Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Page 57 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last

)
22 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

C oin system.

I came back after several months, and it happens that i only have 5 coins left, I find this an impossible number to win back coins with. I have only one game and I already am at a disadvantage because i was unable to play on the first turn. I think that there should be a minimum number of coins like 50 or so.

2 replies

)
02 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

The long long story 2

Hi, i think we all know the rules. Everyone posts three words in the story. No one can post multiple times in a row. And to comment, you put your words in parenthesis. (like so.)

the first story is available here:
http://www.freewebs.com/hiimme333html/phpLonglongstory.html

71 replies

)
21 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

not updating

why isnt it updating? I have been refreshing games for a couple hours now after finalizations are complete.

1 reply

)
21 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Killing your own units?

This seems strange

I ordered an army to move into a province that had my fleet in it. I ordered the fleet to move into the sea
But when I come back, it says the fleet was attacked by the army I had moved, and now it has to disband

This also happened when I tried to get them to switch places, by getting them to swap territories (using move orders) but it registered as them attacking each other so they bounced

What is up with that?

6 replies

Thucydides (864

(B)

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Support a supporter?

Ok. Let's pretend I'm France. An army in Marseilles supports hold at Burgundy. Burgundy supports move from Picardy to Belgium. Now, Ruhr attacks Burgundy. Does Marseilles' support fend off the attack, therefore causing the support from Burgundy to stand, effectively supporting a support? This is no specific game, just an issue that has come up several times.

14 replies

)
18 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Whats in a name?!

I was just wondering what inspires peoples' names on this site? Some people obviously have historically significant names but others seem to have fairly random ones......so i guess i'm hoping some people will explain what ( if anything) their name is inspired by!

68 replies

Chrispminis (916

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Away for the Holidays

This is just to let the members of "No-Press Game II", and "GFTD6", that I will be going away for 10 days starting this friday. Which means that I won't be able to enter any orders. I'm not sure how you want to handle this, whether you would rather wait the ten days, not entering any orders, or just have me fall into CD.

It's entirely up to you.

10 replies

thewonderllama (100

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Draw request for game Circumlocutions

Kestas, the three of us in the game Circumlocutions (http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2091) have agreed to a draw. Recent messages between all remaining parties should back this up. Could you please do your magic draw voodoo at your convenience? Thanks.

1 reply

thewonderllama (100

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Question about forum and messaging history

i understand that it would be both impossible and undesirable to see the entire list of threads from now back to the dawn of phpdip, but i'm curious if old threads still exist in the database somewhere or if they're cleaned out when they fall off the list. also, is the messaging history that gets rotated out of the message boxes in game deleted, or is it still out there, just unviewable?

we've pretty much finished the much-press game and i was interested in saving/looking back at the messaging later, as it was both hilarious and instructive. thinking it might be interesting to look back on it, i did my best to save it as i went along, but even so i know i have some gaps in my logs. not anything critical, but it got me wondering about what happens to that text after it scrolls off... kestas? anyone else know?

6 replies

)
30 Nov 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

PHP Diplomacy Tournament

I have not heard any updates on the tournament's status. Are we still running strong? Did all 7 games get off the ground? I was hoping for an update. Thanks

52 replies

SlkySmoothOtter (969

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Draw for game PoliticalPuppets2

the game is at:

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2092

I am posting this to vote for a draw to end the game, at any time, players in that game can check here and post if they want to end it or not. The most recent post of any given player shall be valid, and all players must agree to a draw for the draw to occur.

2 replies

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Possible bug: taking over a country is too expensive

Game Godly2
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2170
Pot: 269
Take over ChairmanMao for 376
------
If I'm not wrong, taking this country would cost more points than could be earned for 18-point victory. Is this correct or is this a bug?

3 replies

Nick Douglas (408

)
18 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Where can I play a more real-time game of online Diplomacy?

