Climate Change Diplomacy (7/7 but BACKUPS NEEDED!)

Variant rules on standard map. Created by lordelindel. GM: lordelindel. Game ended with no resolution.

Climate Change Diplomacy (7/7 but BACKUPS NEEDED!)

Postby Aeschines » 01 Nov 2009, 09:14

Good day! This post is just looking to see if any people out there would be interested in a game of diplomacy with the element of climate change added it. The rules would stay pretty simple in that they follow normal diplomacy except there would then be a third possibility for an SC. Instead of using them to build armies or navies they could also be used to combat climate change. Each winter after the builds and estorys have been proccesed the GM would look to see how many SCs (world wide) went "Green" instead of building an army of navy. This number would be compared against a (secret) list which states whether climate change was pushed back for that year.

If the number of "Green" SCs fails to meet the required number to delay the onset then the effects of Global Warming (or global cooling, at the GM's discretion) would occur. For example after the 2010 build phase, North Africa might become an SC as the Sahara Desert is pushed back by cooling winds. Or a tsunami from the now-active fault line in the North sea, would remove the SC-status of Denmark. There are a lot of possibilities, and every game would be different (kind of like exploration) because the GM would choose different effects of the Climate Change. Oh, and the GM's list of effects would be written out pre-game so that the success or failure of nations wouldn't affect the GM's decisions.

The game would be played with 7-8 people (depending on interest) and played on the 1900 diplomacy map, or a slightly modernized version of the 1900 Map. I'd GM the first game and we'd go from there. Anyone interested?

Alright, so here's a list of effects. For this particular game I'm going to go straight in one direction and keep it as realistic as possible.
-6= Humans can barely eke out life. Civilized life is a no go. All countries fail and all players lose.
-5= Middle seas freeze. Glaciation claims last lowlands and hold outs of middle Europe. Few southern provinces can still produce. Hurricane cycle reverses and moves south.
-4= Mid-northern provinces covered by ice sheets (impassable). Hurricane cycle stops altogether (lack of rain in many parts of the world). Few southern provinces with help from northern refugees produce Northern crops and become SCs.
-3= Sea levels stabilize, territory stops being revealed. Northern province galicerization (become impassable). Central Europe crop failures. Unheard of lingering snows in Naples/Konya areas (tropical crops die lose SCs). Northern sea freeze.
-2= Sea levels significantly drop, lots of territory is revealed. Northern crop failures (lose SCs). Rain/hurricane cycle continues to slow. Glaciers build up, rendering high mountain passes, impassable. Northernmost seas freeze.
-1= Sea levels drop, reveal more territory. Some northern provinces feel the pinch (lose SCs). Rain/hurricane cycle slows down of the Atlantic.
0= Normal Map
+1= Speeding up of the hurricane/rain cycle. Low-level glaciers will begin to melt, watering otherwise arid land. Cold areas will experience crop-producing heat.
+2= Water shortages in some southern areas, crop failures (lose SCs). Heat waves hit central Europe (halt armies maybe lose SCs). Rising ocean levels.
+3= Super intense hurricane cycle. North moving hurricane cycle. Significantly raised sea levels. Refugee issues in mid/northern latitude SCs (lose SCs). Lack of rain in Mediterranean. Heat waves strike farther north (paralyze units, lose SCs).
+4= Northernmost ice/permafrost begins to melt (create SCs). Great refugee problems. Second significant sea level rise. Desertification in some parts of the southern world (lose SCs and desertification). Intense heat in mid-northern areas (lose SCs). Refugee problem (lose SCs).
+5= Refugees change farming methods (create SCs). Really raised sea levels. Northern seas heat to med temperatures. Northernmost areas only fertile places left. Super ultra intense hurricane cycle moves farther north. Water shortages and crop failures in near-northernmost areas (lose SCs). Desertification in central Europe (desertification).
+6= Humans can barely eke out life. Civilization is a no-go. All countries collapse and all players lose.

Climate shift possibility is determined by a set number based on the real-life probability of things (balanced by a game perspective). Extra "green" are credits which carryover, and effect the next set of climate orders. At points where a natural feedback cycle happens (i.e. global warming/cooling becomes harder to stop) I will increase the ciritical numbers. So it might start out at 5 SCs and the first feedback cycle would make it 8.

