Play Diplomacy Online

Good looking map Pedros

But, if you are looking to make amendments, there are five 'grey' areas that have no effect at all. Would it simplify things to remove them?

The areas are:
The bit in The Eyrie
The bit between the valley's of Arryn and the South Mountains of Dragon
The bit between Fal Dara & Fal Moran
The bit between the Mountains of Death
The bit between the Icefields

Hi Pedros,

if there is space I would love to play.

thanks

Pedros, it is an amazing map. The grey areas holding fleets offshore are a fascinating twist too, like cliffs insulating land units from attack from the sea.

Regarding zones that could be impregnable, isn't Battle Island also that way?

If someone held whm, boss and rom, plus the three interior supply centers, his six armies could set up in whm, boss and rom with three backups internally to hold the core of the island forever.

I'd like to be included if you need more players when you get it ready.

If there is still room, sign me up!

I sssooooooo want omplay this please?!

OK, update. When we get the map and rules sorted I'll go through the list of applicants; you won't get forgotten (though there's a pretty strong field of contenders, and I must say I'd like to see this played strongly, so not everyone will be lucky I'm afraid.)

Reply from Frank Bacher, but it doesn solve all the problems I'm afraid.

1. Map They aren't worried about the impregnable bits - "Up to the players to stop it happening." But they're OK if we want to change it - and clearly we will. Now I have that I'll begin looking seriously at it all, taking into account the comments made here.

2. Rules The reply doesn't greatly help I'm afraid. What's clear is that at least the rules are not clearly written, and don't mean exactly what they say in some cases! In brief (note, this is Frank's reply, NOT necessarily what we are going to play)

1. Fleets CAN move onto Bridges. I've written to ask him how they get there, since they can't access any of the entrances (unless being in a coastal like Kingswood would enable them simply to sail onto the Bridge of Betrayal). Not clear at present what they mean by fleets "controlling" bridges by being beneath them.

I think I'm going to follow the precedent from the first game here - fleets don't directly relate to bridges at all - moving, supporting, convoying there. And I'll produce a redraft of the rules incorporating this. Now for the map!

Beginning work on revising the map, the first thing to do is to identify, if possible, all the areas concerned. Here is the list of ones I have spotted, plus those mentioned in this thread:-

> NW/WRS
> Nn & Sn Icefields / Nn Pass of Doom / the area between Saldaea and Westland
> Nn Mountains of Death / Sn Mountains of Death / Southaven
> Fal Dara / Fal Moran
> N Valley or Arryn / Valley of Arryn / the area bounded by The Eyrie, S Mountains of Dragon & N mountain s of Dragon

I'm not including Battle Island itself because that's such a large area it's a whole area of conflict in itself - 12 SCs.

I must say this list makes me stop and think. The players in the first game here who raved about it - comments like "The best variant I've ever played" - were good players, who've been round the block a few times. If, despite these apparent flaws, they were so positive about it then perhaps we should let it lie there and see how it goes.

Thoughts?

About the bridges. You could treat them like Gibraltar in the 1900 map. Where the fleet can dock with it and block an army from going onto it. But it takes 1 movement from ocean tile to bridge, and from bridge to ocean tile. Would that work with bridges?

Hey Pedros - if you need us to sell ourselves - then I'll let my forum record stand for itself. Massive lack of any NMRs and consistent victories in forum games.
Also - I'm keen to help with the development, let me study these changes and give you some advice...

Thanks Netr0 - I'll wait to see what Frank has to say first.

And thanks WarSmith - your input will be good. But what suddenly makes me more cautious is that initially I simply spotted the one problem and thought we could change it; seeing now the much bigger issue I wonder whether it's sensible to make such wholsesale changes to a map which was thought to work well first time round.