In re: speeding up retreats/builds/disbands, a big part of the game for a lot of players is that consistent phase length, especially for those players with jobs, families, etc. Speeding up the game without any advance notice, IMO, would likely lead to a greater number of NMRs.

But in conjunction with maybe no moves recorded during the weekends it could be a good thing. Also, you will know your responsibilities when you sign up. But when you play 2+ day phases and the retreat/build cycle can take up to 4 days.

As long as anyone has any retreat/build activity there is the same opportunity to delay 'ready' and if nobody else has any action, the phase is essentially skipped ... again leaving the full phase length for the following phase.

I would NOT want shorter phase lengths that limit my time to enter my own retreats/builds, but I LOVE the idea of eliminating unnecessary wait time for situations with no options.

Wish list item:

* Customizable e-mail notification setting for users. If you are within M minutes of NMRing, or within P% of phase length of NMRing, system sends generic email saying, "You are about to NMR in gameid=nnnnnn.

Dear diplomaclaus,
This year I'd like to see a feature to make build and retreat times up to half the length of regular order phases (as an advanced option not default). Also I'd like to see the ability to create group chats in games. I.E if Germany France and Russia are in an alliance they should be able to chat together in a group chat. I forget which site uses it but another site has the feature. Lastly Mr.claus I'd like a new variant :).
Sincerely a computer illiterate webdip player with wishes.

I wish for a "-1" or "votedown" feature to be added to the forum.

@Jeff
"I'm not so sure about #7 though. The 4th Edition (2000) rules state, "After each fall turn, (including retreats, if any) players adjust their units to match the number of supply centers they control." Someone might just retreat a dislodged unit into an unoccupied SC, reducing the putative victor's count below 18."

I think you may have misunderstood me. The "Solo Win" adjudication happens (I think) immediately after the Autumn moves but before the retreats, which causes exactly the problem which Jeff describes. That's why I am requesting its revision.

@Thomas

The 5th edition rules are that you must have 18 SC after retreats and builds.

Page 6:
"After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or more supply
centers, the game ends and that player is declared the winner."

A "Fall turn" consists of:
"Fall five-phase turn
1. Diplomatic phase
2. Order Writing phase
3. Order Resolution phase
4. Retreat and Disbanding phase
5. Gaining and Losing Units phase"

Be careful with "phase" and "turn" because the board game and webDip use them slightly differently.

Interestingly enough, it says on page 4 that all players with units, not SC, share equally in a draw.

How about having the forum be in two tabs: One for diplomacy and one for other non dip-related banter.

@Valis
Exactly! But, I understand that, on this site, the solo is (wrongly) adjudicated after (3) the Autumn Order Resolution Phase and before (4) the Retreat and Disbanding phase. I think that you and I are agreeing, while appearing to disagree.

Hm. I'm definitely solo'd due to retreats (gameID=151389), I don't recall a game I've played where someone has been given a solo even though they had an empty SC where someone was about to retreat to; do you have an example of that? Anyone else chime in?

To summarize:
1) Checking for solo win should be made at and only at after Fall build phase a la boardgame/official rules
2) According to my experience, this is correct in that there is a solo-check after retreats
3) But not mutually exclusive to webDip checking for a solo after retreats is that according to thomas, webdip may be making a solo-check before retreats in the fall phase [as well]. (would this be fair to say thomas?)

From what I gather, the solo check is performed every time a players SC count is changed. So it's not as easy a fix as just removing one check.

As for @Valis "do you have an example of that? Anyone else chime in?"
I was considering exploiting that in my most recent game (?gameID=151594) in order to not eliminate one player, but decided against it, since he's counted as 'Survived' anyway. Which is also only because the solo check was premature.

@thomas_dullan:
Gotcha. #7 was the only one on your list which was a request to *fix* a problem, rather than a request to *add* a feature which is how I read it on first glance.

"Interestingly enough, it says on page 4 that all players with units, not SC, share equally in a draw."

This is interesting. Players can agree to a draw at any time irrespective of phase, so this makes some kind of sense. It'd kind of suck if you had to disband your last unit after spring orders and be left out of a draw even if you controlled a nearby yet unoccupied SC which would earn you a build in the autumn.

For a fun case of "I have SC but no units" check out the current SoW game: gameID=149309

Wish List Item:
Display date/time stamp of last CD on player profile
Display phase length of game of last CD on player profile

Raw numbers of CDs don't tell the whole story.

I heard it suggested before, but don't see it in this thread:

Count a missed retreat or build phase (where the player actually has a choice to enter) as one of the two missed phases for a CD, to open the position up for a takeover.

Now that takeovers are half priced, they are being quickly scooped up (great job developers!). However, many left positions quickly deteriorate because they are really missing more than two phases (when counting retreats and builds), ending up with far fewer units than supply centers, by the time they are taken over.

Give us SIX AND/OR SEVEN MINUTES PHASES! Livegamers are asking you. We need it to play America and Modern.

^^^ Don't give them SIX AND/OR SEVEN MINUTES PHASES! That means less classic live games, and I don't like America and Modern :P

@Valis "But not mutually exclusive to webDip checking for a solo after retreats is that according to thomas, webdip may be making a solo-check before retreats in the fall phase [as well]. (would this be fair to say thomas?)"

I cannot provide an example of it happening. All I can say is that I have experienced a solo being awarded before the retreats phase and I hypothesised that it might create problems in some game adjudications. Hence my insertion of the words "I think" in my original contribution.

It seems supply centres are reassigned after the Fall moves but before the retreat moves (it happened in an anonymous game I'm currently playing; no solo-victory as of yet); I guess there will be a second check after the retreats are finished.
I won't be surprised if it's possible on this site to get a solo-victory before the Retreats phase, although I can't say for sure.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=152803
This game was finished before the retreats phase, not in the builds phase; it wouldn't have made any difference

Non-essential feature request: A "last turn's orders" button for those of us locked in stalemate lines in live games. Of course, I know some big pot non live games that could use that as well....

Yes people WILL fuck up and press it out of laziness when they shouldn't but I feel that's better and/or less frequent than the amount of times a game goes silly because someone had to drop down the same orders 6 times and misclicked once. Although the preview button is a nice proxy. Just a thought.

I'd like to see elimination of the green online status dot and the last logged in time stamp. There's no reason why anyone should need to know whether I'm online or when I last logged in. In the event of an emergency, mods could be able to view it without the info showing up on my profile or in-game.

I agree with THM on that one. If you're playing a game and the phase is about to process, and you can see whose green lights are on (and whose are not) it can affect your last-minute decision making.

i agree as well. sometimes i log in for just a second, to make sure i don't miss any turns, but don't read through the press, but it looks as if i'm ignoring my ally.

I've wondered about this. I suspect there'd be as many against it as for it.

Also, it's useful for forum discussions. I thought about hiding it for a) users who you're playing a game with and b) anyone who's not logged in (so you can't log out to check online status). But that's a fairly major change to do properly.

How do you see it as useful for forum discussions, ATC?

@atc:
"Also, it's useful for forum discussions." -atc
"The forum is a part of the site, but it is not a main component of the site." -zultar, co-owner

just sayin' :)