Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

13 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (zorclex): Pre-game-start chat? Wow. This place has some nice features.
13 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (zorclex): Dang. The pot size can't be more than 5.
13 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (teacon7): Hunh. I wonder why that is? Maybe we have to be more experienced?
15 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (zorclex): No, I think it's due to the number of players in this variant. I think it has a maximum amount of points so we don't do what we were planning on doing.
15 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (Cerrynity): You guys realize that the reason the last game was called "IRT" was because it randomized starting positions and then named it the first letters of each country?
15 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (teacon7): I did realize that. It was named (???) before we'd been assigned countries.
15 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: (zorclex): Yeah, I know. I was just being funny. Although, if I had turned that setting on, we could pick our countries. Try making a game, but without actually making it, and read all of the different settings. It's pretty interesting.
16 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: 'Ite, let's get this party started!
16 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Rules question: Can we build anywhere we have a starting SC, or only in certain territories of our starting territories?
16 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Aw man, I got the take-it base.
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Nono, it's build anywhere you have an SC, not just your home SCs.
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Okay whoa that's awesome. So if I'm Italy, but through some crazy chance I capture Norway, I can build in Norway once it's empty? Behold my Italian-Norwegian might!
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Pretty much. But if you end up being in either Italy or Norway this game, I will be duly impressed. And then ask you to stop cheating.
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Aw shucks, I got the take-it base.
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Uh... I really don't think it's the take-it base. If you hit the variant name, and then the "finished" button, you'll see that Burgundy actually wins a lot of games.
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1425: Okay, riddle me this: how did I know that, not only were you two going to attack me, but in that specific place?
17 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1430: 1. good guess, and 2. that's the only place it was possible
18 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1430: GAAYYYYY
18 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1430: In order of principles for this game: 1. For the hilarity 2. For the win 3. For the honor In that order? What do y'all think? Is honor within board games a good representation of one's real-life honor? I mean, the point of some games is to not necessarily tell the truth (poker, BS, risk, diplomacy). Do board games absolutely affect character, or is it possible to partition them? Temish, you seem to be able to separate the two, especially considering there was that one game where I backstabbed your for the win after a bro-pact?
18 Feb 16 UTC	Year: 1430: Or should the principles be honor, victory, hilarity? Did the Greeks hold those values? If you're playing for fun, hilarity is first. If you're playing cutthroat, victory ought to be first. If you're playing.... _______ honor ought to be first?