.

Bumping this request: Now that we've gone overboard in the direction of anonymity, can we remove the approximate "~" timestamps from anonymous games? They seem to be redundant given all of these changes. Accurate timestamps help players gauge whether players actually cross-posted or feigned a cross-...

No that we've gone overboard in the direction of anonymity, can we remove the approximate "~" timestamps from anonymous games? They seem to be redundant given all of these changes. Accurate timestamps help players gauge whether players actually cross-posted or feigned a cross-post.

It could be clearer, to be honest. After all, 'via convoy' actually means 'via land or convoy'. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Orders Archive to list 'via land' when this is specified? I think that it also may make more sense to flip the default from 'via land' to 'via convoy'. A close reading ...

I thought that this had been fixed years ago.

Bulgaria , Spain , and St. Petersburg : These are the only coastal provinces that have two separately identified coasts. A Fleet entering one of these provinces enters along one coast and can then move to a province adjacent to that coast only. The Fleet, nevertheless, is considered to be occupying...

This calls for a Spanish Inquisition.

Bo Calcetines XLVIII, how do you confess?

Ketchup? I don't even eat steak and I'm still horrified.

No; the key is in the name; Support "Hold". Essentially, any order which is not "move" can be written as "Hold and ___". For instance, a unit using the "Convoy" order can be Support-held because "Convoy" is essentially "Hold and convoy". But no unit can "Stay Put and Move", so if you try to move, t...

CrazyCreeperDJ: Thanks for the question! peterlund is correct. When I first read the rules years ago, I also thought that you could support a unit from being dislodged as long as any move this unit made failed. I used that interpretation in the first few one-on-one games that I played with my father...

It looks like I had to insult bo_sox48 to get my fair share of +1's.

What does this say about the future of webDip?

BismarckAlive wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:59 pm

I still don't see how F NWY s F FIN-STP(sc) is different to F FIN s F NWY-STP(nc), and how both should not fail. Does anyone else agree?

Both should actually succeed. I'm not sure why you were told otherwise.

And now the layout is broken again in all three browsers that I mentioned.