I would enjoy playing this. I'd need a partner though.

Cuban, I would be on your team if you'd have me.

what are your preferences?
we have agreed on 3 day phases , but ready accordingly

http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=7

Whatever works for you.

here is the variant. north v south? east v west? in between ? what do you guys think

You have the noob on your team so you pick.

we'll take north, you guys take south. it may be unbalanced but its not for sport, just learning

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20665

password is sa

another 1 vs 1 game?
(one team vs another team)
If you friend wants to learn the game then he should learn the basic game and learn about negotiations. Learning how units move is easy, learning about the tactical aspects is somewhat easy as well, learning how to write to strangers and ask for some ying and yang is what the game is all about. If I can sweet talk others into attacking a person with my help, I don't care how good that persons tactical skill is, he will lose EVERY time.

This may very well be fun, it may very well suit some who already understand the game and they take this as some sort of laid back pass the time game, but to introduce someone relatively new to the game to a team game that is 1 vs 1 ...you are simply doing him a tremendous disservice!? He's going to learn a lot of very bad habits.

Good gods quit trying to solve everything. You will add some years to your life if you try to be more laid back.

Actually, 2v2 has it's set of challenges thaty differ from 1v1. Presumably, an ally *can* take your SCs if he isn't careful causing you to retreat or even disband a vital unit. Also, communication between players is much more difficult than knowing what you want to do and doing it.

Look, Tom, no one is forcing you to play the variants, but your opinion is not the gospel and people are free to play whatever they want. Consider it "Freedom of gaming" kind of like "Freedom of religion". You have no more right or privilege to tell them what they should or must play than they have to tell you.

Hey mapu. Let's challenge Tom to a 2v2 game. You and me versus him and the player of his choice. What do you say? Wanna be your ol' pal Draug/YCHTT's partner?

Sure!

There it is Tom. The challenge is issued. Find your best ally to join you in a 2v2 against mapu and myself.

ill play with him granted the phase length is >2 days

I've no problem with the phase length. I only require at least 24 hours, but 48 or more is fine by me.

First off who said anything about forcing me to play this stupid game? I simply said it was stupid. That being said why would I play a stupid game simply because I was "challenged"? Its a dumb game so why play? I do not give a crap about your challenge. And even if you did beat me...so what? Its still mot diplomacy and its still your stupid game with virtually no challenge. You win 50% of the time and have no interaction with competitors. You wanting a newbie pal toblearn by playing such a game is simple foolishness that will help him learn nothing about the real game.

No one involved in the challenge is a newbie. So you can let that one go.

Do you read what people say? I clearly stated the reason mentioned for this stupid game was to teach your newbie friend how to play, I pointed out it was a rather foolish way to try and teach someone the nuances of the game.

As far as me not wanting to play I think I also made that quite clear. This is a stupid game concept and I would not want to waste my time playing it, challenge or not, it changes nothing, the concept is STUPID. one team vs another team with a bunch of neutral powers, what an incredibly insipid game. It smacks to me of some sort of game where people simply want to pad their statistics or stroke their ego. They get more wins when playing a game that statistically you can win half the time!

This is EXACTLY as if this were a Chess site. Then you had some who decided to play a variant where the pieces acted as checkers pieces. You call it a variant of chess yet it's not even close to the same game other than using the same pieces and played on the same board. Call checkers what is is ...checkers!
Call your abomination of a game what it is, I don't know that game name but it certainly is NOT "Diplomacy" in any way now is it?

So are you playing or not?

I would play with Tom. Should be a interesting game.

again do people READ?

Mapu asks:
"So are you playing or not?"

What I had said:
"As far as me not wanting to play I think I also made that quite clear. This is a stupid game concept and I would not want to waste my time playing it, challenge or not, it changes nothing, the concept is STUPID."

"as far as me NOT wanting to play"
"this is a stupid game concept"
"I would not waste my time playing it, challenge or not"

The question had been answered several times over yet you still asked?
Why would I play against an idiot who doesn't read? Oh that's right, because you CAN be an idiot who does not read or comprehend what others discuss, this isn't DIPLOMACY so he is (obviously) confused.

Cool -- so you are in. GOD, create the link and send it out.

Thanks Tom -- looking forward to it!

What I find ironic is I challenged him and yet he insists it was *my* friend even responding to *my* posts by saying "teach *your* friend". Obviously the one who needs to learn to read is Tom. I'm not the OP and have no friend I am tryi my to teach the game to.

yeah, ok
keep boosting your wins on these one vs one games and tell us wonderful you are
keep telling us how great your tactical skills are by beating up on ONE opponent who does not understand the game is played by many.

This is a two on two game so we will be beating two opponents.

Bigger off Tom. Your opinion is not the gospel. Oh and don't bother name dropping as I've played with all the same names on the judges and at various WorldDipCons at Origins in Columbus in the past.

Fucking phone. Bugger off Tom.

no, my opinion IS gospel
...whose name did I drop?, seems to me YOU are the one attempting to show how much you know. Your opinion means squat when you resort to name calling and your feeble attempts at showing how a insipid game of one vs one helps your tactical abilities, you simply show you know little to nothing of what you speak. The game of DIPLOMACY is about tactics combined with difficult negotiations, take away the negotiations and the game is simply not the same, your tactics mean nothing since they do not hinge on what you can do with other players and need to contend with a whole host of multiple players moving as they like. Yet you continue to point out the game is valid. Hey, if it's FUN for you, then play for the sake of fun. But please save us from your trying to make it into some tactical warmup exercise. The only people buying that have no idea what the game is about (as you clearly point out yourself, that you do also know little)

Tom the idea behind this game is for me to simply talk him through each phase. I am covering things like how to capture a supply center, how to balance builds, and in general what happens in all of the 5 or 6 phases. I tried the 1v1 approach and it didn't really work. I hope to start him in a wwiv game but it's hard to start a wwiv game with people who really can't play a game that fits his >3 day phase requirement. I only like this method of teaching because it is the way I learned

Tom - I was preempting the name dropping you have done in the past. Mission accomplished because now you won't try it.

Yeah, ok, good for you.

But back to a REAL discussion,
Mfarb...
You could (and in my opinion SHOULD) do this in a standard game, maybe even a game for newbies. I have taken part in tutorial games where seasoned players would "coach" a player. Nothing wrong with that and it can be a great experience for all involved. The newbies would then learn how the game is really played and get more out of it. By playing a 1 vs 1 game he is not learning the intricacies of negotiations nor is he learning how fronts are fluid and rapidly changing. One rouge player and your best laid plans are in the toilet (and that happens in almost every game does it not?)

I did this and had a great time, I think the coaches were pretty much done by year 4 or so, the players stopped asking advise and took the reigns, took of the training wheels, it was fun to watch. Has any such game been done here?

I understand your reasons of course, it's easier to show him the ropes in a smaller game, it's quicker, etc. But he is simply going to get the wrong impression of the game and learn to play it all wrong. Similar to the FTF event I went to, I am out of practice having played ONLY on the web for the past 30 years. I got KILLED because the differences were so vast! But these vast differences between face to face and online are FAR less than 1v1 compared to a standard online games, the new player is in all honesty learning so very very little and more than likely learning wrong when compared to a standard game (not saying you are teaching him wrong, only that how he will need to play is so vastly different, it will be wrong playing what he had been taught)

...so why bother?
A newbie game with coaches is a great idea (and THAT I would agree to help with), barring that, simply get the player into a standard game and coach him just the same! I am absolutely not picking on Mfarb or his buddy, I wish them both well! My beef is with the notion that 1v1 is good for teaching ANYTHING worth learning.

I also was involved in a school of diplomacy and it took a matter of weeks to put together and complete. This is just a quick, informal way to give my friend the chance to think about his moves, and then I would message him and tell him the moves that I suggest he do based off of the current map. So far I have been giving him an analysis of the enemies possible moves and, assuming he reads these notes, he will be able to think more critically when it comes to the moves he makes. Just look at the past two games he and I have played. I want to teach him the basics only. Later I'm sure he can learn real dip by playing on his own.

Sounds like we need a School of War over here like over at the other place. 7 newbish players, 7 TAs to provide individual coaching, and a couple.of professors to comment on the game each phase from a high level.

Good idea YCHTT

Of course it is. TheTruth always has good ideas. You just can't always handle them.

Very nice game, mfarb, I've bookmarked it and I will follow it with interest.

I've tried something like it, once, and I've found it really fun (btw, why don't we think about a Pairs Tournament?). It was two ClassicVS - EAvGT, each pair playing each side once: gameID=3879 gameID=3864.
*sigh* Good ol' times when Online-Diplomacy was just a game to have fun with *sigh*

It still is for some of us. I've been enjoying my games with kaner immensely, even if I have only won one. I'd play in a teams tournament.

yea those two games looked interesting! I want to play that map