Forum - vDiplomacy

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Page 101 of 160

First

Previous

Next

Last

Fluminator (1265

)
21 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Reliable Chaos Game?

Would anyone who is reliable be interested in a classic chaos game? I want to play one but don't want it to be ruined by large amounts of drop outs.

0 replies

Mod

(B)

)
07 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

WII recreation

Hi everyone. Since the variant exists, i want to make a team game of variantID=87 (GB,France, SU vs Germany and Italy). That obviously has one major weak point. it's three (21 SCs) against two (14 SCs), with a difference of seven SCs. Those are my thoughts on that so far:

41 replies

)
11 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Did vDip used to be called something else?

I have it in my bookmarks as OLDip... did it used to be called something else?

Just curious.

23 replies

Spartan22 (1883

(B)

)
09 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Playing all the Variants

I've played almost every variant on the site and eventually, I want to have played all of them. Would anyone be interested in playing any of these variants?

10 replies

BabylonHoruv (811

)
11 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Webdiplomacy

Anyone know what is going on with it? It gave me an SQL error and won't let me log in.

12 replies

KingCyrus (1258

)
06 Apr 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

WWII needs YOU!

gameID=18949

Come on people, join now!

0 replies

Spartan22 (1883

(B)

)
17 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

Thread is too old to reply to

Vdip March Madness?

March Madness (college basketball for those that don't know) is finally rolling around. I was curious if anyone here would want to do a bracket challenge.

93 replies

Battalion (2386

)
30 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Grey Press - variantID=50

Anyone up for giving this a go? It's like the normal classic, with the ability to send anonymous messages in addition to normal ones. I was thinking it would be 1 day phase, Anon, and full press. I'm not bothered about buy-in.

21 replies

Mod

)
28 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Grad Students, Former Grad Students or IT Professionals?

Are you a graduate student, were you a graduate student when you joined this site or are you an IT professional?

Gopher----grad student

15 replies

Alexander the Awesome (878

)
29 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Rules Question/ Possible Glitch?

gameID=18823
Does anyone have an explanation for why Prussia didn't take Holland from France? RH moved to HOL with support from KIE. It seems that the support was cut, but I don't see any moves to KIE.
Thanks

3 replies

Decima Legio (1987

)
26 Mar 14 UTC
(+2)

Thread is too old to reply to

Games history

Before taking a break from the site, I’d like to propose a couple of enhancements for the end-game analyses.

5 replies

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490

)
25 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Redscape Games III - PBEM Tournament Results

Redscape Games III has come to a conclusion. A summary of the final standings is below:

8 replies

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490

)
07 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

Thread is too old to reply to

Interesting Episode of Diplomacy From WWII

I found this encounter from the Second World War to be extremely interesting, and not at all out of the context of some of the negotiations in our Diplomacy games.

92 replies

)
26 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

live 1v1

0 replies

The Ambassador (2140

(B)

)
12 Mar 14 UTC
(+2)

Thread is too old to reply to

If WW1 was a bar fight

Thought you guys here would appreciate this one. Apologies if you've read it already.

http://m.quickmeme.com/p/3vu14a

The Ambassador (2140 )
13 Mar 14 UTC

Silence. Didn't expect that.

Well if the WW1 analogy didn't work, maybe this "story" set in WW2 resonates better:

In 1944, during WWII, a reception took place in Rio de Janeiro and the Hungarian ambassador was among the invitees. The Ambassador, wearing the ceremonial uniform, entered the room and performed a Nazi salute. The host of the reception, an influential banker, took notice of the ambassador and approached him.

“Your Excellency, you greeted with Heil Hitler. I suppose that people of your country belong to the Nordic race?”

The Ambassador replied, “No, we are of the Mongolian origin.”

The Banker was curious and continued. “I see, so your country must be situated in Asia?”

“No, Hungary is part of Central Europe.”

“I know that there is a war going on in Central Europe. Is Hungary involved in that?”

“Yes, indeed. We are fighting against the Soviet Union”

“And do you have any territorial claims against the Soviet Union?”

“No, we don't have any territorial claims against the Soviets. However, we do have them against Romania and Slovakia.”

“So, Romania and Slovakia must be your enemies then?”

“No, they are our allies.”

The banker got slightly confused by Ambassador's answers, but he eventually spotted a royal badge on his uniform and went on asking, “I reckon that Hungary is a kingdom. How is your King doing?”

“We do not have a King. We are ruled by an Admiral.”

“An Admiral? Hungary must have an access to the sea then.”

“No. We are a landlocked state.”

The banker got puzzled even more. “Anyway, how is your Admiral?”

“He has been captured by the Germans.”