I love the game but sometimes I need a hefty fix for a few hours instead of this luxurious 24-hour cycle. Where can I quench this thirst?

19 replies

)
12 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Proposal: Forum Subject Etiquette

could we please agree on using following terms a little bit more carefully in forum subjects:

Bug ... obvious problem of the game, that is not stated in FAQ / Help
Serious / Severe Bug ... problem of the game that prevents you from continuing playing
Known Problem ... problem of the game, that is already known
Feature ... something the developer has decided to implement it that way
Request ... asking the developer to change how a certain feature is implemented
Question ... asking the community about something you are uncertain about; as long you can't prove a bug, you just have a question
Help ... you need help of an administrator, e.g. because a game is stuck in due now

For some reason, every 2nd topic here contains the word "Bug" although it is actually a simple question or a request.

In the body of your post, you can of course use whatever language you want to. ;-)

13 replies

Thucydides (864

(B)

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Trading Places?

Let's pretend I have an army in Bulgaria and a fleet in the Aegean as Austria. There is a Turkish fleet in the Black Sea, and an army in Constantinople. If Bulgaria moves to Con with support from Aegean, and a Russian fleet from Rumania moves to Black Sea, why would Black Sea be able to both stop the attack on Con by moving to Bulgaria AND defend itself from the Russian fleet? Shouldn't I have gotten into Con, and lost Bulg, and Russian taken Black Sea? I don't get it.

6 replies

figlesquidge (2131

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Deliberate delaying through needless retreats

Until this is sorted out by someone in the code, please will players be considerate and not delay games just because they can. If you have no SC's in Autumn, disband your unit if you get a retreat order, and just because you're effectively out of a game doesn't mean you shouldn't finalize.
What was the overall consensus on naming and shaming those who do this?

4 replies

canstoptheaxzn (51

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Game: Passing the time

Starting a new game and the ante is 10 per player. Join soon.

2 replies

Asriel Belacqua (285

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Spain to North Africa?

I checked and didn't see this elsewhere... sorry if I missed it. I know the official rules but also know the php has some deviations.

Can forces move from Spain to North Africa and vice-versa?

Should the esteemed player of France in my current game be reading, I merely ask as a matter of curiosity... :)

1 reply

figlesquidge (2131

)
17 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

0 SC's should die at the end of autumn

I know i wrote a little patch for this in the past, but since then the points system has been added, and so the progress lost. Please would you update the site so that players are deemed 'out' at the end of the autumn when they have no SC's - in one of my games a doomed player has been holding us up for the last few days, and now has no SC's and one unit, but we still must wait

16 replies

)
14 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

feature request for kestas.

In a real war things do depend a bit on luck and the feature I would like to see in phpdiplomacy is that of espionage.

For every 5/6 sc's each player should get to deploy 1 spy on some country and then based on a low random probability all messages sent to and from this country should be reported to the first country for 6 months. Each player can probably have at max 1 spy per year i guess.

Often i see players with congested sc's maybe a spy could be constructed as an option to a unit.

mightyrobot (202 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

No.

mightyrobot (202 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

Please download and read the rules from Avalon Hill.
Let's not make up new rules.

amathur2k (100 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

yeah i have seen those but like someone pointed here in the board game you can see the people who are playing and you get clues regarding their allegiances if you look carefully.
The electronic version lacks the human touch so i felt that something of this type should be there, though if you can think of some other way to accomodate that i'm all ears

mightyrobot (202 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

I see your point. Instead of making up new rules, I would request the following:
(1) Allow everyone in the game know which players sent messages to which other players. The contents of the messages would not be known, but a list of items such as "Russia sent a message to France".
(2) Allow for messages to be sent to multiple players at the same time. Perhaps add an "inlcude" tab that allows to select additional players to send a message to. When someone receives a message that was also sent to other players, it should include a comment such as "this message also sent to Germany and Turkey". This would allow for group discussion.
These should be easy to code, don't change any rules of the game, and allow for interaction similar to a face-to-face game.

