boot times are fine, anyone who cant take a turn in three days deserves to get booted, other than the vacations, vacations have to be accepted because players cant control getting booted when they are on vacation

Well I agree that someone that doesn't check in for three days deserves to get booted, however when someone like Russia, China or a person on one of the teams gets booted it can have over reaching ramifications on the entire game. I've tried to talk to the people that have been booted from these games, about half of the time they would have taken their move if given another day or two. Frankly, I think its worth the wait in order to keep players in these scenarios.

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments, all have been taken on board.

I'll probably start hosting Version 4.0 next week, I've been a bit too busy to finish it over the last couple of weeks. I'll make sure I post what the major changes are after I'm finished modifying it.

@Smarterthanyou, it will be going back to no rules ;)

Not that it would change much for smarterthenyou though....
He would still backstab you in the times when the rules were in place

It wasn't my decision aranka, Luke just told us what to do even after we told him that we had peace. I am sorry, alright. Now can you forget about it and move on?

#This reply is about the historically correctness of the map#

I'm not sure how is the newest version looks like, but I'm in the v3.1 game. There were quite a few mistakes in the map, especially in Africa. First, there are 4 lands in Mauritania belonged to Britain, which is wrong. I believe you wanted to put Gambia in it but actually Gambia is surrounded by Senegal, not Mauritania. Second, Western Sahara should belong to Spain, not Britain. Third, Sierra Leon was a British colony, not French. Fourth, Malawi should belong to Britain.

Outside Africa, in northern south america, northeastern Venezuela and Bolivar should belong to Spain. On the right of Venezuela, Guyana was British, Suriname was Dutch, only French Guyana is French. In the Caribbean, Guadeloupe and Martinique was french, Haiti was french, and Belize was British.

In the Pacific,some islands I did not investigate but I know in the west part, Northern Mariana, Palau, Guam, and Micronesia was never colonised by the dutch. They should either be Spanish, German, Japanese, or America.

In middle Asia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan was in the USSR, but i guess this is a game balance issue.

#Suggestions on the game balance#

For the balance issue, here are my suggestions.
Germany lost all its colonies after WWI. This included Cameroon, Togo, Namibia, Tanzania, Samoa, and half of Papua New Guinea. (In the map it is called Momase, Highlands, Islands of Papua) These lands were given to Japan, France, and Britain after WWI, but I suggest them to be given to Germany.

Just take the blue ones.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Deutsche_Kolonien.PNG

African Colonies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_of_Africa

Other sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_New_Guinea

#Researches on the Pacific Islands#

East Timor: was Portuguese
Palau: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Northern Mariana: Spanish -> (after American-Spanish War) German -> Japanese
Guam: Spanish -> USA
Micronesia: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Nauru: Spanish -> German -> British
Islands of Papua: German -> British
Momase, Highlands: German -> British
Nauru: German -> British
Marshall Islands: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Kiribati: British
Samoa: German -> British
Wallis: French
Niue: British


Islands that did not mention = you were right

Some islands that marked British were actually ruled by either Australia or New Zealand but I didn't bother to distinguish them
Some islands were occupied by the Japanese during WW2
Islands that marked Japanese were given to them after WW1

Hi lokhinwan,

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to research! Also, thanks for providing the links to back up your points.

I'm aware of some of these small discrepancies and some have already been changed, some are going to change, and some will stay the same for balance issues.

Hoping to have version 4.0 finished soon.

Fonzy

The Fonz I made a scenario just like this last summer( Im not accusing you of copying me and this is clearly yours)and instead of having people play for the additional colonies I had the home nation control them but then Great Britain was soon overpowerful

Please post a single player link of the scenario so the rest of us non-members can see

Hi

Your template looks interesting.

Two things though

1) Consider enabling vote-to-boot at 4 hours, giving players the possibility to remove a player who broke the rules.

2) Invite me next time you make a scenario :P

Hi All,

This scenario is now at Version 4.1 and I have been hosting a game every couple of days.

Link to version 4.1 - http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=276196


HeadStrong - I didn't join Warlight until November of last year so I haven't seen your scenario.

Indiana - I'm sorry, not sure what you mean about a solo player link. How would I go about doing that for you?

Powerneg - The game is multi-day and often players need time to communicate via private messages. For this reason, voting to boot at 4 hours simply isn't enough time. I once considered making a real time version of this but it would take way too long to play!

Nonono, you don't get the intention of my proposal.
If i understand correctly, you play by a few rules who are not set by the game(warlight) itself.
I propose to enforce these rules by booting anyone who breaks them with vote-to-boot, normal (auto-)boot-times would still apply to people who stick to the rules.
Only downside is that when there are only two players left vote-to-boot works the same as direct-boot, but i suspect the game is already "won" by having superior income/armies by someone long before there are only two players left.

@Indiana: http://warlight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?TemplateID=276196
@powerneg: That would give multiple-person teams an advantage, considering they need to vote to boot their partners, and they'd also be pretty immune to vote-boot when it becomes 2 teams left. :/

Ok, I understand now Indiana.

Perhaps you are playing one of the earlier versions where I implemented rules to try it out? That was only tried in one version.

The game has now gone back to the original rule of there being no rules!

I've always found that whenever I've joined games that have rules (e.g. declaring attacks etc.) then lots of people break them anyway. I've seen some with a "public enemy" system that is supposed to act as a deterrent to rule breaking, but ultimately not everyone checks the turn history and the validity of people's claims. Therefore it's easy for people to break the rules by saying "well he said you are public enemy".

If there is no way of truly enforcing rules then in my opinion there isn't any point of having any.

Although this is not a diplomacy game, you will find that the winners are usually the ones that have the best diplomacy skills ;)

I wasn't accusing anyone. The same thing happened with the creation of calculus when one guy in Britain and one guy in Europe thought of it at the same time

You should make a multi day with this and invite me as well as some of your friends or even the people in this forum! The scenario looks like it could be fun.

yeah it was fun