“They are also your enemies?”

“No, the Germans are our greatest allies and friends.”

The banker was completely lost. “Damn! I really don't get it. You are living in the landlocked kingdom in the heart of Europe, which is ruled by an Admiral, who was captured by his greatest friends. You are fighting a country, which you don't want a single acre of land from. On the other hand, you have territorial claims against your allies. What a bizarre situation is that!”

“Sir, that's a new European order.”

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
13 Mar 14 UTC

Mr. A, I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting. It made the rounds on Facebook earlier this week, and I considered posting here, but after my anecdote from WWII initially bombed like you felt yours did, and then it blew up into a flame war - as per usual VDip style - I was hesitant to go with this one. Good for you, but keep in mind that if there's anything negative about France in it your going to be called a war criminal by Raro and Retillion.

Schwarzenberg (979 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

The WWI joke forgets Italy getting punched by Germany and Austria (Caporetto) and lying low until the swing-and-miss part, and Romania getting punched out by Germany. Also, America did more reinforcing than punching and Italy got mad because the Entente didn't give any of the Turk or Austrian's money to Italy, while Turkey also had a brain damage/personality change which resulted in Turk punching out Greece and Armenia while England and France ran away. Otherwise, good WWI joke.

The Hungarian joke has a couple of flaws. Brazil was on the Allied side by '44. Rumanians call Hungarians Mongols as an insult, but they aren't of Mongolian origin, more closely related to the Finns. Also I doubt any Hungarian would use the heil greeting.

Humorous though.

diatarn_iv (1458 )
24 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

I think the joke treats Italy with too much respect.
In fact, it forgets about Caporetto, and about the disgusting haggling that took place in 1914-1915, when the government (supported by the king, and despite opposition from the parliament) essentially sold Italy's services the best-offering party.

Finally, another very bad "joke" (actually, a fact) about Italy.
The commander in chief of the italian army at the time of the Caporetto rout was general Luigi Cadorna, who - after fleeing to Padua (some 100 miles behind the lines) - started saying that the defeat was due to the cowardice of italian soldiers.
His son Raffaele was also a general in the italian army, and was among its most anti-fascist elements (for example, he opposed the 1935-36 invasion of Abissinia); after the fall of Mussolini, he commanded one of the few divisions that opposed the German takeover of Rome (meanwhile, his superiors - including the king - were fleeing without giving any order); after reaching the allied lines, he was sent back to nazi-controlled northern Italy, where he coordinated resistance actions against the Germans and their fascist minions.
I tell you this because there is an important square (and train station) in Milan that is entitled to "Generale Cadorna". Guess which of them.

Tomahaha (1170 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

The Americans did more "reinforcing than Punching"?
While the US walked into the bar fight late, they certainly swung some pretty powerful punches! Or do you forget WW2 had two fronts and you are focusing only on Europe?
hell, the US delivered the knock out punch of the war!
Even there, the US late entry is what gave the allies the push they needed to break into Germany. I find this statement to be a bit of a slap in the face to America's role in the war.

Retillion (2304 )
24 Mar 14 UTC
(+2)

@ Tomahaha :

Your post is hilarious : thank you very much !

By the way, have you read the title of this thread ?

Tomahaha (1170 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

By the way did you read what this thread turned into?
the very FIRST post "Well if the WW1 analogy didn't work, maybe this "story" set in WW2 resonates better:" However, the post I replied to did go back to WWI (the ONLY WWI reply by the way) so it wasn't me who was replying to the wrong topic now was it?

...Keep trying to belittle people, it aint working!

Schwarzenberg (979 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

"Or do you forget WW2 had two fronts and you are focusing only on Europe?"

Since this joke was about WW1, no I did not forget.

" I find this statement to be a bit of a slap in the face to America's role in the war."

It's only a slap if you conflate this joke with WWII.

"However, the post I replied to did go back to WWI (the ONLY WWI reply by the way) so it wasn't me who was replying to the wrong topic now was it?"

The barfight joke was about WWI. There was no barfight joke about WWII. To claim I was talking about WWII and criticize me for ignoring America's role in WWII is a bit strange. I was talking about America's role in WWI, which was primarily a reinforcement role. America certainly did not knock Germany out with a barstool in the context of WWI. The British defeat of the Germans on August 8 was closer to that (creation of an American-only army only occurred after that important victory), but still the Germans were at the Hindenberg Line when they decided to get out of the war. There was no knock-out. WWI was a war of attrition, not decisive victories.