Devious (100 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

They don't like random...

thewonderllama (100 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

yeah, the only thing random in diplomacy is which country you play.

figlesquidge (2131 )
14 Dec 07 UTC

I don't think you need to say who's spoken to who - in a real game you could if you wanted hide that, and if you add this feature it will just lead to people sending empty messages just to get round it.
To see all sent moves would of course be useful, but the last thing i heard kestas was going to completely rebuild the back-end of the site. If we can find out what's happening about that I can offer assistance, but currently I think Kestas is working behind the scenes...

Physics (231 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

If you really want to be sneaky in FTF, you'll pretend to have meaningful discussions with each player. Nobody will know who you're allying with. If you can see who sent who a message, people will just send junk messages, or use email.

alamothe (3367 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

but if you have meaningful discussion with everyone how much time do you need for that? what if everyone uses the same strategy? would you need 40 min for a diplomacy phase? i don't have experience in FTF, that's why i'm asking this

@original poster: you must be joking

haer (433 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

When i played diplomacy FTF we always used at least 20-30 minutes for each diplomacy phase. And i would say that everyone talked to everyone most of the time.

amathur2k (100 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

@almonthe Diplomacy is a strategic board game created by Allan B. Calhamer in 1954 and released commercially in 1959.

lordnivlak (205 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

Really, Diplomacy is designed so there is almost no random chance (the only randomness being the actions of one's opponents, and that can be predicted far better than a die roll). There's a reason I like it more than Risk.

kestasjk (95 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

I don't want to add extra arbitrary things like spies or make it so you can see who's talking with who.
I also don't like being able to talk to two people at the same time, people could say "if you're really serious about including me in this alliance lets keep all our discussions 3 way", you can't say "x told me this".
I think it removes an aspect of diplomacy without giving any benefit

There will be a way of talking to everyone at the same time though, but this will be for organizing the game, or asking everyone to be online at a certain time, or whining about betrayals, and probably not so much for diplomacy.

edforth (100 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

Along the same lines 9at least in giving more information) I would really like to be able to see all the orders submitted, that should be public information

dangermouse (5551 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

I've got to disagree about the 3-way discussion part Kestas. It is an integral part of face-to-face diplomacy to be able to engage in larger than two-party talks.

There is no need for a notification setting to let others know who is meeting with who, but there should be group chat rooms.

isbian (106 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

If you want to have a group discussion, do it via instant-messaging, not on-site.

I have to admit though, doing that for a single game , is a big waste of time.

Razz (144 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

I would definitely like to see a public 'channel' added to the games .. I enjoy talking to the other players a bit out of game while we're playing .. makes the game more interesting to me.

Chrispminis (916 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

Um, flatly no. I would only ever consider this, as a variant, if the full adjudicator and all tweaking has finished. And even then, I don't actually like the idea much, although I can see why you want to have it.

I would very much like an "Everyone" tab, so that public declarations can be made, as well as global greetings and congratulations and the sort. I'm still undecided on the multiple-party channel, like a 3 or 4 way, because in a way, it takes away from the mystique of saying one thing to one person, and something else to another.

thewonderllama (100 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

while the original idea has no appeal to me, i do like multi party communications, but won't cry if it's not ever implemented, either. in some pbem games i've played with partial press (what they call multi party but not everyone communications), i've still found that there's plenty of messages on the side between two members of a 3-way alliance where they discuss how they're not actually going to do what they agreed to in the 3-way messages. even more fun when you do it with both the other people. :)

Wombat (722 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

hmmm... The original idea really doesn't work becaus eif the messages were selected at random then there is a probability that some irrelevant message like "lol" is selected and shown to the played deploying the spy- a complete waste.

TOgilvie (845 )
15 Dec 07 UTC

Oooh, and maybe we could expand the map so the whole world was available, and then have more than one army per province, and maybe have dice to control battles? Or is that too Risky?

