I think the defeat with fallout thing would be no problem in an individual game (although I would still prefer a draw, as an automatic near-fallout-thing), but it just doesn't fit the points-system on this site because overall points will be lost on this variant in such a case, and my change doesn't change the gameplay (up to the point where an idiot tries to screw everybody) and it does fit the points-system. In my opinion it solves all the issues left in this variant...
I'd be very curious to hear what oli thinks of it, I still see it as a huge improvement for this game, but if so much people disagree, could we maybe make it a side-option? Either implemented like the choice between WTA and PPSC for example (that kind of choice, not replacing it of course) or, if that's easier, just make another variant, like fleet rome compared to normal...

Also, I'd love to help with the development like I said before, but, like I said before too, I don't really have any useful skills yet but I've got the time to learn, I'm not sure how much time I have and such, but as it looks now a lot, until school starts monday...

Also, maybe it's possible to make nuclear diplomacy a side-option for a lot of variants if it's not much trouble, that could add some diversity...

Steephie - In my opinion, having Fallout be a WTA win and everyone losing their points is genius. Fallout should be something to be avoided at all costs, as it is essentially destroying the world. If everyone loses all their points if Fallout happens, people will be encouraged to use Diplomacy to avoid it. They will have to talk to people threatening to give Fallout the win, and explain to people who are unaware of Fallout just why they shouldn't launch those nukes. It encourages more player interaction.

A draw on the other hand, hurts no one. Why bother trying to stop Fallout when you still get a draw out of it? IMO, a dying power threatening to make everyone LOSE is a far more powerful Diplomatic option than threatening everyone with a DRAW.

Also, your assertion that it doesn't change gameplay is incorrect. While the likely outcome doesn't change (most likely Draws when Fallout is threatened), the mentality does. Knowing they could get a LOSS instead of merely a DRAW would definitely change how the leading powers are thinking during those years where Fallout is threatened.

As for the system "losing" points via Fallout, that's the beauty of the variant. It encourages people to be careful and use Diplomacy to avoid ever getting to Fallout. If Fallout wins, it's because of a lack of Diplomacy between the powers most likely, which just encourages people to talk more next time (like you're supposed to in a game called Diplomacy)!!

Yes, but surely you agree with me that a Fallout would never happen if you play with, say, the best 100 players of the site, right? I understand you but I just really think that a lot of games would get screwed up by people just nuking their way to the Fallout because that's why they're playing the variant, with no one able to stop it (if enough people do it, or if it's, say, America), I fear people might just join to screw the game up on purpose, I just think that shouldn't be possible... But then I would say both possibilities should be implemented, just in case it turns out that a lot of people do indeed join just to mess the game up, it happens with other variants too, but here it's way too devastating in my opinion...

You need to remember that the number of nukes needed for Fallout will probably be half +1 (or something higher), so it's nearly impossible that one country will cause Fallout (like you speculated America could). Besides, if one guy starts launching nukes, he will be killed by the rest quite quickly. Unless you have a bunch of idiots in the game at the same time in which case I question why you didn't make the game with a password and invite people : p.

Simply put, people being stupid happens. It's part of Diplomacy. People suicide and let someone solo. Or keep attacking people trying to form a stalemate allowing someone else to solo. It's part of the game. And the KEY part of Diplomacy is using DIPLOMACY to prevent that.

"You need to remember that the number of nukes needed for Fallout will probably be half +1 (or something higher), so it's nearly impossible that one country will cause Fallout (like you speculated America could). Besides, if one guy starts launching nukes, he will be killed by the rest quite quickly. Unless you have a bunch of idiots in the game at the same time in which case I question why you didn't make the game with a password and invite people : p"

So how would you suggest preventing America from causing a Fallout? China and Russia are a few turns away and can be annihilated before they arrive, and when someone does get close enough America could build enough normal troops to hold that guy off, if not defeat him. Meanwhile he could keep throwing nukes.

I see only one way to take down America within a relatively low amount of turns: Nukes...
So then you would have to launch at least 20 extra nukes, or however big America will be... And assuming you don't know in advance America is suicidal he gets at least 3 turns if launch mode is implemented, which would mean 60 nukes can be launched by him, so without anything unreasonable happening except a suicidal America he could launch 80 nukes, which is probably much more than half +1...

So I think it's definitely possible America could cause a Fallout on his own...

"Simply put, people being stupid happens. It's part of Diplomacy. People suicide and let someone solo. Or keep attacking people trying to form a stalemate allowing someone else to solo. It's part of the game. And the KEY part of Diplomacy is using DIPLOMACY to prevent that."

Yes, but there someone wins, so yeah, it sucks if you lose, but another time you might win that way... And in other variants that normally only screws up the end game, sure, you can screw up some more but you can't end the game in 3 turns with no one winning, that's what I fear...

And about the password-thing: I wouldn't need that if we do it my way, right?
And if you want to do it with passwords my way still works fine, just have anything agree that a Fallout counts as a defeat... Also passworded games are a bit harder with big maps...

I forgot something else I was about to put on this spot, I might think of it later and then I want to be able to point out where it's meant to be, so that's why I'll put 3 stars here :P

***

"Simply put, people being stupid happens. It's part of Diplomacy. People suicide and let someone solo. Or keep attacking people trying to form a stalemate allowing someone else to solo. It's part of the game. And the KEY part of Diplomacy is using DIPLOMACY to prevent that."

Well, like I said above, in this variant it might be impossible to prevent it with diplomacy...

I hope you understand now why I think it should at least be an option...

