Tweet
MDR: Interesting new lineup for 20th. I'm not sure it solves the "central" problem since now Columbia will be in-between Argentina and the USA, and it will be in their interests most likely to team up and tear into it, as it what usually happens when countries are arrayed in a line. So Columbia has more access to SC's to make up for it, which ironically only seals her fate more, because while before, perhaps the USA might concentrate on Japan and hope that Argentina & Columbia stalemate, now the USA and Argentina will be forced to always go after Columbia, because if you are at peace with them, they will assuredly gobble up the other nation, and then be unstoppable when they turn on you. This is of course a gross generalization, but what I would see as normal.
Still, I think it works better than the current set-up. Another way you could work it is make South America a vast empty landscape of very large empty territories and maybe only 2 or 3 SC's total inside it (after all, most of SA was not nearly as powerful as, say, Germany at the time). If you want to add an extra layer of rules to the map, you can use the "neutral armies" trick like Sengoku did and have it so that each of these SC's in South America have a neutral army defending it. So somebody can go imperialist and fish for a few extra SC's in South America, but it won't be particularly rewarding.
RUFFHAUS: Perhaps a bit of an over-generalization to just say "there are tough draws." Different draws requiring different strategies and diplomacy perhaps, but still, a good map has mostly equal countries.
If you try to play Mexico in Imperia,l or Venezuela or Paraguay in South American Supremacy without allies
Hehe. Both Defiant and I made extremely trusting Spring moves in that we were expecting allies but didn't get 'em. Perhaps you should remove the word "try" since it sure seems we did. ;-)
Also, I'd say that should be a true statement (without the try part) about any but the most unbalanced Diplomacy map. Even a "good" draw like, say, Japan in the Colonial map (which from what I've seen is consistently ranked the best) requires allies if you want to survive.
MDR: That sounds about right for Imperial. The price for far-flung colonies (which gives you a dramatically better chance to solo) is that you're spread out, and any compotent one-continent player will quickly move to squash colonies, since it's easy to do at first, and prevents armies cropping up there from nowhere. So in most games, the colonial powers are in trouble without good diplomacy in the other continents.
While not quite a good parallel, when I played Holland in Apolyton's game of Colonial (23/Amatsu), priority A1 for me was the elimination of the British at Singapore, and the French aimed to take them out of Hong Kong. This made Britain a much less potent enemy later in the game. It also balances out Britain in Imperial, since it has such great potential and twice the starting SC's of most powers, but can lose its great advantages so easily.
Defiant: I would have to agree that Venezeula is in trouble and probably the worst position on the map- it desperately needs Peru to attack Columbia with it, and Peru has a lot more freedom. So they might help, they might not.
However, the solution isn't giving Ven a new SC- just take Bogota from the Columbians. Say there was a minor revolution or something, and stick an army in Cartagena. That would balance that sector of the map right there. Columbia would grow a bit slower and a blitzkrieg against the Venezeulans is much less likely.
And oh yes, I don't consider Paraguay an unbalanced position. I think it's in one of the best positions to solo on the map. If Argentina works with it, Paraguay would tend to get most of the spoils of war, and can quickly turn on Argentina I think, especially if Argentina has become the sea power and has too many fleets. Paraguay is also great for attacking Bolivia later and collecting the SC's in that area. Of course, in exchange for the comparative ease in soloing, you do need an Argentinian ally at the beginning (or a Brazilian one, but that is a very dangerous alliance). I didn't get it. Simple as that.
If you want to make a Brazilian alliance more possible, or make it more plausible for an Argentinain stab of Paraguay, then you can just make Salvador neutral, like Maranhao. Brazil has a ton of SC's in its sphere of influence, but can't quite move out immediately like it can now. That's why an Argentinian stab is so deadly for Argentina- if you don't conquer Paraguay REALLY QUICKLY, Brazil will have already gained the crucial few extra SC's it needs to outnumber Argentina by 2-3 armies, and after that all it has to do is overwhelm Argentina. If Argentina has Paraguay working with it, the Paraguayans can quickly deny those extra armies and make it a much fairer fight.
Still, I think it works better than the current set-up. Another way you could work it is make South America a vast empty landscape of very large empty territories and maybe only 2 or 3 SC's total inside it (after all, most of SA was not nearly as powerful as, say, Germany at the time). If you want to add an extra layer of rules to the map, you can use the "neutral armies" trick like Sengoku did and have it so that each of these SC's in South America have a neutral army defending it. So somebody can go imperialist and fish for a few extra SC's in South America, but it won't be particularly rewarding.
RUFFHAUS: Perhaps a bit of an over-generalization to just say "there are tough draws." Different draws requiring different strategies and diplomacy perhaps, but still, a good map has mostly equal countries.
If you try to play Mexico in Imperia,l or Venezuela or Paraguay in South American Supremacy without allies
Hehe. Both Defiant and I made extremely trusting Spring moves in that we were expecting allies but didn't get 'em. Perhaps you should remove the word "try" since it sure seems we did. ;-)
Also, I'd say that should be a true statement (without the try part) about any but the most unbalanced Diplomacy map. Even a "good" draw like, say, Japan in the Colonial map (which from what I've seen is consistently ranked the best) requires allies if you want to survive.
MDR: That sounds about right for Imperial. The price for far-flung colonies (which gives you a dramatically better chance to solo) is that you're spread out, and any compotent one-continent player will quickly move to squash colonies, since it's easy to do at first, and prevents armies cropping up there from nowhere. So in most games, the colonial powers are in trouble without good diplomacy in the other continents.
While not quite a good parallel, when I played Holland in Apolyton's game of Colonial (23/Amatsu), priority A1 for me was the elimination of the British at Singapore, and the French aimed to take them out of Hong Kong. This made Britain a much less potent enemy later in the game. It also balances out Britain in Imperial, since it has such great potential and twice the starting SC's of most powers, but can lose its great advantages so easily.
Defiant: I would have to agree that Venezeula is in trouble and probably the worst position on the map- it desperately needs Peru to attack Columbia with it, and Peru has a lot more freedom. So they might help, they might not.
However, the solution isn't giving Ven a new SC- just take Bogota from the Columbians. Say there was a minor revolution or something, and stick an army in Cartagena. That would balance that sector of the map right there. Columbia would grow a bit slower and a blitzkrieg against the Venezeulans is much less likely.
And oh yes, I don't consider Paraguay an unbalanced position. I think it's in one of the best positions to solo on the map. If Argentina works with it, Paraguay would tend to get most of the spoils of war, and can quickly turn on Argentina I think, especially if Argentina has become the sea power and has too many fleets. Paraguay is also great for attacking Bolivia later and collecting the SC's in that area. Of course, in exchange for the comparative ease in soloing, you do need an Argentinian ally at the beginning (or a Brazilian one, but that is a very dangerous alliance). I didn't get it. Simple as that.
If you want to make a Brazilian alliance more possible, or make it more plausible for an Argentinain stab of Paraguay, then you can just make Salvador neutral, like Maranhao. Brazil has a ton of SC's in its sphere of influence, but can't quite move out immediately like it can now. That's why an Argentinian stab is so deadly for Argentina- if you don't conquer Paraguay REALLY QUICKLY, Brazil will have already gained the crucial few extra SC's it needs to outnumber Argentina by 2-3 armies, and after that all it has to do is overwhelm Argentina. If Argentina has Paraguay working with it, the Paraguayans can quickly deny those extra armies and make it a much fairer fight.
Comment