Climate adjustment will happen in between the fall-winter orders. Whether or not the change is delayed is determined by the LAST set of build orders. So a time line:
Spring 2000- normal
Fall 2000- normal
Winter 2000- first set of "go green" orders submitted
Spring 2010- normal
Fall 2010- normal
Fall-Winter 2020- first possible climate shift occurs
Winter 2020- second set of "go green" orders submitted
Spring 2030- normal
Fall 2030- normal
Fall-Winter 2030- second possible climate shift occurs
etc.

Does this make sense?

The winner is the player to control more than half of the remaining SCs during the build phase. EXCEPTION: The loss of SCs and resulting lowering of required to win SCs cannot be the factor that causes you to win. If Germany controls 14 SCs and the climate shifts to lower the worldwide number to 27 he does NOT win. In this situation Germany would have to control the majority of SCs into the next build phase in order to win.
If climate change factors would cause a player to win that build phase they do not. Instead they must maintain a majority of the worldwide SCs into the next build phase.


Gm: lordelindel :)

Players:
1. Jstott :D
2.
3.
4. raytheruler? :)
5.
6. Flatley? :)
7. feldspar :D (after Nov 18th)
8?. zander_the_great :D (Backup #1)
9??. Bobbil1 :D
10???.

Join now and get a smiley! :D
Attachments
Climate Change Map Spring 2000.jpg
Climate Change Map Spring 2000.jpg (255.25 KiB) Viewed 1974 times
Climate Change Map Winter 1900.jpg
Climate Change Map Winter 1900.jpg (255.72 KiB) Viewed 2009 times
Last edited by Aeschines on 14 Dec 2009, 08:01, edited 14 times in total.
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
Aeschines
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1487
All-game rating: 1626
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby jstott » 01 Nov 2009, 11:29

Sounds good. I'm up for it.
Do you hear the people sing,
Lost in the valley of the night,
It is the music of a people,
Who are climbing to the light,

For the wretched of the earth,
There is a flame that never dies,
Even the darkest night must end,
And the sun will rise
User avatar
jstott
 
Posts: 2879
Joined: 18 Oct 2008, 22:58
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby kininvie » 01 Nov 2009, 12:27

Some quick questions:

Would the global warming effects be cumulative? In other words, if players obstinately refuse to go green, would the effects multiply from year to year?

Could provinces be submerged or sea spaces turn to dry land?

If effects are more or less random, what advantages are to be gained from going green? If I were a four-centre power facing a twelve-centre one, I ought to be as non-green as possible, in so far as the probability of a random effect hitting my opponent rather than me is worth taking the risk on. Perversely, a large power may calculate that going non-green is advantageous in so far as the fall-out is less likely to damage him permanently than his weaker opponents. (The opposite applies too: if I go green, my larger opponent is more likely to benefit than I am)

You might perhaps think of weighting the effects (and players' calculations) so that players knew roughly what was likely to happen. e.g:

-3 Some oceans freeze. Some northern provinces can no longer grow crops & lose SCs
-2 Many desert areas become fertile
-1 Some desert areas become fertile
0 Normal
+1 Some southern areas lose SCs to drought
+2 More southern areas lose SCs. Some northern areas gain SCs. Coastal provinces at risk of flooding
+3 More coastal provinces flood. Random inland provinces suffer severe weather effects. North achieves maximum fertility.
+4 Some inland provinces suffer submergence. South loses almost all fertility. Random inland provinces suffer civil disorder
+5 Effects on remaining provinces increasingly random & unpredictable

Something like this would allow players to calculate their best strategies to damage their opponents and gain maximum benefits.

May I suggest using the '1900' map which has a wider geographical spread - and so allows more room for effects.
+4
Away, and mock the time with fairest show:
False face must hide what the false heart doth know.

