| Author |
Topic |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
 |
 Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:52 pm    |
I've been working on a new variant based on the world powers of the year 1800.
The Imperial Diplomacy map v3 has been reworked to a version 4 with lots of changes especially focused on play balance and busting up stalemate lines.
Instead of 13 players there are 12. The countries are:
Britain, China, France, Holland, Holy Roman Empire, Japan, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey, USA
There are a lot more SCs and additional land and sea spaces.
The number of SCs and locations of those SCs that each of the powers start off with have been substantially changed.
Suggested victory conditions would be first to 45 Scs. The game ends in 1820. If no winner then it is a DIAS draw.
I haven't updated any of the RealPolitick files as yet. I'd like to see what kind of suggestions people have before going to that additional work.
Also, I don't know if I wish my first hosting experience to be this complex and wouldn't mind if someone wished to volunteer.
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
tjyfkdm nqoby
Civilian
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:49 pm |
|
|
| |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:52 pm |
Here's a low quality version of the map
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:00 pm |
Here's an update that addresses the Atlantic stalemate lines.
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
orange
Foreign Minister
|
Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:13 am |
Two quick notes:
1) I'd love to see this variant portrayed on a cleaner map, for example, the one that has been in use for CtP and CF. This one is very blurry, and it's hard to read.
2) Eliminating the East Asian ports dooms Russia.
_________________
OIW
TOC9 Terminal Engagement - France |
|
| posts: 3502 | location: Lansdale, Pennsylvania | joined: 09 May 2002 | medals: 7 |
Maegtellumaion
Emissary
|
Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:33 am |
I agree with orange: Russia can't last long without Vladivostok/Port Arthur.
Are all of these start locations historically accurate?
|
|
| posts: 198 | location: Maine, USA | joined: 24 Feb 2004 |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:47 am |
Appreciate the comments.
1) I have a higher quality version of the map, but am limited on Redscape to posting no more than 500k attachments.
2) Every effort is being made towards historical accuracy without overtipping the balance such as giving Spain more in the Americas.
3) Russia didn't gain Ussiri district (Vladisvostok) until 1860 and Port Arthur in 1898.
I hoped that providing the landbridge and extra SC in Kamchatka would suffice.
It's possible to carve out another province, SC, and Fleet for Okhotsk.
However, I'd want to remove an army to compensate. Comments?
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:18 pm |
Here's a map update with Okhotsk included.
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
RUFFHAUS 8
Sovereign
|
Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:29 pm    |
I'm interested in hearing more about you rationale for modifying the map. The variant has been play-tested and modified numerous times over several years. I think it's a pretty damn good map with most quirks sorted out already. I'd hate to think that your one experience with it as France in Call to Power has led you to think the map as is is flawed, and in need of revision. This doesn't mean that your changes are irrelavent or bad. I'd just like to hear more of the concept behind your variant.
I've played the variant many times, and would consider Call to Power to have been a fairly atypical game (which is a good thing). Most games see an early alliance of England, France, and Holland which dominates the board early on. In an attempt to counterbalance that I modified the map to add Spain as a 14th power, keeping the start date as 1861. I'm not ready to roll with a game as a GM yet, but I'm curious to see how it would play out even used in this circumstance.
I agree with the comments on Russia and the Pacific coast build sites. Often in the quest for historical accuracy we face significant challenges when trying to find a playable map. The thing to keep in mind is that it's a game, and it's gotta be palyable.
I do like the Alaskan landbridge idea
I like adding additional island chains, although I don't see that anything specifically broken the stalemate lines. It's not like there's little flukey hidey holes where one player can bunker down. The Atlantic is bound to be a clusterf*(k regardless... and if we're striving for historical accuracy, isn't that a good thing?
_________________
"May your heart be so pure, it's one that God wants to know."
My Redscape Game History: http://www.redscape.com/forum/.....233#107233 |
|
| posts: 1776 | location: The Old Dominion | joined: 10 Oct 2002 | medals: 6 |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:33 am |
Apppreciate the comments and great questions.
What are my motivations in doing this?
I'd like to simulate the Imperial world in 1800, this is quite different than that in 1861 or 1914 for that matter. Additonal Imperial variant world maps could be made for other time periods as well.
Provide another Diplomacy world map.
Get the opportunity to participate creating and playing a new variant.
Improvements/changes that I hope to realize versus Imperial Diplomacy V3.0:
1) Converting 2 regional powers into global powers. Brazil->Portugal Mexico->Spain.