I think you misunderstand how nuking is working:

First off, as soon as the US builds a ton of nukes, people would target him. So let's say he launches 15 nukes in spring of the first year (which is a lot). The next turn fall of the first year (during US launch mode), Russia and China fire back with say 10 nukes. Bam, that's 25 nukes. The US can build 15 more in the build turn, and launch in spring, but then he loses 10 SCs. So at a max, he'd fire 30. Add in the 10 fired at him, that's 40. Considering this is on a world map, that's STILL not half +1 or anywhere close.

As for "Well, like I said above, in this variant it might be impossible to prevent it with diplomacy...":

IMO, you don't design a game assuming people will be idiots. How many people would ACTUALLY do what you're suggesting? Even if it happens once or twice, people would quickly blacklist the suicider. Problem solved. Most people are rational players and aren't going to do anything this stupid.

Hmm, good points... I knew/know how the nuking works but apparently I forgot when I was writing that post... So, I was wrong about one player being able to cause a Fallout on his own...

Still though, I don't like the fact that people could choose not to draw as soon as the last nukes are in the air to cause the Fallout...

It would really help if we know a bit more about the map, like the amount of SCs (approximately, like, 100, 200 or 300?) how much players and how big the players will be...

I still think it might be an issue but it would depend on those numbers and the map itself, and also on the things needed before someone could build nukes, if any...

And I just came with a possible solution to prevent people building and launching loads of nukes in the beginning of the game: Just start in spring, with all nations starting with normal units, with a lot of neutrals there will be enough possibility to build nukes but it would prevent extreme starting situations, since a lot of small nations might start out with equally small nations nearby which they can only defeat with nukes... With my way they will have to find another way to win or expand a bit first...

How does that sound?

Bump.

Bump.

So a gunboat nuclear dip game would be near impossible?

A gunboat nuclear dip game would be hilarious

Thanks drano - well summarised.

A gunboat game is both possible and as fasces points out insanely crazy. It'd be far more likely to result in fallout winning too. But think about it, that's the same as without red phones/communications between the US/Russia/China now. If coms is open it'd be possible to negotiate a resolution. Without the red phone its far more likely the world would come to full nuclear war and the possible endgame of no-one winning due to radioactive contamination of the world.

I'm planning on finalising an updated set of suggested rules to bounce off Oli. He'll then review and advise what may be possible and what can't be done.

He intends to create a dummy version using the Nuclear Diplomacy rules on a much smaller map (Classic) to see how it plays and iron out any gameplay bugs.

If all is good it'd then be taken to the full WWIV board (with some minor modifications.)

Sounds good...
Anything I can help with? Just name it and I'll see what I can do... (although it might take a little while :P) Maybe we should start thinking of the board itself... I mean how big will the USA be in comparison to China, Russia, France, Great Britain and all those others... And when that's decided, where will we put all those SCs, and where neutral SCs? Or will it be without neutrals? Could be fun too...

Also, just a suggestion, if enough players can be found within the time it takes Oli to get that dummy version ready, we could play it on (standard or when modifications are done, probably standard though) WWIV or the other world map for 19 players I forgot the name of... It would be more extensively tested that way, since much more happens...

Also, a thing I'd like to point out: One of the bugs that I see turning up would be the inability to launch a nuke on the territory the nuke itself comes from, so you might want to be able to move to the territory you're already on with nukes, or something else to implement this...

I think that's quite relevant because I think that it would be a good strategy to nuke a barrier between you and an enemy if he's coming for you, and you would want to use the nuke that would otherwise be lost anyway...

If you don't want that to be possible that's fine with me too, I just thought it couldn't hurt mentioning it now...

Based on the WWIV map, the nuclear powers SC count would be:

USA 29
Russia 10
China 19
India 5
Pakistan 3
Israel 0
North Korea 0
Iran 3
France 2
England 2

That seems very lopsided to me.

I'd suggest that the full Nuclear Diplomacy game is based on the WWIV map but the USA count is reduced, Russia is increased, China maybe slightly decreased. Perhaps as suggested previously amount of US nukes should equal around the same amount of China and Russia combined? Or maybe China and Russia combined is marginally more?

I think the SC/nuke amounts for Iran, India and Pakistan are right. I think England France need an extra SC/nuke.

The map will need to be reworked to give Israel at least 3 nukes (maybe a little off main map zoom of Israel due to screen size limitations?) and North Korea 2 SCs. Sth Korea would need to be given an extra SC. I'd suggest reworking Germany to also be 3 SCs.

What are others thoughts on SC count?

I expect once the dummy version was created on Classic in the Lab we'd need to thoroughly play test the rules.

Consider me in for play testing on the classic map.

Me too.

Just an update, Oli and I are working through what's possible with updating the rules and functionality based on the community's feedback through this thread. Again what can be realistically achievable will be coded into a Classic game (yeah I know, nukes in 1901 but its about proving the concept isn't it?), learn what works and doesn't in gameplay, before we move onto a full blown global version.

How is the work so far?
And I'm wondering if a global version of this game can contribute any academic value ~

Oli's been looking at the coding. The main issue is how to deal with the launch mode concept. He mentioned to me that he's got a number of other things on his plate at the moment so no major action yet.

I see ~
I'm not pushing anyone, just wanna know how things go so far haha

Hmmm...
We should be able to work around that...
We could do a slightly different thing: you're only able to build armies but they can transform into nukes, and possibly nukes would have to be launched the next turn...
It does slightly change gameplay but it doesn't look like a big deal and I suppose its easier to code...

Sent from mobile...

I'm in for the play test BTW...

My question is what happens to the bet if there is a fallout?

Has been discussed before, I suggested a draw or the pot divided between all players, including dead, in which case the living would still try to prevent it, and the dying countries could decide to launch a lot of nukes to increase the chance of getting some points if fallout happens...

But other people just wanted the points to disappear and that's where we're going with now I believe...

thanks I just now got to read through the post I think a draw makes more sense as points should not disappear from total pot of the site

YAY! Someone on my side!