(Macbeth - W. Shakespeare)
User avatar
kininvie
Elite Sponsor
Elite Sponsor
 
Posts: 883
Joined: 24 Dec 2008, 00:34
Location: Scotland in an extremely isolated position miles from anywhere
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby Luke T » 01 Nov 2009, 17:24

This sounds interesting, I'm in
Luke T
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 Jul 2009, 22:46
Location: Rhode Island
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1150)
All-game rating: (1152)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby Aeschines » 01 Nov 2009, 22:43

kininvie wrote:Some quick questions:

Would the global warming effects be cumulative? In other words, if players obstinately refuse to go green, would the effects multiply from year to year?

Could provinces be submerged or sea spaces turn to dry land?


Yes. The effects would be cumulative, so after Tunis had been rendered SC-less the next year it would stay SC-less and Naples might lose it's SC status as well. In my particular on e(though not necessarily in every Gm's list) the effects sometimes go through positive feedback cycles, where if the climate change gets to a certain point then the next one (if it happens) is much worse.


kininvie wrote:If effects are more or less random, what advantages are to be gained from going green? If I were a four-centre power facing a twelve-centre one, I ought to be as non-green as possible, in so far as the probability of a random effect hitting my opponent rather than me is worth taking the risk on. Perversely, a large power may calculate that going non-green is advantageous in so far as the fall-out is less likely to damage him permanently than his weaker opponents. (The opposite applies too: if I go green, my larger opponent is more likely to benefit than I am)


This is all true, but in your reasoning for lets say... the smaller country, you've given them a reason to go green (not much to lose), and a reason to not (it might be much more damaging to me if i don't) . It's true that not-going green would be a perfectly sound strategy, if you've taken in the possible effects. But both sides are possible. It would have tactical advantages and disadvantage as any part of the game ever is.

kininvie wrote:You might perhaps think of weighting the effects (and players' calculations) so that players knew roughly what was likely to happen. e.g:

-3 Some oceans freeze. Some northern provinces can no longer grow crops & lose SCs
-2 Many desert areas become fertile
-1 Some desert areas become fertile
0 Normal
+1 Some southern areas lose SCs to drought
+2 More southern areas lose SCs. Some northern areas gain SCs. Coastal provinces at risk of flooding
+3 More coastal provinces flood. Random inland provinces suffer severe weather effects. North achieves maximum fertility.
+4 Some inland provinces suffer submergence. South loses almost all fertility. Random inland provinces suffer civil disorder
+5 Effects on remaining provinces increasingly random & unpredictable

Something like this would allow players to calculate their best strategies to damage their opponents and gain maximum benefits.

I love this idea. I would definitly want to use it, but could you be a litle more specifc with what you mean? Like are you suggesting that this should be a table that all players can reference at any time and does not change? Or should it be modified from year to year. So in 2010 the possibility would be to return to 0, or continue on to +2?

kininvie wrote:May I suggest using the '1900' map which has a wider geographical spread - and so allows more room for effects.
+4

Also a great idea! Will modify the top post.
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
Aeschines
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1487
All-game rating: 1626
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby phoefloe » 02 Nov 2009, 07:29

I'd like to sign up, but I wouldn't be able to start playing until Nov 20 or so, so if the game fills quickly I can be replaced.
phoefloe
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Sep 2009, 21:18
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+7

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby Aeschines » 02 Nov 2009, 07:40

Okay! Thank you phloe!
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
Aeschines
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1487
All-game rating: 1626
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby Waterice man » 02 Nov 2009, 18:39

Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby TheRedArmy » 02 Nov 2009, 20:43

This looks interesting - I would consider giving a random roll to determine how much damage is done (off-set by green builds).

For example, you could roll a 1D4 (one 4-sided dice) every Winter - when people build, subtract the number of "Green" builds by players. If that number matches or exceeds the roll, no bad effects happen. If it does not, bad effects occur (according to the table presented earlier by Kininvie).

