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.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to 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.
I looked in the issue tracker and it does not appear that I can search the forum. Has there been discussion about different phase lengths for retreats and adjustments from orders? It seems like a great way to have good order negotiations while avoiding downtime for phases that don't need the additional time. This would allow something like 3 days orders and 1 day retreat/adjustment.
Once you start getting boardwide effort to stop a major power or alliance, you can defend many more centers using almost the same number of units:
(Starting from the Western Sea, just west of Wagadu's starting location, and stretching West to East)
F WtS H F Tka & F Mau S F STa A Kut & A Tah S A Ifr A Tri S A Bar A Ale & A Mec S A Jer A Oma & A Yem S A Nef F Ara-Bsr (prevent transformation to fleet, if it ever moves, move it back again next turn) A Sha S A Man A Amd & A Kas S A Sog A Hen S A Yan F YeS S A Blh
If you're stalemating a single player and not an alliance, your stalemate line must control at least 55 centers to prevent the solo. There are a number of places you can extend the line forwards - the most unit efficient is probably pushing forward into 3 of the mediterreanean islands and 7 of the easily claimed centers in front of the Asian part of the previous line:
(Again starting at Western Sea, stretching west to east)
F WtS H F Tka & F Mau S F STa A Kut S A Ifr F LiS S F Sic (& vice versa) F EgS & F Cre & F Cyp S F CiS F STy & A Jer S A Dam A Nef S A Bag A Bas S A Isf A Sjs S A Kho A Her S A Buk A Blk & A Uyg S A Sam A Yan S A Chn A YeS S A Blh
Holds 55 centers (all those of the previous line + Sic, Cre, Cyp, Bag, Isf, Bas, Her, Buk, Sam, Uyg).
It's easy to see that centers like OrB could be easily added to a line like this - just as in Classic, the more centers you control, the easier it will be to form a stalemate line. This is the minimal unit east-west line that protects exactly 55 centers though (I think).
There are a fair few North-South lines too, but I've spent enough time typing these out today :D
In the two variants I am working on now, I am going the extra mile, or kilometer if you swing that way, to avoid stalemates having an impact on the game. Both will have victory criteria of less than a majority of the dots. One of them should be especially. stalemate resistant. It will be a true global variant with a wraparound map, so there will be no corners. It will also feature high seas provinces (multiple fleets allowed), and be significantly less densely "dotted" than Standard, so more capacity and room for maneuver.
I really liked Known World, thanks DEC. Only played it once as a slow gunboat, but the neutral armies, transform feature and beautiful map made it a really fun experience (not a big fan of gunboating normally)
Condescension: If Player 1 exceeds the victory criterion by a greater amount than Player 2 other, then Player 1 is the winner. If both exceed the victory criterion by an equal amount, then play continues until either one player exceeds the victory criterion by a greater amount than all the other players, or only one player has achieved the victory criterion. Note, I am not the first person to use this formula in a Dip variant.
Carebear: Not in my skillset, even if I had the desire, which I do not. I do not want to make it easier for people to "achieve" a stalemate.
Also, for Standard, all that stalemate line stuff was worked out manually, in the early days of the Hobby.
Adamious: For the transform feature, you have Kaner406 to thank. He modified my variant (he also did not implement the special Pharaonic Canal rule), so really you guys are playing a variant of a variant. :^)
The problem with making a program like that is the number of combinations you'd have to check. I'm fairly sure it increases massively with each extra center on the board, so checking something like KW901 is far harder than Classic.
@CptM. - Yes, I understand. However, there are non-trivial techniques for approaching problems like this that reduce computational roadblocks. Knuth - The Art of Computer Programming is a great read for problems like this.
I suppose so, but I do pretty well on Brain 1.0. Of course, there are several variant design rules of thumb that make stalemate lines more difficult to form. These include, but are not limited to:
1. Lowering Map Density. Increasing the ratio of non SC provinces to SC provinces, especially if they are usefully placed, will hinder stalemate line formation, as well as providing freedom of movement, which will generally makes for more flexible and exciting play..
2. Avoiding Geographic Bottlenecks. Impassable areas which channel movement and long thin provinces with lots of compact provinces on either side, increase the likelihood of and facillitate stalemate line formation.
3. Allowing Freedom to Build. The more freedom a player has to build, that is, moving toward a Chaos-style build rule and away from Standard (or worse) build restrictions, the more difficult it will be to form a stalemate line.
4. Lessening Victory Criteria. Stayng away from supermajority dot ownership, and indeed lowering it below a majority, while also avoiding specific SC ownership requirements or other limitations will lessen the influence of stalemates on gameplay.
I'm fairly certain I could make an efficient algorithm to detect whether, given a set of 'friendly' provinces, they could all be protected by a stalemate line. It's a simple enough task given the board size...
Delete all enemy provinces that a) are not adjacent to a friendly province or b) are only connected to friendly province by a sea route and cannot be reached from an enemy HSC by fleets. Find the border provinces (provinces bordering at least one enemy province) For each border province b, set a variable K(b) to be equal to the number of enemy provinces adjacent to it - 1. Delete all enemy provinces. Delete all friendly provinces that are not either a border province or adjacent to a border province. For each friendly province c which is not a border province and is only connected to one border province b, decrease K(b) by one and then delete c.
