I presume you would automatically win, yes. I believe there was a player once who did things like that; creating games that he theoretically couldn't lose. For example, he would create Germany vs Russia games in which he picked Russia and set the victory condition to 6 SC's.

I'm no expert, but the victory might only be declared at the end of Autumn. I'm not sure how the system would deal with this, you'd have to get one of the programmers in or something.

Or maybe we can do a test run... unranked.

Fubar was never a particularly well-designed variant to begin with; Fatflap can win with optimal play in most cases.

Challenge accepted, Sky_Hopper. If we create a game where you are Fatflap and I control the other five players (or at least I am one of the other five players and the rest is listening to my advice), I think I can reliably beat you, or anyone else for that matter.

I think I’m siding with mercy on this one

I strongly side with mercy on this one, but it goes against the idea of the game to have one person play the rival 5 countries. Eventually someone is always going to betray the others for personal gain, likely too early, which gives Fatlap an opportunity to come back and destroy everybody else

I think FUBAR looks like a very interesting variant. I'd play it.

Not to open a whole new can of worms, but some of the country "names" in that variant are not acceptable.

That is true. It shouldn't be too difficult to change.

That's sort of the point of the variant. It is absolutely vulgar in every sense of the word. I say keep it as is or remove it entirely.

I say remove it entirely.

Why though, let people who are interested play it. If you don't like the variant, just stay away from it, where is the problem?

I agree with GOD.

@Mercy: What I'm saying is that cooperation between the other five players is extremely difficult to achieve. Especially in gunboat.

As for the names, I just call them Blue, Purple, etc.

Even with full press, for Fatflap to lose without misplaying horribly requires self-sacrificing levels of teamwork from certain minors, which cannot reasonably expected in anything other than a full co-op game.

Agreed with mouse

I lost recently as fatflap ;-)

I played horribly though. So not sure if it proves any particular point

Is anyone interested in creating a 1v1 version of this variant?

Fatflap is easy to beat if everyone plays rationally. The minor player knows that they must go all out against fatflap immediately (and anyways they can only attack fatflap mostly). Faced with this scenario, fatflap faces setbacks regardless of his tactical ability. The hope for fatflap is to either lure one of the other players to help him, or that one of the other players starts to believe that Fatflap's time is over it's time to think beyond him, stabbing one of the others (also, the knowledge that sooner or later someone will start thinking this way will surely also limit other players' play against Fatflap before then). This gives Fatflap a chance to come back. I'd say it is actually under full press when Fatflap has a greater chance of convincing one of the others to look beyond himself.

I largely agree ingebot, but the advantage that the minors have under full press is
1) If the tactical skill of them varies, this allows them to discuss tactics, which is useful. In Sky_Hoppers game, some players made irrational moves, which could have been prevented.
2) Even if all the players are tactically skilled, the two northern minor powers need press to coordinate. Even at the first turn they are playing a guessing game against Fatflap and hence cannot predict each other's moves with certainty without press.