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.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in 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 noticed that Germany is considerably weaker in Diplomacy than it's historical counterpart. In game, Germany can very easily be knocked out by England and France. However, historically Germany was able to fight competently on three separate fronts. Does anybody feel that Germany is a little misrepresented in game? More importantly, are there any variants that address this?
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
Hi all, when Amby and I were recording our recent podcast (diplomacygames.com) the topic of Bourse came up, and I got really excited and thought that I would try to get another game of this variant running...
Awhile back, kaner proposed a Known World gunboat tournament in which 15 participants would play 15 games, one with each nation. I searched back for the thread, then just decided to start a new one. I want to see if there would be sufficient interest in this to try to get it off the ground.
Hi folks, some of you may have heard me talk on the podcast about bringing the WWIV map to a Cold War circa 1984 1v1 variant. Interested in your thoughts about whether I use the standard WWIV map, the v6.2 version (is there any actual difference in the map itself?) or whether the sealane version would be better. Thoughts?
Mouse, your comments posted here indicate that you do not appear to understand anything about the purpose of the Electoral College. Maybe that is incorrect, but your criticism of it suggest exactly that. here's no evidence to support anything about the Electoral College trending towards a two party system. The process would work exactly the same if there were multiple parties. Your view of a senate is your view. However, it has nothing to do with the Unites States Senate. At least you understand that though. Could you at least try to have a point? Your commentary is so esoteric and hypothetical that it's pointless to debate.
As for Israel, if it were as easy as you say to disagree with them without bigotry, we wouldn't have so much violence concerning it's existence. Palestine is a former British colony, not a nation. Israel is very much in the "right" in it's disagreements with those who would create a separate state there. Israel is a nation. The only reason that anyone wants to create a separate Palestinian state is because of a hatred of Israel, a hate based upon religious bigotry. Israel has defended itself from within and without for 70 years, exercising considerable restraint considering the threats it faces to this day from terrorist factions, terror states, and their financial backers. Yes, it's possible to disagree with Israel's position absent bigotry, but anyone doing so is rather ignorant of the surrounding facts.
RUFF - Some people just don't want to admit the world works the way it does. They want to believe in some kind of Utopia. But as long as humans are involved, you can forget that. Everyone makes their opinions based on their life experiences. Some have not been out in the real world before, so have based their opinions on what someone else has taught them. To them, they are right. But until they get a dose of reality face to face, they will never agree with those of us who HAVE faced it and lived to tell of it. I applaud your endeavor to educate some on here about what you have learned firsthand, but I am afraid you are wasting your breath (keystrokes). We will never change their minds as long as they can continue to run to those who provide support for their beliefs. I have family I just agree to disagree with... then love 'em... It's what we do. But here there is no way to have a rational conversation with those who are borderline rabid for their cause, no matter how many facts you throw out, they run on emotion.
RUFFHAUS - some would argue that imposing a nation of refugees in the semitic inhabitants of the area to be a highly anti-semitic act in itself, naturally tainting any subsequent interactions between that state and other inhabitants of the region :p
While the electoral college would, on paper, work the same way if there were multiple parties, it (as with every single representative, first part the post system) encourages local elections to be between two candidates only - any others detract from an otherwise preferable candidate. While I'm generalising this effect over each election, and assuming the same parties being those two (which I believe I'm jutified to do with regard to the USA, given, you know, that's /exactly how it's happened/) I'll cede it's not always the case - eg. in the UK, in Scotland the Scottish Nationalist Party is typically one of the two parties actually in contention, while elsewhere the split is more commonly Tory/Labour. But for the USA, I'll accept that the system as it is (regardless of what the rules are on paper, which is all you appear to be arguing?) doesn't actively discourage third parties as soon as you can point out a third party that actually has representation remotely proportional to its voter base at a federal level ;)
" in it's disagreements with those who would create a separate state there. Israel is a nation. The only reason that anyone wants to create a separate Palestinian state is because of a hatred of Israel" I know yall are having a reasonable argument, but can we take a second to appreciate how ridiculous that statement is
There are at present more "Palestinians" in Jordan than there are in Israel. I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone speak of the moral case for carving a Palestinian State out of Jordanian territory. "Palestine" as a concept was only created after the 1905 revolution in the Ottoman Empire in order to group into a single administrative unit the collection of sites most popular with European tourists (they were split between three different provinces in 1905) as the Young Turks wanted to place internal travel restrictions on foreigners to keep them from wandering around too much while visiting Jerusalem. What "Palestinians" have in common to bind them together as an identity group is Israel (and really only Israel). It is a fairly specious claim to assert that people living in Gaza in 1905 felt more kinship with people living on the West Bank of the River Jordan than with people a few miles away in Sinai or in Aqaba for that matter or that farmers on one side of the River Jordan felt more kinship with urbanites in Gaza than with farmers on the other side of the river.