The problem is now:
Divide (not completely, you can have some left over) the remaining non-border provinces into disjoint sets v1, v2, v3... such that every border province can be mapped to a set which is contained entirely in its set of neighbours, and which has size equal to its k value. Additionally, the sum of the sizes of the sets must be less than or equal to the number of Supply Centers in friendly territory.
I don't know if there's an efficient way to do that, but brute forcing it shouldn't be too time consuming when we're talking about even a large Diplomacy board.
There's a few problems with this, though:
While everything that shows as 'true' as a result of this algorithm is indeed a stalemate line (with units in every border province and every province inside a V set, the ones inside a V set support holding the border province mapped to them) - not all stalemate lines will be found:
First, this algorithm doesn't take into account that, if a border province has enemy neighbour set E, it can support hold any adjacent border province where the neighbour set contains E without the cutting of support being a problem.
Second, this algorithm only covers passive stalemate lines. It misses active stalemates - lines where units are used aggressively instead of defensively. In a stalemate line, if you do not have enough units to support hold province A, you can use two units to constantly attack two different enemy units adjacent to province A in order to decrease the number of supports A must have by one. However, the two units you are using need one more adjacent unit than before (because they'll need to be protected by support moves rather than support holds).
I think this can be done with more than two units, also - with each extra 'active' unit decreasing the number of support holds needed for A by one.
I *think* if these two scenarios can be covered then you cover everything. Of course, this is with standard Diplomacy rules.
The real issue is that this is a verification algorithm. You'll have to feed it every single possible set of friendly provinces on the board - and that becomes a massive number, two to the power of the number of provinces on the board. On the smallest variant ever made (Pure, 7 provinces) this would be 2^7=128 combinations, on Classic it would be 2^75, which is insanely high (22 digits). It would grow much higher with maps like Known World.
You can't just check combinations which are a graph-cut because they miss stalemates like the Classic Turkey-England one, where the extra northern centers allow you to hold a completely unconnected area of the board.
Actually it would be better as "Which has no friendly units outside of those provinces" rather than "which protects no other provinces". That is, it's assumed that every province not in the friendly set is occupied by an enemy unit.
Lowering the victory conditions below 50% of the Supply Centers often allows powers to solo without having to interact at all with players doing well on other parts of the board. This is a problem we often see over at vDip with WWIV, with the victor generally only 3 or 4 SCs ahead of a number of other players who had no chance to reach him in time to stop him.
Diplomacy should not be on a time-limit by default, and that is what putting a lower victory condition does to the game.
I will agree that lowering a victory criterion is not something that should be done lightly, I am using variable, reduced victory criteria in the global variant I am working on (Dawn of the Enightenment) mainly because, unlike in most of my variants, the Powers are starting out unequal. I have certain Powers starting all the way up at 9 units, including 3 with double strength, while other Powers are starting with only three units. Also the variant is so large, it will take a VERY long time even with reduced victory criteria. Additionally, the interaction problem you mention is lessened, because this variant starts in 1701, so there are a bunch of Powers with starting dots scattered across the globe. For example, Portugal, having units in Macau and Goa, may well be communicating with Russia, having units in Irkutsk and Okhotsk, at the beginning of the game, concerning their common neighbors, India and China.
BUG - there is a big black smooshed bug on my monitor
I've been scraping at it for weeks. Maybe a mod or someone who knows das interweb can help me. Its right on the spot where switzerland should be on my dip map. Ive tried everything. I cant see what units asshole France is putting there. His press he keeps calling me howie. Please help.
I was curious if Minotaurs actually built the buildings they lived in or if it was slave labor. And also would Minotaurs have brothels? It seems like yes but I get confused by who the patrons would be and what rules they would have
The Diplomacy game-board can be divided into six theatres of war, each of which is based on a historical front in the Great War. These theatres are the Western Front, Eastern Front, Italian Front, Middle Eastern Front, Balkan Front, and African Front. Each of them comprise various provinces on the game-board, and recognizing them can improve overall strategy . . .
Can you guys help me find a datasheet for this camera?
the model number is either H498A F1G23 or F1G23 H498A. I already tried www.datasheetarchive.com but feel free to try again. It's from a smartphone and I'm trying to repurpose it, but for that I need to know the specs.
Is the power of the deep state more dangerous than the Trump administration? https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/21/glenn-greenwald-what-the-deep-state-is-doing-to-trump-is-a-prescription-for-destroying-democracy-n2288815
Suggestion: Full Press Communication Games Creation Option
One can always password games. But, it has limitations. What about tracking players communication levels in Full Press games? Assign a Press Level to each player based on amount of communication. Then, add a creation option to Full Press games for a minimum Press Level.
Acting AG Dana Boente is gonna have hell to pay tomorrow
Dana Boente, Obama holdover who is acting AG because Jeff Sessions recused himself is the guy who authorized James Comey to disclose that the Trumpov Team is under investigation for ties to Russia. Did not see that coming!