Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Posts: 39
Joined: 09 Sep 2016, 2:00 pm

Post 13 Sep 2016, 7:37 pm

There are currently two concepts I'm introducing/bringing back, and I am interested in hearing the opinions of all, particularly with the two questions I will be specifically asking later. There is a brief two question survey I'd appreciate you answer at the end of this after you've read the rules, but it is not necessary to form a strong opinion on the rules in order to play.

I am trying to keep the extra rules simple and enhancing the heart of NWO specific diplomacy. The two concepts in question are Mutually Assured Destruction, and UN Task Force. Both concepts will have their ruleset thoroughly typed out in a dedicated thread when the game gets its own forum.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
The idea is to increase the power of nukes, while still making them dangerous to fire, and giving players the ability to not waste their nukes should their nukes get nuked.

A player with nukes in play may respond to various general or specific trigger conditions with precise nuclear orders.

Example conditions including:
"UK nukes me"
"UK nukes anyone"
"Anyone nukes WDC"
"UK or France nukes me."
"UK nukes anyone but me."

What you do with your nukes must be very specific such as any other command.
"N WDC !! LON" would be valid while
"N WDC !! UK" would be invalid.

Players may submit multiple conditions/triggers, up to the the number of players that have nuke tech when the turn began. Nuke responses happen in the order they were triggered, from the top.
Example: US has nuke in WDC and submits MAD orders as:

"If UK nukes me
Then N WDC !! LON

If Germany nukes me
Then N WDC !! BER"

If both UK and Germany fired a nuke at the the United States, the nuke in DC would be fired at London, as the orders have responding to it first, and thus higher priority.

Manually firing nukes overrides any MAD orders given to that nuke.
If a player ordered

MAD Orders
If Germany nukes me
Then N WDC !! BER"

The nuke in WDC does not have the opportunity to respond to Germany's strike, as it was manually fired at London.

MAD orders that are not triggered are ALWAYS hidden from seasonal announcements!
Are the US and Germany teaming up against the UK but the US can't stand the idea Germany backstabbing with nuclear rain? The US can list Germany higher than the UK in the MAD orders, and if no nukes are fired, Germany would not know how mistrusting the US is.

Conventional Unit Movements Can Not Trigger MAD Orders
While it makes real world sense that a nation would be able to respond to an army, fleet or air strike with a nuclear assault, much of the suspense of diplomacy is seeing all the orders carried out at the same time. Thus, in the spirit of Diplomacy, unless there are a LOT of players interested in seeing otherwise, MAD orders can NOT respond to the specific commands of conventional units. If they could, a player with nukes would be able to surgically respond to any movement a rival would make. However, firing nukes for any reason leaves a nation open to a nuclear response for any reason. I'm very interested in what everyone thinks, even if I don't get convinced to change my mind.

MAD Orders can trigger MAD Orders
One nuke being manually fired can trigger MAD orders firing nukes which can trigger MAD orders firing nukes. MAD orders are checked at the launch of any nuke whether they were fired manually or not, until no more MAD orders are firing.


United Nations Task Force
The United Nations Task Force is essentially a single support added to an encounter that is voted on by the world in an effort to protect the oppressed, and more rarely, punish the oppressor. The general idea is:
1) Reward excellent diplomacy
2) Make the world a smaller place by encouraging countries across the world to talk to each other.
3) Offer a little help to the weaker nations early on.
4) Put the vote count to use before the end game coalition decisions.
5) Reward excellent diplomacy.

-The UN task force has the power of 1 support like any other unit, except it must support an attacking or defending unit or undefended SC.
-It can't support a unit or SC belonging to a country with more supply centers in attacking or defending against a country with fewer supply centers.
-It can't support a dormant SC.
-It can not ATTACK independently, and therefore can't remove control of a city on its own. It can only support an attacking force, support a defending force, or support a SC.

Edit: Upon further reflection, I believe the 5 goals of the UN Task Force will be realized more effectively should information of how countries voted be hidden, though I will leave the question open should there be a high demand for transparency.

Update: Among the people who have signed up and voiced their opinion, there is currently a unanimous desire to have the votes be public, and I will likely revert them to being so.

Abstaining from voting for the UN deployment, and voting for the UN to do nothing are two very different things, and both are legal.

In the event of a tie determining the deployment of the UN Task Force, the task force will not be deployed at all.

-----------------Please Feel Free to Email zeldark at gmail dot com ---------------------------
What power level would you prefer to play? (A through E)
Should MAD Orders be able to trigger on conventional unit movement? Yes/No.
Should UN Task Force votes be made public? Yes/No.
Last edited by Zeldark on 14 Sep 2016, 2:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
Posts: 6372
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 14 Sep 2016, 5:15 am

I edited your subject to indicate the type of game you are offering. Please let me know when you're ready for a forum if you intend on hosting here at Redscape (mpolcen at verizon dot net). You may also wish to provide your email address for potential players not registered at the site.

Best of luck!
User avatar
Posts: 4
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 1:18 pm

Post 19 Sep 2016, 2:55 pm

Don't know if this is where to sign in, but I'm interested. Open to a C-E power (feel free to put me in a tough position).

email theodorelogan(at)gmail(dot)com

User avatar
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Sep 2016, 1:31 pm

Hey Vince ! Been an awful long time my friend. Why don't you drop by the politics forums some time ? Gotten awful tedious there of late. Look forward to seeing you in the game anyway.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 20 Sep 2016, 2:55 pm

Yay, Vince is Back!
User avatar
Posts: 4
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 1:18 pm

Post 20 Sep 2016, 3:06 pm

Haha are you sure I wouldn't make it more tedious?
User avatar
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Sep 2016, 10:25 pm

I'm not sure that's possible.
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 2:58 pm

Post 26 Sep 2016, 2:55 pm

I'm here to sign up.

Jonnydip99 AT gmail DOT com

preference for a B-D power but any will be fine.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
Posts: 627
Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 6:07 pm

Post 02 Oct 2016, 11:14 pm

Been racing forever, guess it's time to try this.
Preference is a C-E country, may as well wet my feet with something smaller.
User avatar
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 8:46 am

I will join as well
(as long as China is removed from Africa that is)
any rule changes are fine as well
I will take any power, any size ...don't care!

explorediplomacy (at) gmail (dot) com

fyi, after reading the rule change ideas (UN task force in particular) I prefer open/known votes, it makes sense as the UN votes are public and not secretive so why not know that here as well? I can see some fun reasons for secret orders (and could be swayed to accept it that way with great ease) but I also see the fun reasons to make them known as well. Since both can be fun, why not go more life-like? and also KNOW who is plotting against you
User avatar
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Sep 2016, 12:06 am

Post 18 Oct 2016, 10:43 pm

Let's do this thing!