Diplomacy Registration and Administration Thread

[Smid]

This way, we can keep the other thread for the current game, and use this one for people wanting to join the next game and discussions on game administration.

Previous Games:
Game 1: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=79273.0
Game 2: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93230.0
Game 3 (current): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102890.0

[Lunar]

I'd like to join.

[The Mikado]

I'd like to be in the new one...however, if there are too many newcomers, I'll bow out.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'd like to be in the new one...however, if there are too many newcomers, I'll bow out.

Same.

[Smid]

Given all the recent sudden interest in Shakespeare on the Forum, I thought you might like to read this article. I can't find it online (which is where I initially found it), so this is a copy that I'd saved in Word...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Јas]

Also interested.

[Gustaf]

I'm interested too.

[minionofmidas]

Eh. Always interested, baby.

[muon2]

The system I would advocate would be to prioritize new-comers (maybe with the exception of the ruling champion, though that is up to you), then players in the last game in order of finishing position, with misbehaves last (I think that if someone let their nation fall into civil disorder in the beginning of the game it would only be fair to help insure the next round's players against it happening again).

Can you move an army from Norway to St. Petersburg?

One of our assignments in a political science class is to defeat other groups at this game.  I typed overly-long messages to people as Germany and I think they attacked me because they were annoyed by my over-strategizing.  I read hundreds of pages of Diplomacy strategy and would write up pages to various countries.

Have to convince England to do this move to stop Russia.  I'm interested in the next round if there's a spot too here.

St Petersburg and Norway share a common border. An army can certainly march there, likewise a fleet can sail from Norway to St Petersburg (north coast).

I'd be happy to GM again in a future game, so long as the everyone's happy with my adjudication. I'm sure there'll be spots open in the next game - I won't start it up until this one's finished, or extremely close to being finished (on the approval of the players remaining in this game) unless there's enough support for a second game to have another one start up.

One game at a time, methinks.

Maybe players in the current game can automatically go to the back of the line for the next game, to let newcomers like Lunar (and I think PiT expressed interest in another thread) a chance to get in.

I shouldn't be surprised that Lunar likes this game.  It's sad to me how few people have heard of Diplomacy.

Hell, maybe if I get into the next game, I won't be Italy!   

Good idea of putting current players at the back of the line, my only concern is that if we only have 8 or 9 people wishing to join in, it becomes difficult to figure out which current players to include in the next game (unless some want to sit out). One game at a time is the best way to do it - otherwise if people are in more than one game, it can be difficult to remember who you're plotting with in what game, etc, plus it will dramatically increase the complexity of my Sunday, and particularly in trying to figure out which moves belong to which game. I might bump the other diplo thread again, or better yet, make a new "Diplomacy Registration" thread.

When Joe did Risk he would let the winner stay on. In a similar fashion you could let those who survived longest stay on if there are empty spots (and put on quarantine those who did not, ahem, live up to their responsibilities). Not that I have any sort of vested interest in the above proposal, of course.

I'd been considering that as an option, my only concern with it would be that it may prevent less experienced players gaining experience, although I think it would be unfair to penalise someone for doing well - that's what the Democrats are for... (only kidding, this is a non-partisan thread). I think it's best to allow people who did well in the last game to have first dibs in the next game, or second dibs really (after those who didn't get to play in the last game).

Muon - what's your advice?

Gustav's proposal seems to be a relatively clear plan that mirrors your sentiments. Those are important as you are the judge. Judges work best with rules that fit their style and sense of fairness.

[Smid]

Alright, I think the best way to do it would be to preference:

1. Anyone who has not yet played a game.
2. The winner of the previous game.
3. Anyone who did not play in the last game, but has played previously.
4. Players in the last game, who survived until the game ended but didn't win, in order of how many supply provinces they had at the end of the game (ie the more supply provinces, the higher priority they get).
5. Players in the last game, who were eliminated before the game ended, in order of how long they survived (so someone who survived longer will have a higher priority).

Any thoughts?

[Lunar]

I think the winner should get first preference, but it seems reasonable.  Not that the difference between 1 & 2 matters.

[minionofmidas]

Dippy games frequently end in ties, though.

[Smid]

Dippy games frequently end in ties, though.

Good point. Perhaps of the tying players, the player with the most supply provinces gets considered the winner for the purposes of determining who has preference to play in the next game, either that or there is no second preference winner for the next game and so preference goes to all players not in the present game, and then to all the tying players after that.

[Erc]

I'd be interested for another round.