I would use this table (Kininvie's with major changes) -

-6 The game is over, with a loss for all players, as the world has frozen over and all ways of sustaining life lost.
-5 Further penalties, at the GM's discretion.
-4 Central Provinces (Wales, London, English Channel, MAO, Brest, Picardy, Belgium, Holland, Kiel Berlin, Prussia, Livonia, Moscow) are impassable and lose SC status.
-3 North-Central provinces (Irish Sea, Liverpool, Yorkshire, North Sea, Denmark, Ska, Gulf of Bothnia, Baltic Sea, Helgoland Bight) are impassable and lose SC status.
-2 Northern seas (NAO, Norwegian, Barents) and northern territories (Clyde, Edinburgh, Norway, Sweden, Finland, St. Pete) are frozen, and are impassable. SCs lose their status.
-1 The climate is much colder. Units in NAO, Norwegian, and Barents cannot move in the Fall phase of this year.
0 Normal
+1 The climate is much warmer. Units in Tunis, North Africa, and Syria cannot move during the Spring phase.
+2 Southern provinces (North Africa, Tunis, Naples, Greece, Smyrna, Syria) are impassable. Southern Seas (Western Med, Tyrrhenian, Ionian, Eastern Med) cannot be traversed. Territories lose SC status.
+3 Central-Southern Provinces (Portugal, Spain, Rome, Naples, Apulia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Armenia) are impassable. Central-Southern Sea (MAO, Adriatic, GoL, Aegean Sea) cannot be traversed. Territories lose SC status.
+4 Central Provinces (Gascony, Marseilles, Piedmont, Tuscany, Trieste, Serbia, Ankara) and the Black Sea cannot be traversed. Territories lose SC status.
+5 Further penalties (in line with those above), at the GM's discretion.
+6 The game is over, with a loss for all players, as all seas have flooded all viable areas of living.

Here's detailed rules:

1. Every Winter phase, before processing orders, the GM will flip a coin. He records the result. If heads he will use effects on the "positive" side of the table - if tails, he will use the "negative" side. Alternatively, the GM may alternate every year - 1901 positive, 1902 negative, etc.
2. The GM will then roll a single 4-sided die. He records the result.
3. The GM will add up the number of "Green Credits" bought by players this build phase. He records the result.
4. If the number of Green credits is equal to, or greater than the die roll, no ill effects occur. Green credits bought during previous build phases can be carried over (that is, if in 1901, 4 credits are built, but the roll is one, three credits remain. If the 1902 roll is 2, one credit remains, even if the players bought no credits that year). Excess credits are saved in this manner. The players may not know the roll of the die, or how many Green Credits remain (Since that would effectively tell them the roll).
5. Each side on the table of Ill effects will have a counter, measuring where you are on that side. The players can see this counter. Therefore, you have two counters - one on the negative side, and one on the positive side - they move independently of one another.
6. If the number of Green credits is less than the die roll, then an ill effect happens. Check to see if it is a positive or negative effect. The counter moves further on the table (such as from -1 to -2, or +3 to +4) one space. The difference is then discarded (not carried over).
7. Territories that have been named impassable have all units on those spaces destroyed. Any builds that attempt to occur in these spaces fail.
8. A player may be forced to destroy before going to the next Spring phase, if the ill effects cause him to lose enough SCs to bring him to have more units than Supply Centers. This decision about whether it would be enforced now or at the next build phase, rests with the GM.
9. This continues until the game ends, either through a solo victory, accepted draw proposal, or the +6 and -6 ill effects on the table.

I used the standard Diplomacy map, instead of the 1900 map. It can be altered to fit, however.
Focus. Control. Conviction. Resolve. A true ace lacks none of these attributes. Nothing can deter you from the task at hand except your own fears.
Proud Member of the Diplomacy League team, The Force.
New to Diplomacy? Join a Mentor Game!
User avatar
TheRedArmy
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 19:13
Location: New Iberia, Louisiana
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Climate Change Diplomacy

Postby Aeschines » 02 Nov 2009, 23:23

I think this is a really good plan! The thing I would change is that the specifics of what provinces would be effected would be secret. I'll keep the table and use the system, but I'll re-write what actually happens at -6,-5-4... etc. Using this system would you (theredarmy) and kininvie be interested in playing?

And
Waterice man wrote:Have you seen this?

http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/d/deluge.htm


No I hadn't! It's very interesting, and it's nice to know that someone already came up with a similar idea (i.e. it works).
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
Aeschines
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1487
All-game rating: 1626
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to Climate Change Diplomacy {All Maps Lost}

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron