Does Anyone Know The Differences Of A Crappy Diplomacy And A Great Diplomacy? I Want To Know And I Want To Do Diplomacy´s For All Of you Guys. (srry for all caps)

Open seat ones are usually a trip through hell and back while private ones where all players are invited are usually much better since players invited are known diplo players.

edit- can't spell for shit.

Edited 8/11/2016 23:51:37

+1 ^

^^ Pretty much this.

They also work better when people declare wars to absorb part of another players territory, rather than elimination. It sucks when one player declares war on another and then is consequently attacked by every single neighbor who wants land. In such situations, most games move rapidly towards a locked ceasefire where everybody is too afraid to declare so nothing happens.

Rules regarding alliances, declaring war, and gang banging usually help, but you have to experiment to see what works. Also, if surrendered players turn into AIs then open slots are an even worse idea and will ruin your Diplo.

I also usually like a little role play based on the map, but that's optional.

In my opinion, gangbanging is entirely acceptable and realistic.

^
I would agree with colonel on that,unless it is horribly mismatched.

There could be a limit to how many territories one can conquer,such as half of the defeated nation maximum.Another way I have thought of is by doing the following:

Give each nation an astronomic amount of starting troops (more than 10x their income)
Put an army cap at around 10x the income of a nation
Alter the kill rates so that less troops get killed in battles

That way,wars are turned into battles of attrition,and a nation's income is effectively turned to how fast they can recover their military.This gives smaller nations a reason to fight,as they can cause damage to their attackers and make their position worse than their previous for a few turns.

I would just prefer if people don't join diplo games only to be booted on the 1st turn.This applies for both Real-time and Multi-day games.
Because if 1 person from the diplo game leaves,there will be some nations which will take his territory and become stronger(Normally nations that are already strong and they don't let the small ones take the neutral territories because they are assholes).This makes the game entirely different.Instead of having a potential ally there is instead territory for your enemies to grab.(Of course the booted guy could be your enemy,which makes things easier for you,but still,where's the fun in that?)

I think real time diplomacy games are crap. A good diplomacy game is one that lasts for a long time with some good people in it. They also are bad if everyone gets booted. I dislike gangbanging, but 2v1,3v2 is acceptable. I think other good ones are ones were all slots are NOT bascally the same, there has to be some sort of advantage to being russia over Serbia etc.

Games where all slots have exactly the same income tend to be bad, since if a country with few territories gets booted then a country near them will get double their old income just from that, and then will proceed to obliterate a normally strong country like the USA.

^
And always remember to not mention it in the description