And, again, if Smid doesn't feel like adjudicating another round, there's a very nice online system to be found here: http://www.gamesbyemail.com/Games/Politics

[Smid]

ilikeverin is stepping in to take over from Germany's civil disorder.

[Silent Hunter]

I'm interested in the next game.

Silent

[Smid]

Since we seem to be drawing the current game to a close, I'm bumping this thread back up.

[Gustaf]

In the unlikely event that a spot opens up I'm interested. I understand that I'm bottom of the list though.

[Lunar]

I don't know how to count my stint as Russia. 

If there's enough people, maybe someone else would be willing to run a second game with Smid's softwhere or whatever, and Smid could play in that 2nd game too.  We'd only need 10 people + the two people running the games, each playing themselves in the other game.

[Gustaf]

I don't know how to count my stint as Russia. 

If there's enough people, maybe someone else would be willing to run a second game with Smid's softwhere or whatever, and Smid could play in that 2nd game too.  We'd only need 10 people + the two people running the games, each playing themselves in the other game.

You get -1 for losing and -1 more for ruining the perfect conditions I set you up with. And another deduction for ruining my reputation. I get the reverse, of course. So I have you beat.

[Smid]

I would love to have both Lunar and Gustaf in future games. If there are enough people interested, I'd be willing to run a second game - I just save each game separately. I'm also happy to have one game (or if not enough players, the game) as a varient - such as Colonial Diplomacy - however that would only be if the players want to do that and I'm not leaning either way on that issue. One thing to bear in mind - this last game went for half a year or thereabouts, I'm getting married in 115 days... so chances are there'll be a couple of weekends midway through where I won't be available and may have to pause the game for a few weeks.

[Lunar]

The wife doesn't understand the importance of Diplomacy?

[Smid]

The wife doesn't understand the importance of Diplomacy?

It's not so much her not understanding the importance of diplomacy, but I think there'll be other things on my mind during the honeymoon, and the week before the wedding's likely to be quite busy.

[Gustaf]

The wife doesn't understand the importance of Diplomacy?

It's not so much her not understanding the importance of diplomacy, but I think there'll be other things on my mind during the honeymoon, and the week before the wedding's likely to be quite busy.

You really need to set your priorities straight, mate. Diplomacy>wedding.

[Smid]

The wife doesn't understand the importance of Diplomacy?

It's not so much her not understanding the importance of diplomacy, but I think there'll be other things on my mind during the honeymoon, and the week before the wedding's likely to be quite busy.

You really need to set your priorities straight, mate. Diplomacy>wedding.

Hehehe, I've got those priorities sorted, don't you worry about that! I was more letting people know of this before it arises as a problem along the lines of "hey guys, forgot to tell you, but I've gotta put this on ice for a couple of weeks, be back soon!"

According to my notes, from what I can see, there are presently 9 players interested in being involved with a new game (in alphabetic order):
Erc, Gustaf, Happy Warrior, Jas, Lewis, Lunar, Mikado, Silent Hunter, Verin.

Since Verin only played one or two turns after taking over from Germany's civil disorder, I'll count him as having not played in this round. Silent Hunter likewise didn't play this game. Lunar joined in part-way through, when the nation he was taking over was in a strong position, so I'm leaning towards counting him as having played this game because the number of turns was a substantial proportion of this game, likewise Gustaf. I'm going to consider Happy Warrior a previous player who didn't participate in this game because he missed the first turn, at which point Jas took over from him. I think the last game where Happy missed the first turn was an exception and atypical of him, so I'm pleased to include him again.

Hopefully we can find an additional five players and have a second game, unless there are two people who would prefer to sit out the next game, or a couple of people willing to play in both games. Muon, I'm sure you'll read this sometime tonight - we'd love to have you play if you're interested. Otherwise I'll have to use my precedence system, which will be influenced by how to treat Gustaf and Lunar in relation to finishing order.

The order of precedence for the next game is (as I mentioned in a previous post):
1. Anyone who has not yet played in a game adjudicated by me.
2. The winner of the game just finished
3. Any previous players who did not play the last game
4. Surviving players of the last game, in order in which they finished based on number of SCs
5. Non-surviving players in the order they were eliminated.

In the event of a tie, I'll count no player as the winner of the game just finished (point 2) but rank all surviving (tying) players according to point 4. This means that someone with the most SCs, but not 18, will have to decide if they should push on for the win to reach position 2 on my rankings, or whether that is likely to see their number of SCs slip in the game and see someone else beat them in position four if the game is later tied.