Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

31 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2000: Winter is coming. You shall all bend the knee to the King in the North!
31 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2000: Three things to point out about the map: 1. North Atlantic Ocean connects with the North Sea. 2. Armies can walk between Anglesey and Gwynedd. 3. Armies can walk between Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Good luck guys!
31 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2000: Whoa, those are good things to know.
31 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2000: Indeed. I should clarify: "Units" can walk between the territories identified. Not just armies, but fleets too.
31 Mar 16 UTC	Spring, 2000: Also, despite there being only six players, there are still 34 Supply Centres (more for everybody), so the winning condition is still 18.
01 Apr 16 UTC	Autumn, 2000: Greenwoods!
04 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2002: Next time we could do per-square scoring or something like that? It would eliminate the incentive to draw.
05 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2002: So that comes down to ones beliefs about the fundamental nature of the game (not to be too dramatic). I choose "Winner Takes All" which means that the winner gets all the points, and any draws are divided evenly amongst all surviving players. What Andy is suggesting is "Points-per-supply-centre" so all survivors get a percentage of the pot based on the percentage of the centres they hold when someone wins. (I believe draws still split the pot evenly, even in PPSC. This means it could actually be disadvantageous to draw if otherwise you have a strong second.) He's right that it would discourage draws, but I don't like it because it incentivizes "playing for second", which can make it really hard to battle back from a weak position. If someone has a clear lead the other players should be banding together to stop them rather than desperately carving each other up to finish with as many centres as they can. Just my opinion; I'd be curious to hear from you guys (if anybody cares).
07 Apr 16 UTC	Autumn, 2002: There can only be one!
07 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2003: So...I think that's a vote for points-per-supply centre? That will ensure a winner.
07 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2003: But at the expense of key elements of the game. It will encourage unbreakable alliances, because even if your ally wins you can still finish a strong second. It also diminishes the "if you continue to attack me, Dave will win" argument, which makes new mid-game alliances less likely. Let's say Dave conquers the north, while in the south Dan and Adam have turned on each other. Dan and Adam should be rewarded for teaming up to stop Dave rather than for continuing to pick at each other to try for their best second-place finish. It would also mean that Andy, reduced to a fourth-place rump in this scenario, wouldn't be able to convince them that they need his help. Instead he would be cannibalized for points.
11 Apr 16 UTC	Autumn, 2005: Niiiice move Andy! I didn't see that coming. Adams in a whole heap of trouble.
15 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2007: Sorry for missing my last turn. I didn't get a chance to plan my moves yesterday.
20 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2010: Wanna play speed diplomacy!
20 Apr 16 UTC	Spring, 2010: Heather must be working tonight...
20 Apr 16 UTC	GameMaster: London voted for a Concede. If everyone (but one) votes Concede the game will end and the player _not_ voting Conceede will get all the points. Everybody else will get a defeat.
20 Apr 16 UTC	Well played Dave.