@Ivo - i hoped you would chime in, since i know you do play a lot at the same time =)

i will post the list in the morning, in the meantime, i know fortknox wants it to be 48 hrs - do people think that's ok? fortknox, could you handle 40 hr phases? i just remember some people said the phases were too long for the commentary last time?

@denis- In our game one thing that turned me me on Italy and not England was the relationship. I had a strong relationship with England through much communication. You assumed I would turn quickly on him. I personally tend to develop a relationship but that can turn sour quick too. In another game I was gutted by my strongest ally. BIG difference in PPSC and WTA. I think that has some to do with it. Talk a lot more and instead of assuming find out what is in the other players head if you can. Some are experts at masking. With a large amount of interaction and asking for advice you can determine what kind of player a person is. If they repeatedly tell you to stab a long standing ally they will prolly stab you quickly. I am a noob to Diplomacy but I have years of real interactive experience with personalities. I have to make judgment calls in real life that determine what gets saved and what gets lost. Paying attention to the traits people tend to show is a valuable skill. Experience is the best teacher. I can give you some personal advice if you like but I would like to know more about you and your personality before I divulge some of the things I have learned. Playing poker online has helped me a considerable amount. Go with your gut. When you get an overwhelming feeling it is there for a reason, even if you can't put your finger on it. I may be incorrect in the game but I am not often wrong in my line of work.

@ Le_Roi - that's correct, lots of questions and posting will show engagement =)

Alrighty. Here I am. Quite engaged. :p

24-48 works well for me.
I like 30 the best so far and would give time for commentary and feedback???

@tailboarder - i agree that 24 or 36 is nice for a regular game, but in this game we want to be sure to give plenty of time for everything.

this is a showcase game with a lot of people involved. I think that means we need a slower phase. I think 48 is best. That gives time for ample diplomacy, it gives the commentators time to analyze the board and write up their dissertations, and it gives time for the students to check in with the mentors if need be and have a bit of back and forth.

We've got a great set-up this time - let's give it enough time to work =)

This is going to be a lot of fun =) It'll be nice to be commentating with Cent again, and I'm looking forward to adding Dunecat to the mix.

i vote 48 you know no pressure plenty of time
only thing is i was crucail in breaking down russia in that game and i england didn't keep his word so when you stabbed it all fell apart

I don't know that I really stabbed did I?
I stabbed Eng for one SC and possible win the year before.
We should look back & discuss separate. I don't wanna take this thread off topic. I did that with another thread before I realized it.

the thread bout teens ya whatever it was a nice conversation to follow

I agree that phases should last 48 hours.

i'm looking forward to this as well, we have great mix of vets to help out.

a reminder to all the 'rookies' who did not get into the game... this game will be for YOU as much as it is for the players IN the game... here is what you should do:

1) follow the game... put yourself in the shoes of the various countries... ask, why did they do that? would I have done the same thing? what is going to come next?

2) then read the comments from the vets... ask yourself, is that how i saw things? what are they noticing that I would not have noticed on my own? what is it that the vets are paying attention to? how do they decide long-term strategy?

3) when something is not clear, ask. in the game thread (an SoW 5 game thread will be created by djbent) ask questions about why the commentators felt the way they did. feel free to talk about how you may have done things differently if you were in a given country's shoes, and why it would or would not have been better or worst to do that instead.

4) also to all the observers... please do feel free to tell the commentators when their posts are helping you and if you find some things useful... I hope you enjoy following these gams just as much as if you had played in it.

and keep in mind.. in year 1901, as observers, its often tough to gauge exactly who is allying with who, or what is going on in the diplomacy... but starting in 1902, you'll notice that the commenters will also pick up on how the in-game diplomacy is going based on the moves... this is a crucial skill... b/c when you are in a game, and someone across the board moves a certain way, you can usually get a good understanding of who they are working with or what might be influencing them... when you start to get that right, you can then counteract it with your own diplomacy or plan for it and get yourself into the end-game...

@braveheart - I suspect they will that as players develop questions, they will ask more than one of us the same thing to compare our answers... when giving answers, we do have to decide among ourselves how deeply we want to delve into giving specific move advice... but i think the rule should be, not to PUSH any certain moves or diplomatic methods... but to tell them factually, "here is what will/might happen if you do this/that"... "here is something you could say that might have this effect"... another words, we should have the latitude to give specific advice without playing the game for the player.

one issue that might arise for us is if two different playes tell us their potential moves and ask us for advice... its really up to us to be as honest and impartial as possible and answer as if we did not have that extraneous information...

thats my take...

24-48 is fine.

alright, Ivo, can you create the game at 1800 GMT

School of War Game V
WTA
5
48 hour phases
password - you decide, but then PM it to the people who are playing the game:
Ivo
fortknox
baron samedi
denis
tailboarder
bonotow
rador

they all have posted in this thread, so you should be able to find them easily.

once the game is created, please post the gameID here and i will create the commentary thread. later today i will also post here the potential student roster for the next game - and those players should be sure to do as Babak has said and follow along with this game, ask questions, etc.

this is going to be great! thanks to everyone for helping out.

I am excited about getting started.

To clarify on "being engaged." That means what Babak is talking about, so asking questions and the like. It doesn't mean answering questions, because then it could degrade into the opinions of everyone and their dog, creating what Dunecat called "the chatroom effect". This is something we want to avoid.

Also, when the game starts you should check the thread regularly and make sure to read everything, even if its quite a bit back. This sounds very obvious, but many of your have been asking questions that were clearly answered earlier on, so I think I should reiterate that.

And some game-start advice. When I'm going to start a new game I make sure that I'm going to have some free time to send out messages as early in the game as poussible. Apparently players are more likely, given equal diplomacy, to ally with the player they hear from first. Although they should always wait to hear from everyone, that doesn't mean you should risk it. Sometimes agreements (like dmzs and bounces) have already been made by the time you get to the table. Its not a huge deal, but hurry on over, atleast for opening moves.

I'd like to echo Babak's thoughts on mentoring. We should be sounding boards for diplomatic, strategic and tactical queries, but we should be encouraging students to think through and work things out themselves - guiding rather than telling.

For example, if a player asks what we think about a move combination, and we can see an obvious counter, then we should say that there is a counter, encourage the player to work it out (of course, if they can't see it, and ask, I'd be inclined to point out what their opponent *could* do).

The challenge will be to ensure that we treat each 'conversation' as a seperate box - as Babak says. I'm sure we can manage that

can't wait for the commentary thread to start - I'm already putting together a list of names to call Cent when he says something moronic :P

just kidding Cent!!!! =)

Wait, I'm playing? I thought Jacob was playing with Ivo? Jacob is just commentating?

"Oh a Cent is what you are worth, OH SNAP"

Fortknox, you are playing. Babak and Jacob declined. I hope that is alright.

Can't wait for this to start.

that'll work... want me to start the game?

Apparently Ivo is starting it, we wouldn't want any confusion.

@fortknox - Ivo is starting it =)

sorry for any confusion!

@fortknox - I hope you are, or we'll need a replacement asap - game created:

Link - http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=13331
Name - School of War Game V
Password - listentotheteacher
:) good luck

Good luck everybody!

@djbent: Let's hold off on making the commentary thread until more people are in the game, but let's start the thread before the game actually starts!

@Dunecat - that's fine, but yes, it's important to start it before the game starts. yall will have some good pre-game commentary to give =)