2) Lowering the initial unit count per power to create more dynamic openings. In other words there will be more unowned SCs available which will lead to a greater variety of opening positions.
3) Try to reduce stalemate lines and create a more fluid game.
4) Increase uncertainty by presenting more provinces and introduce more powers in various regions.
Additonal changes I'm considering are:
Putting a French fleet in New Orleans. The drawback is that it might fatally crimp the USA position. Probably Spain would need to move from Florida to Cuba. The advantage to this is that it would put another power in North Anerica where it historically was and create a more confused position there.
Adding a Portugueese fleet in Mozambique. Portugal is currently the least global of the global powers and this would make it competitive in Africa. Of course this hurts France and Holland.
Restoring land bridges in the Carribean. I kind of dislike this as I'd like to
encourage assymetry in forces by restricting movement in this area to fleets.
Changing the Holy Roman Empire to Hapsburg Empire. This is more historically accurate. The Prussian Army in Stu should be Hapsburg.
Does the fleet in Okh suffice for Russia?
Further thoughts? Comments?
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
orange
Foreign Minister
|
Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:39 am |
| Quote: |
| 3) Russia didn't gain Ussiri district (Vladisvostok) until 1860 and Port Arthur in 1898. |
Aware, but that doesn't change the fact that, without the ability for Russia to build fleets, Japan can pick him off virtually at will (especially when you consider China also starts with no fleets, as is accurate)
| Quote: |
| I hoped that providing the landbridge and extra SC in Kamchatka would suffice. |
I personally don't think this is accurate, but I also don't think it will do much in terms of giving Russia protection vs. Japan.
| Quote: |
| It's possible to carve out another province, SC, and Fleet for Okhotsk. |
One SC though...pretty weak.
Any chance we can get a Korean nation in there?
| Quote: |
| However, I'd want to remove an army to compensate. Comments? |
Russia's too weak already.
|
|
| posts: 3502 | location: Lansdale, Pennsylvania | joined: 09 May 2002 | medals: 7 |
MDR
Adjutant
|
Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:01 am |
A few small requests:
1. Rename the variant to something completely different
2. Note that your variant is v1.0
3. Take my name off of the design.
4. State somewhere that this variant was based off of Imperial v3.
The reason I make these requests is that I'm happy with Imperial the way it is. Version 3 is going to be the final version. Stating this is version 4 implies that the old map is now considered obsolete by the designer, which I am listed as such. I am not involved in any way with the design you're making, and have no wish to field answers for a map I've not had a hand in building. As this is set in a completely different time period than Imperial, with completely different powers, it is not Imperial and needs a new name.
That being said, this could have some potential. Build on it and playtest. Since this design is your variant, you should say so.
One final note about 12 powers. I chose 13 as it is a prime number that cannot be divided. In game terms this means that the thirteenth player will always either be the odd man out or the leader of a multinational alliance...just a thought.
_________________
Meaning to rewatch Bubba-Hotep for a good Sig Quote... |
|
| posts: 287 | location: Texas | joined: 12 Mar 2003 |
The Emperor's Nose
Adjutant
|
Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:41 pm |
Few historical inaccuracies in there, for example the Brits didn't have Australia in 1800....
_________________
The Nose of Emperor Justinian II |
|
| posts: 8 | location: Seoul, Daehan Minguk | joined: 02 Jun 2005 |
shudda
Emissary
|
Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:29 am |
As far as I know the British did have Australia in 1800, it wasn't the Austrialian Federation, but the state of New South Wales (NSW) was definitely a colony and had been used as a penal colony for some time. A more likely change would be for Perth to be neutral and have NSW British instead. Also, I should note that although there was a Pakeha (European) presence in New Zealand. There was little more then a few missionaries and Whalers there in addition to the various Maori tribes. You may want to remove NZ as a supply centre and add the Australian state of Victoria instead. Thats only a suggestion however.
Shudda
|
|
| posts: 50 | location: New Zealand | joined: 25 Jul 2004 |
sandiegosmith
Foreign Minister
|
Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:38 pm |
Hey appreciate the comments. NSW will be the British SC in the Australia.
I've got two new maps with this idea.
1) A 14 power version of Imperial 1800 now World 1800.
2) A new map without MDR antecedants, based on a recent European Globcover map. Most of the country divisions have been made, but it is not ready for prime time. The rules proposed would be a combination Diplomacy/Risk similar to MDR's Imperial 1850. Different map but same/similar powers to option 1).
|
|
| posts: 1700 | location: San Diego, Ca. USA | joined: 19 Dec 2001 |