Tomahaha (1170 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

Yes, as I mentioned, the topic evolved to WW2 and yours was the only reference to WW1 before or after. I had not noticed this and yes, the US was indeed more a support role (though do not tell that to the over 100,000 people who died but yes it palls in comparison to European nations totals). My problem was with retillion's holier than though attitude, "Have you read the title of this thread" when NOBODY but you mentioned WW1 (and your mentioning it was just fine! but I think you can see the confusion was very easily made when everyone else was speaking about WW1 despite Retillions obnoxious claim)

Schwarzenberg (979 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

Regardless of who responded to the first joke, I explicitly mentioned the words WW1 at both the beginning and end of a paragraph that in any case did not make any sense at all as a commentary about WWII, what with its discussion of Austria and Turkey and whatnot.

And to say America was primarily used as reinforcements does not detract from their important contribution in the war. Manpower more than victories mattered more, especially at that late-stage. The steady arrival of American troops at a time when Germany was desperately using conscription of 18 year olds and convalescents helped convince German leaders to sign the armistice after the failed attempt to roll-up the BEF in the spring of 1918..

Tomahaha (1170 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

and I did mention I had not caught that didn't i?
Again, my problem was with retillions trying to be holier than though, he attempted to belittle me by claiming the thread was entirely about WW1 when it clearly was not. Your going back TO topic was all fine and good, retillions COULD have simply said I missed the fact that is what you had done and would have been correct, instead he tried to belittle me and his attempt failed. I did miss your going back ...shame on me! But his trying to claim the thread was about WW1 only and I am making him laugh, that was wrong and I do not appreciate ass holes who do that nonsense!

diatarn_iv (1458 )
24 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

@ Tom: before your initial post there were:
- the initial post by The Ambassador, 100% aboout WW1
- the "hungarian ambassador" post by The ambassador, 100% about WW2;
- RUFFHAUS_8 answer, 100% about WW2;
- the first Schwarzanberg post, 100% about WW1
- my post, mostly about WW1 (though it mentions also facts about WW2)... let's say 75% WW1, 25% WW2
I really can't understand how you can claim that "nobody" was talking about WW1.

Apart from that, I disagree with the US being "more decisive" than the USSR in WW2. A single example: wikipedia reports that there war 4.3 millions german military deaths on the eastern front; and that total german military deaths for the whole WW2 were about 5.5 millions. If you do the math, you find that 78% of german military deaths were due to the Red Army.
Obviously, things are not so simple (they never are); for example, one could argue that - in the absence of US/British help - the USSR would have collapsed. Furthermore, as Tom mentioned, Germany was not the only axis nation. Still, the soviet contribution to the defeat of the axis was at least as important as the one from the US.

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

Sorry knucklehead, but my post had nothing to do with WWII. My post had to do with the inane behavior in another thread of people (like you) here, who are incapable of having a conversation, and constantly misconstrue the facts.

RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

If you wish to have your nonsensical points on WWII refuted, then open another thread.

diatarn_iv (1458 )
24 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

> Sorry knucklehead, but my post had nothing to do with WWII
well, then my point is even stronger: WW2 1.25 (and not 2.25) to WW1 2.75

Tomahaha (1170 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

Oh, so you (diatran) want to encourage the behavior where one attempts to belittle another?
Lets recap what was said
The TOPIC, yes WW1 but it was met with SILENCE and the very first reply was about WW2. The real topic turned immediately to WW2 and I admitted I had missed the reference back to WW1, bad bad Tommy missing the intent of that post! But instead of pointing this out, instead it went to a belittling tone didn't it? No excuse for that sort of childishness, trying to make yourself seem better than others by (wrongly) belittling what others have to say, that is the act of a TURD!

Schwarzenberg (979 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

Also in the Pacific theater, the Japanese fought over 20 battles with the Chinese army (and its best troops and equipment were stationed in China), and a good portion of Japanese casualties occurred in China. So I do not believe the US can claim sole credit for the Pacific victory either.

diatarn_iv (1458 )
24 Mar 14 UTC

> I admitted I had missed the reference back to WW1, bad bad Tommy missing the
> intent of that post! But instead of pointing this out, instead it went to a belittling tone
> didn't it?
@Tom: I thought your post was making (false) excuses rather than admitting you were wrong. Therefore my reaction. If I was wrong, you have my apology.

Tomahaha (1170 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

no false excuse, I missed the point that he was referring to WWI, most of the topic before and after turned into WW2, I admit I missed the switch back (and he DID state that, again, simply point that out ..."hey Tom, he was talking about WW1 there" Instead we get the smarmy "you make me laugh, can't you read the topic" nonsense, that is what ticks me off. And when you try to belittle me that way, I'm gonna call you on it and I'm gonna call you what I think of you. If this person feels so superior, then I don't care for him!

