Board Game Diplo Part μ

If someone abdicates and isn't subbed out, what should their troops do?


  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Hey folks, we were supposed to have a Diplo Game in the Mediterranean, but that got abandoned so we're abandoning that map and going back to Europe. Signups will have 7 players, with new players getting priority over Experienced players*.

Rule Book here for new folks, we will be using the Standard start. Players may forfeit at any time to remove all of their influence from the board, or abdicate and offer their seat to a new player. Any abdications must occur before Spring 1902, or receive unanimous minus one (-1) approval in order to go through, otherwise the party in question will be put into Civil Retreat (Move back towards Base RPs, and then Support-Hold as RNGsus decides) or Civil Resistance (permanent NMR) pending poll

*and while I do want new people to join so that it's not just Part μ of the Circus Diplo Saga, if there's enough interest I can make that game happen as well.

I'm available to answer all your questions on discord shubaka17#2404 or in smogon PMs. Orders will be submitted between either of those two resources as well. Deadlines will be

Signups will be closed when we reach a multiple of seven and/or signups cool off.

So far we have
Walrein,
Hitmonleet,
AuraGuardian,
Agape,
UncleSam,
DrAwesome,
Hawkie,
Blazade as Sub
 
Last edited:

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Uh so are we going to be using variants to balance the map? I know that we used a score adjustment + Milan + Winter 1900 + NAF supply center variant like two summers ago and it worked really well in terms of giving everyone options, I know we planned on keeping track of scores etc but then never played again lmao
 
I don't like scoring.

Unrelated: given how Fleet Rome only changes which player is screwed over more, I don't mind no variants. (I mean, we could try 1898 or something; wouldn't mind that, but a return to normal would be good)
 
I was going to return to normal, and RNG everything. If y'all really want a variant, i can make that happen, such as Milan (or there's a Macedonia variant i was studying on the diplomacy subreddit)

the only way I'd not RNG is if all seven players requested different countries in a game.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
My concern without variants is that Italy sucks too hard to play but of course with Milan France sucks almost as bad; that's why I would suggest Milan + NAF supply center at the least unless someone else wants to volunteer for one of the suck countries lol

Ill sign up though regardless ifi roll Italy Without variants I'll just be a bit sad lmao
 
I think vanilla is adequate.

Scoring is good, because it allows for victory evaluation when the game crashes due to drama.

For variants I like winter 1900 the most (choose starting units). Starting earlier than that feels too slow.

Milan+Naf seemed balanced, but I dislike tweaking the SC number.

preferences:
winter 1900 > vanilla > fleet rome > milan/NaF
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I will happily play vanilla if you'll play Italy Agape :p

Ya all of the variants we tested were good tbh, all added something to the game and gave players more control over their respective fates. Scoring is really easy in terms of it can be added by players (aka the host has to do essentially no work) simply be referring to a score table and making the appropriate adjustments. The scoring table we used previously was:
Scoring Table said:
We'll use this linked table for postgame scoring, adjusted with these country modifiers:

France: +3
Russia: +2
Italy: +1
England: 0
Germany: 0
Austria: -1
Turkey: -2

Those who sub out or forfeit get no points at all, only the final player gets the points.
Now those adjustments were for the Winter 1900 + Milan + Naf variant, which felt very balanced gameplay-wise but also would probably need a further adjustment in the form of Turkey -> -3.

I'm not sure why tweaking the SC number is a bad thing - it helps ensure there is a winner (of course, the scoring tables also ensure that there is a winner).

The biggest problem I've seen with past Diplomacy games is the likelihood of a draw being so high, and this fixes that.
 
Hereby I agree to trade countries with Unclesam if we play vanilla and he rolls Italy.

I agree with draws being a big problem. However we should try to address the cause of the problem rather than draws itself. Less drama! (And turtling but I love turtling myself so I cannot comment on this.)

I've actually changed my philosophy regarding country modifiers. We should redo them based on statistical results on *Smogon* games. For example, UncleSam changed the way Turkey is played in Smogon, making it more powerful. Additionally, in few games have we seen an expansionist France or a diplomatically successful Russia. Perhaps even have the scoring modifiers be a player-based handicap, with only really minor country modifiers like giving Italy +1 in vanilla. In the end, country modifiers are not terribly relevant compared to the importance of the SC-based points table.

Adding NaF causes the SC amount to be odd, which drastically changes the endgame, making epsilon strategies less relevant and emphasising the importance of late midgame positions carrying into endgame. It also causes the west side of the board to be stronger in the Gibraltar-based endgame positions, causing the need of the right side of the board to hold NaF/Wes in late midgame. This could in turn be balanced by adding a SC to the right side of the board, but that's a slippery slope.

Custom maps I'm pretty much 100% against.

But all in all, the other players and their countries' location in respect to mine will affect my winrate more than these balance adjustments, so I'm fine with whatever.
 
Endgame scoring will be discussed if that comes to it, but I'd much prefer a game where there's some obvious winner, and then some obvious losers. Like, one person who diplomatically kept an alliance together, or conquered many more SCs than the rest of the game, or w/e. If the game seems to be going on infinitely along a stalemate line, we can end the game around 1918, but I'd rather not put a cap on y'all's game if it keeps on being a game
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Shubaka the point of scoring adjustments is that at the end of the game, whoever has the most points is declared the sole winner. This means that players can't simply aim for a draw and agree to it because they will still 'lose', just on points rather than because someone else gained 18 centers. The reason I like NAF is because it almost guarantees someone will get to 18, which again addresses the draw problem.

Additionally, Agape, I wasn't clear on something: do you not like custom maps as in you don't like Walreins' game of thrones map, or you don't like the Milan variant (which is the same map with only minor balance adjustments)? I feel the first is a matter of preference, while the second I disagree with because even Richard Sharp (the godfather of vanilla diplomacy) agreed that Italy was completely terrible in it.

Of course if you really wanna play vanilla and will bite the bullet fine by me! If Shubaka decides not to accept that and just true RNG it and I get Italy I won't rage quit or anything, there are still some plays Italy can make. I'll just feel like I got dealt a bad hand.
 
if the two of you agree to the swap i'd let it happen.

losing is losing is losing, i think it's pretty obvious when someone plays for the draw. and even when they do play for the draw, the Top Dog is usually obvious as well
 
Additionally, Agape, I wasn't clear on something: do you not like custom maps as in you don't like Walreins' game of thrones map, or you don't like the Milan variant (which is the same map with only minor balance adjustments)? I feel the first is a matter of preference, while the second I disagree with because even Richard Sharp (the godfather of vanilla diplomacy) agreed that Italy was completely terrible in it.
I think that balance-adjusted minor variants of vanilla are fine and do improve the experience. Badly made or uninteresting custom maps are bad, because you cannot benefit from prior map research on them and they have less or at least different skill factor (why play them when vanilla is better?) Mediterranean is such an example.

On the other hand, if the custom map has intrinsically something really interesting in it like a theme, RP or an actually good new mechanic so that it becomes a completely different game in a good way, I'd be down for it. Walrein's GoT map would possibly have been cool enough for this - if I were not a scrub who hasn't read the series. Another example: Diplomacy on some Pathfinder world map tied to RP would be really awesome.


Regarding draws, I think that the leading player shouldn't accept a draw if the other players suggest it. The scoring system as Unclesam mentions removes the possibility of "playing for a draw", since in a case of 1 leading player accepting a 7-way draw proposed by a 6-player alliance would still win by the virtue of having more SCs. This encourages competitiveness, so I think scoring is good. Diplomacy fun is competitive fun.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top