A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
Sorry if this has already been answered or is obvious, but if two units are not moving, can they support hold each other? Say an army in Spain supports a unit in Marseilles, who is in turn supporting Spain, is this a valid order?? Thanks
very important question...may be a huge misunderstanding of mine!
if you have armies in ukraine, galicia, and moscow, and your enemy has armies in sevastopol and rumania, what would happen if: you move galicia to rumania with ukraine support, and use moscow to hit sevastopol. and your enemy use seva to support move rumania to ukraine?
I'm hoping this will be an empty thread that'll just sink, but I'd like people to let me know about any issues they've come into with the new World Map variant. I've updated it with fixes once and am wondering if anything has been found since.
There are a bunch of errors on the map - not as far as gameplay, just naming. Beaufort Sea is spelled right on the big map, wrong on the small one. Norwegian Dependency is wrong twice - in two different ways! Brasilia has an extra l, and Godthab is an archaic name for Nuuk, Greenland (similar case with Bombay/Mumbai). I was wondering why Uruguay was abbreviated as Ura, then I saw that it was spelled wrong (Uraguay). Namibia is missing an I (so that it rhymes with Zambia). Also, Ban looked right for Bangladesh, but the order archive shows that it's actually short for Bangalore, which is just plain in the wrong place. That's all I've found so far, but I'll post again if I see anything else.
Also, is there any chance that countries like South Africa, Western Canada and Brazil could possibly have black as their font? I realise it's nice to have all the countries have different colours, but it's nigh on impossible to read these countries without highlighting the text.
Given that all the countries have their name e.g. [South Africa] before their message anyway, does it matter so much if these countries have black font?
1. "Bangalore" is actually supposed to be Bangladesh.
2. Also, is Madagascar a center? It has acted like one in the games I've played, but it's not indicated on the map as a supply center, also this makes an odd number of centers (unless there is another spot on the map that is a center but isn't indicated as one).
3. In an other game, I was able to retreat from the East Atlantic Ocean to the Mozambique Channel.
4. I was unable to go from Beijing to Shanghai with an army (the orders asked via convoy or via land, but when indicated to go via land, I got an error message).
when you have a fleet in egypt it can move to the med and to red sea due to suez canal im sure.
however you can only move to saudi arabia north coast. south coast is not possible. i dont see how that makes sense,
seeing as how one could just sail through the suez and then take an immediate left, hugging the coast (saudi arabia's "south" coast) all the way down. surely it makes as much sense as sailing out into the red sea does?
Moscow does not touch water, you should know this from playing a regular game of Diplomacy. I am in a game right now and it is fine except for the colors of the words. It is really hard to look at South Africa's messages and Ghana and the US are so similar they are very hard to tell the fleets apart when you get farther into the game. I know it is picky but it would be great if the colors could be changed a little. Other than that the variant is great and a great addition to the site! Thanks for the hard work!
I would think Union should be an American homecenter in addition to Florida. Russia and China should also start with 4 centers. The Russia in standard Diplomacy starts with 4 to show its superior amount of manpower at the time, and those three nations should have the same advantage in a world map.
I don't think it would throw off the game much at all. Russia and China have both been eliminated in my game and the US is holed up in Greenland. Starting these countries with 4 centers would make the game more realistic and possibly more balanced.
The current China is a disaster (says he having been eliminated first as such).
The problem is that China has three home centres that are all touching one neutral SC (Lan) and that is not a centre China is in anyway certain to be able to take and hold. Indeed, India can prevent this and with China also in a direct conflict with Pacific-Russia for Korea from the first move, that stops China using both armies to go for Lan anyway. India can easily attack Lan with support in the Autumn.
Quite simply, it is an early bath for the Chinese.
There should be at least one more space between Indian resources and Lan - perhaps a Tibet?
Of related significance: north of India is an absurd collection of empty spaces that leaves India with about two years complete freedom from attack from the north.
I am enjoying my games on this variant (I have four) but the China/India situation has proved to be a weakness in all of them. I do believe that this needs to be addressed.
Also the arrows are too thick vis a vis some of the territories' sizes. Even on the large map it's hard to figure out what went on in some regions in the previous things as the arrows just cover the territories and each other.
I'm not sure if this counts, and it's been a while since I was here (I really like the new interface, hopefully some games start so I can see what changed there), but there is a link to "variants.php" on the World Diplomacy game page ("A world-wide map variant" is the text), that when clicked, at least for me, gives a white page with black text of "Access to this page denied for your account type." It could be because I haven't started a game (I have joined some), but it is kind of annoying.
Unless it really crews up the balance (I've never played as an African power), Ghana really should be Nigeria. Nigeria is really the dominant power in West Africa, and it would make a lot of sense for it to be playable rather than little old Ghana. At the very least Nigeria should be a supply center.
Did fix most of the technical problems in this thread.
But not the following: Godthab is an archaic name for Nuuk, Greenland (similar case with Bombay/Mumbai) => Original Author of the variant had choosen this name. Skandinavia is spelled scandinavia in actuality => Wikipedia says "Scandinavia" too I was unable to go from Beijing to Shanghai with an army => didn't found an error in the install.php
If you want you can do a test game on my server http://oli.rhoen.de/webdiplpmacy to search for more or new bugs or take a look at a game going on: http://oli.rhoen.de/webdiplomacy/board.php?gameID=123#gamePanel