Tomahaha (1170 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

oh, and I never said the Pacific theater in WW2 was 100% American in the least! When thinking the topic was WW2, I mentioned this persons claim that the US role was mostly supportive was likely forgetting the Pacific war front where the US played a much larger role and in fact delivered the "knockout blow" (it was a bar fight example remember) and the atom bomb was a big knockout blow.
That does not diminish what the Chinese did, the Australians, the Brits, etc. Simply that the US was in no way only a supportive role.

Please schwartzy, where did I even HINT the US could claim "sole credit" for the pacific victory as you seem to be implying I said?

Schwarzenberg (979 )
25 Mar 14 UTC
(+1)

Knockout blow seemed to imply sole credit. At the same time of the atomic bombings, the Japanese were routed from mainland China. It is too difficult to determine whether the bombings or the defeat of the Kwangtung Army were responsible for the Japanese surrender. My guess is both contributed.

diatarn_iv (1458 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

@Tom: I understand. But please remember you're not the only one who can get "ticked off".

Tomahaha (1170 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

Knockout Blow seems to imply sole credit?
This was in fighting terms. The knockout blow of a fight is simply the final blow that ended the fight. The fight is usually a culmination of accumulated blows, head shots, body shots, even jabs, they all take their toll. Everyone played a part and Russia's part was a HUGE part no doubt about it! My claiming the final blow was delivered by the US, that is factual but in no way implies it was the only reason for the war to have ended, no, FAR from true and never ever even implied!

diatarn_iv (1458 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

Well, to me it didn't imply "sole" credit, but a larger role than anyone else. If you meant what you wrote in this last post, then I'd say that I (and others) should be more careful in jumping to the conclusions. I'd add that, in general, you should be more careful in your word choices; but in this case your choice was quite sensible, given the bar-fight analogy.

Tomahaha (1170 )
25 Mar 14 UTC

sorry if it was mistaken as anything different, as you just pointed out, it was in fighting terms only! And as far as that analogy it really is spot on, but never did I mean to sound like the US was the main influence in ending any part of the war. Recall, not just the bar fight analogy but my misunderstanding that someone was possibly thinking the US played only a support role in WW2. The US had more than a supportive role in Europe but it WAS far less than most others, I simply ASSUMED that person "forgot" about the USA's role in the Pacific. While he was talking about WW1, I do often find many tend to think of WW2 as primarily a war in Europe.

25 replies

)
23 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Loading page in Orders section

Hi guys, all my games show "loading page" so I cant issue orders.

3 replies

Mod

(B)

)
23 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Dutch Revolt question

This may be a stupid question, but can armies be convoyed to wadden territories?

4 replies

)
12 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

live game: classic map

there has never been a live game on the classic map on this site. i'm kind of wanting to start one. would anyone be interesed in joining?

41 replies

)
22 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Spring 01 Gobble replacement

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=18645

This game hasn't started yet, but France NMR'd for spring 01 so we need a replacement. Since this is gobble earth, France has territory all over the map. It'd be good to get a replacement and you won't start at any disadvantage.

0 replies

)
11 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Join the next Chaos - Public Press game.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=18632
This type of game is the most chaotic out there, with every turn being a surprise.

3 replies

)
21 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Westeros

I cant find the Westeros-map, where is it?

1 reply

The Ambassador (2140

(B)

)
20 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New take on Modern Diplomacy variant

Anyone notice...

2 replies

KingCyrus (1258

)
18 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

New Variants

How does one make a new variant?

3 replies

)
18 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Premature Draw! Crazy Classic 34P Game

http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=14633
see below

9 replies

The Ambassador (2140

(B)

)
16 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Was VDip down over the weekend?

I tried over and over again and the site was done from multiple devices and browsers. Now it seems I've missed turns in 2 games. Anyone else with the same problem?

13 replies

)
17 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Quick live

Just looking for a quick 1 v 1 live game :) gameID=18726

0 replies

)
17 Feb 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Question About American Conflict Variant

Are the 'notionally held' SCs essentially normal neutral SCs? For example, if I'm England and I occupy Calgary, do I get a build? Can you build in notionally held SCs?

6 replies

Mod

(P)

)
05 Dec 13 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

On the subject of CYOC and anonymity..

Some input is needed....

16 replies

)
14 Mar 14 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Map idea

I was sitting home and I thought "it might be possible to make a 1 vs 1 map about mejirestaration"

16 replies

)
22 Dec 13 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Map Colonial Diplomacy

This map does not use the Trans-Siberian Railway rule. The GM create it want the map more beautiful ?

10 replies

Page 101 of 160

First

Previous

Next

Last