Seriously though, the idea of communications with all seven players is a good feature idea. Coms with 'a few' players would detract from the pure diplomatic uneasiness when playing.
The luck/chance factor in Diplomacy comes (bar the random nation selection) from not knowing what your 'allies' and 'enemies' are up to. This should be preserved as much as possible.

kestasjk (95 )
16 Dec 07 UTC

dangermouse: Looking over the rulebook I can see that it does mention multi-way talks, which does make me more tempted to add them. Personally I don't like the idea for the same reason as Chrispminis though

The big problem is how to fit multi-way talks in with the current chat-room, which is very much coded around one on one talks.

Back in 0.7 the diplomacy chat looked a lot more like the forums here, and you could select different players to send messages to, but the forum interface doesn't work well in-game, and there wasn't a lot of communication as a result.
People didn't like checkboxing the people who they wanted to communicate with every time, I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better to leave this out for the sake of keeping the interface simple

mightyrobot (202 )
17 Dec 07 UTC

I imagine multi-party as an extension of the current one-to-one communication interface, with the addition to "cc:" other countries.

I think a check box would be easiest, as long as it had a "check all" and "uncheck all" option as well. The "check all" option would allow one to send a message to everyone at once. Of course each country could be checked individually.

For example, I click the "France" tab to send France a message, a decide I want to include "Germany" in the conversation. I would check the "Germany" box in the list of countries to cc: the message to. Both Germany and France would get the same message, with an unforgeable system comment before my personal message noting that the message was sent to both Germany and France. France decides to respond, but doesn't want to include Germany, so he unchecks the "Germany" box when responding to the group message. Or something like that.

Part of the diplomacy is having multi-party diplomacy, where you know that the same information was shared with others. This complements the one-to-one communication, the general announcements to everyone, and the private individual move decisions.

Chrispminis (916 )
17 Dec 07 UTC

Or, just have it set so that multiple tabs may be selected, so France and Germany tabs would be depressed, and then any message sent would go to both, as well as any message received would be present. Although it might get confusing...

I would just be happy with an "Everyone" tab though.

sean (3490 )
17 Dec 07 UTC

kestas, can you give us a brief overview of what changes you will make in .8? when do you expect to roll it out? is there some where...(here?) were the community can make suggestions and advice about future improvements? i have a few ideas but am hesitant due to lack of knowledge of coding in php and awareness that you run this site as a hobby in your free time and the last thing you need is a demanding bunch of players ranting about their demands.,... and that "damn" php code.
so having said that if these things made it in .8 , .9 or even 1 i would be most appreciative.

team play functions/locked alliances basically.
lighter colours used on the map background would make it easier to see the units easily.
clock setter for games- default 24 hours but able to shortened or lengthened during the new game set up.

figlesquidge (2131 )
17 Dec 07 UTC

http://phpdiplomacy.net/faq.php

That's all I need to say!

sean (3490 )
17 Dec 07 UTC

oops, must have missed that the first time i checked, thanks figles

crimson (501 )
18 Dec 07 UTC

While optional multi-party would bee awesome, I agree that it shouldn't be more important than ajudicator fixes and actual game mechanics. A public messages tab would be good, as you can always send a cryp;tic public message which you have privately agreed to mean something in one-on--one messages...

mightyrobot (202 )
18 Dec 07 UTC

I consider mutli-party communication to part of the actual game, as described in the rules and as I have played it in a face-to-face game. I don't care too much about the details of how it is implemented nor am I in a hurry to have it added, but I wouldn't consider this online version to be a complete implementation of the actual game unless that capability existed.

edforth (100 )
20 Dec 07 UTC

I'm playing France in the game "Syracuse"
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2426

My fleet in Marseilles was self dislodged.

I see now that it is listed as a known problem in the FAQ.

Any chance I could get this fixed? (If not, hey, my fault for not reading the FAQ more clearly.)

