Lion in the North Replay

[orange]

https://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/orange2/litn.swf

You'll need the Flash player to access this...basically it's a replay of the game turn by turn. It's a little over 100K...so shouldn't take too long to download even on a 56K. You can save it to your computer and run at your convenience, or view it straight from the web.

Maximize for best results

[CyberGnu]

Looked like you were almost gone in the beginning there. Nice comeback!

Congrats

[Dr. Nick]

*curses Sutherland*

[*End Is Forever*]

Angelfire does not allow direct linking
from offsite, non-Angelfire pages,
to files hosted on Angelfire.

This practice of 'remote linking' reduces
our ability to serve out the homepages
of our members quickly and efficiently.

[orange]

Copy and Paste into a new browser window.

[*End Is Forever*]

Cheers. Very impressive sir.

[orange]

thank you much

[the_orange1]

That's really cool Orange, thanks. Any chance of getting a copy of the blank map (the map I used was really difficult to colour, etc.) this one looks a lot easier...

[orange]

absolutely. I'll try to have one up by the end of the day. (going to class in a minute)

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Speaking of replays..... How about Lion in the North II?

[the_orange1]

I'm definitely up for GMing the follow-up if there's enough interest. On that note, any suggestions you have for improving the variant would be greatly appreciated.

Already had a couple of good ideas from Victor which I might implement. A few notes on my thoughts when I designed the variant:

I wanted it to be quite a tight map, with fairly limited room for maneouvre in order to force close attention to diplomacy (as was the case between the clans - they managed to defeat the English when they united, but as soon as they started arguing betwen themselves, they got shafted).

I also wanted to make the English starting position one of the best (again for historical reasons), but not too strong as to unbalance the game. I would be interested to hear from Defiant about how it worked out in practice (interestingly, all but one of the players put England down as their first choice).

As with many dip games (esp at ADC as alluded to by Ruff), the centre powers often get gang-raped, but I hoped they would still be in a position to act as key controllers of the "choke points" of the board, a bit like Germany on the standard map (and played well, Germany can be unstoppable).

Naval maneouvres are by necessity a little limited by geography, but this fitted into the tight nature of the game as I saw it. Victor suggested the following:

An army/fleet in Wic and a F in North Sea Buchan could have completely negated
all of MacLeod's fleets (he instead took Wic with F North Sea Buchan, preventing
this). What I'm saying is: two units should not be able to stop a power commming
from the West from accessing the seas in the east. This actually seems to be a
more general issue. A very small amount of fleets can entirely negate enemy
fleets at several bottlenecks.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I would be interested what others thought of this - should this be changed for the next time? Originally I conceived it as similar to the naval chokepoints on the standard map (MAO, which can be defended indefinitely from either side, and ION) - I think these are great on the standard map because they make control of certain areas strategically crucial, even though they may not involve taking SCs. Is this too much of a stalemate line though, or perhaps too easy a stalemate (ie, being able to hold a naval chokepoint indefinitely with 2 units)?

The other thing I am considering changing is the "can only build in home SCs" rule - what are your opinions? Should this be extended to all SCs that have been held for an Autumn turn (as per Sengoku dip)?

That's it for now, I appreciate your comments...

[orange]

i see Victor's logic, but I contend that with armed support from the mainland, fleets can break through the bottleneck. I certainly had no problem after eliminating Sutherland.

I think the current situation gives Sutherland a lot of Diplomatic advantage in the beginning, as a controller of that choke point. Whoever has favor with Sutherland has access to that choke point, or protection from it. It may be advantageous to ally with a Macleod or Frazer in the midgame if Sutherland abuses it, or becomes to navally powerful...

My suggestion from earlier on was a possible canal connecting Moray Firth to Staffa (making Inv Bls Coe and Loc 'coastal')

This could help take some power away from the choke point at Pentland, and also make for some very interesting manuevers. I think it also adds some power to the somewhat weaker (in my mind) western powers.

But just a crazy idea

[orange]

i was that player that didn't pick England, btw I think Macleod was my first pic, wasn't it? Or was MacGregor?

[the_orange1]

Any thoughts from Ruff or Defiant?

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Orange_1, I believe that my comments earlier stated that I didn't get a very good feel for the game because I wasn't really allowed to play it. I cannot offer any criticism of the map as far as design or balance. As a central power I was ganged up on by all of my neighbors early on. There was very little "diplomacy" in the game at all, and it's hard to judge a variant on the pure tactics alone. I think that you are right in that there should be more dynamic to the game with the added eighth power, but as usual Apolyton Dip may as well be gunboat in every game.

I was hoping that we could try the map again to test these theorys and those listed by Victor. I'm not sure that his points are necessarily true, because they assume certain constants that may or may not be true depending on alliances and game relationships. Certainly one game isn't enough to establish a trend, unless the proposed deficiency is that glaring. But I am not a race for the stalemate line kind of player either.