While absolute statements are almost always ridiculous, animus towards Israel is at the heart of people's reasoning for a Palestinian State in most cases. Now I think people have made other claims above that are similarly specious as simplistic "brown good, white bad" reasoning is prevalent enough on the Left throughout the West to provide an understandable basis for an anti-Israel hostility that is not rooted in religious based hatred.
Nelson Mandela wandered off the farm long enough to make a few public statements before being muzzled by the ANC after Abacha began summarily executing Ogoni leaders. He pointed out that he had no confidence that any Black led regime in Africa (in 1993) would have provided him the public trial with legitimate representation that he received in the Rivonia Trial had he committed the same acts against the regime. Obviously, no Black led regime was ever subjected to the kind of forceful criticism that the Afrikaner regime was faced with for decades. A logical interpretation would be that white people view Human Rights as not actually being universal but rather a higher ethical standard that a superior race is held to while no similar expectations can be placed upon "the savages". I believe the phrase for that is "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
As compared to a sitting President writing a check with government money to settle a law suit over leaking a woman's FBI file in an act of obstruction of justice to retaliate against her as a perceived political enemy (Linda Tripp) or writing another check to settle a law suit for sexual harassment of a government employee back in Arkansas (Paula Jones)? Lewinsky had a bigger law suit but never filed, given that the Clintons unquestionably used her FBI file to publicly smear her in the press as testified to by Christopher Hitchens. And lest anyone forget, Obama was given a house by a gangster (Tony Rezko) who was convicted of public corruption charges while he was running for President. The wife of Governor Blagojevich (currently in jail on separate public corruption charges) was the realtor involved.
What exactly is your claim? A somewhat huckstery real estate developer ran a series of huckstery real estate seminars and used the word "University" in his marketing much as McDonalds has long used "Burger University" in its franchise operation.
People settle lawsuits all of the time. I presume that there was the obligatory bit about not admitting wrongdoing.
BTW, I have twice reported groups of individuals to state authorities for committing actual fraud and have done so once for embezzlement. Each time that I did so, I had specific evidence that spelled out exactly what I was claiming that they had done. State investigators confirmed my accusations in each of the three occasions and took actions against the people involved including sending people to jail and destroying the organizations involved in the frauds.
To be honest, I find Al Gore's work for Apple and Dick Thornburg's work for nearly everybody far more concerning than Donald Trump's infomercials.
How many real estate developers have you know personally in your life? One of my great uncles developed much of suburban Texas (he was the William Levitt of Texas). Another great uncle ran a specialty contracting business that worked on virtually every building over 30 stories tall built in the American Oil Patch between 1965 and 1995. My dad worked for a major real estate developer active across the American Sunbelt through the 1980s and 1990s. I interviewed William Levitt for my National History Day project the month before he died. Yes, by the standards of real estate developers, Trump is somewhat huckstery.
I remember meeting Melvin Lane Powers as a very young child. Look him up....his Wikipedia page does not even come close to doing him justice.
BTW, if you have ever seen the movie Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking your Juice in the Hood, David looked exactly like "the Man" when that movie came out and looks largely the same today.
As many of you know, the Calhamer estate is being liquidated and the very first self-published Diplomacy board sold for just over $5000 last week. Well, something else interesting from the same sale - a bunch of prototype maps, these likely being from several years before the game was published.
Is anybody able to make minor cosmetic map changes to the variants, for readability? There's two small things I've noticed:
* Imperial Diplomacy II: there's a connection between Morocco and W. Med, but the map really doesn't show it. * First Crusade: The Sardinia supply centre in the large map is placed in an odd, almost invisible spot.