I'd also like to request the ability to see all the orders submitted by each player. Face-to-Face diplomacy obviously include this, and i think it's an important part of the game, it's the way to see where the alliances are, and especially since the adjudicator isn't at 1.0 yet, it lets the players double check to make sure the system is working correctly.

edforth (100 )
20 Dec 07 UTC

ignore the above post, see "weird forum activity" thread for explanation

32 replies

)
20 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Weird Forum Activity & Requests

i was posting a new message with requests, while I had other threads open in tabs (Firefox) when I posted the message, it posted it as a response to the last thread I had opened "feature request for kestas"

(since I want the requests heard and don't want to spam the forum with thread, I'm reposting it here)

------------------------------------

I'm playing France in the game "Syracuse"
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2426

My fleet in Marseilles was self dislodged.

I see now that it is listed as a known problem in the FAQ.

Any chance I could get this fixed? (If not, hey, my fault for not reading the FAQ more clearly.)

I'd also like to request the ability to see all the orders submitted by each player. Face-to-Face diplomacy obviously include this, and i think it's an important part of the game, it's the way to see where the alliances are, and especially since the adjudicator isn't at 1.0 yet, it lets the players double check to make sure the system is working correctly.

0 replies

arthurmklo (879

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

new game: betting your life

new game: betting your life is opened. Pot is 207, since that is all I have and I will bet all of it in one go...

0 replies

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Supporting Supporters

I have a question.

Can a supporting unit be supported, such as in this example:
Eng. Fleet North Sea support fleet English Chanel
Eng. Fleet English Chanel support Army Belgium to Picardy
French Fleet Brest support Fleet Mid Atlantic to English chanel
What would happen in this situation?

4 replies

)
19 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Sephiroth the Name

Higher stakes game: 101 the ante

Hoping for a good game, I look forward to seeing you!

0 replies

hammocksleeper (95

)
18 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

newbie

hey y'all what's the best way to communicate with the players in my game? i just joined this website

6 replies

Nick Douglas (408

)
18 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Who would be the worst famous Diplomacy players?

Neville Chamberlain, Louis XVI, Inspector Clouseau -- what famous suckers would you want against you in a 700-point game, if you dared join such a bunch of pawns?

23 replies

arthurmklo (879

)
18 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Draw Request

Kestas, please draw the game SMSS (http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2066), I am France and Austria has already agreed as it is a 17-17 split.

1 reply

)
17 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Diplomacy Tournament

Have any of the GFDT games ended yet?

9 replies

)
14 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

game flaw

dear kestas, my english fleet is forced to retreat from St. petes but the program isnt allowing it to move into the baltic, please inspect. http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2299&orders=on#orders
Thanks

4 replies

)
14 Dec 07 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Supporting a convoy attack

I had attempted a move earlier in a game I am playing that failed, and I'm not sure why. Here's the move:
A Bre -> F English Channel via convoy
F EC -> convoy from Bre to North Sea
F North Sea -> convoy from EC to Denmark
F Heligoland Blight -> Support move to Denmark from North Sea
There was an enemy army in Denmark, Norway, and in that same turn I was able to dislodge the enemy in Kiel (so Kiel would not have been able to support Denmark). There were no other units close to Denmark, unless you count Berlin, but they don't connect and Berlin wouldn't be able to support Denmark

At the turn, I was told the support move was not accepted and the army was unable to move into Denmark. It doesn't matter now in that game, since I just used my fleet in Heligoland Blight to take it the next turn. But now I'm stuck with an army in the wings that I could have easily used in Germany supporting or advancing.

But it does matter again, since I am faced with a similar situation. The army that was in Brest is now in Belgium, waiting to be convoyed to Norway through the North Sea with support from Norwegian Sea, Denmark and Sweden. But if the move is not possible, I want to do something else. The game is 2189 if it matters.

13 replies

Page 57 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last