Okay, had a chance to read Allen and Mike's remarks, and wanted to
take a second to discuss some of their revision ideas - lots of good
material here to work with, and I had a few thoughts of my own on some
of these same topics that I wanted to run by you all.
Note - This email is huge. For those not interested in reading the
whole thing, I have extracted the specific proposed changes paragraph
and sent in a separate email.
***Mike*** - Allen, I guess this opening for me revolved largely
around our trio w Italy. We had a great team, we had Serbia on the
ropes, and I had a killer stab of Bulgaria waiting to be taken.
---Ben--- ...Now this is interesting. I hadn't considered an IAR
triple to really be a viable option for Austria-Hungary (or, to a
lesser extent, Romania) over the long term. In this plan,
Austria-Hungary and Romania will likely face stiff resistance in a
pure southerly drive, and a Serb/Bulgarian alliance is very likely (I
thought) to spawn in response. Meanwhile, Italy capitalizes on having
a free hand to gobble up her internal open SCs (2-3 virtually
guaranteed) and focus undistracted on Greece. So Italy strikes me as
the big winner here, whereas Austria-Hungary is just waiting to get
stabbed by Italy and Romania in the mid-game phase. Greece is the
wild card though - if they open up an (ill-advised) second front
against Serbia or Bulgaria in this scenario, then Austrian or Romanian
growth could be significant.
In fact - I had expected that the single greatest impulse *for* an
Austrian-Serb alliance would be the Austrian fear of getting pinched
by I/R. After all, Italy can only go so far as a pure naval power -
then either an invasion of Austria or Greece seems necessary.
So maybe I was wrong on multiple assumptions. If IAR really was the
natural impulse for all three of you (Allen, Mike, Adam) then I should
not be surprised that the A/S alliance didn't last. More on how to
fix that farther down...
***Mike*** - From there it was pretty straight forward. It was Ross'
and my goal to try the unthinkable in this game and become naval
superpowers. Unheard of given our corner land powers...
---Ben--- More faulty assumptions on my part here it seems. 8 of the
9 territories on the Black Sea area coastline are SCs. Moreover, both
Romania and the Ottomans have 2 of their 3 home SCs on the coast in a
variant that does *not* allow chaos builds. So I expected that region
to be a naval hotspot.
It blew my mind to see Gregory pass on opening F Istanbul to the Black
Sea, given the diplomatic leverage with R and B that position allows,
the option for Sevastopol, and of course, the security of two of their
three home SCs. However, I suppose I really have made it too
difficult for the Ottomans to at least guarantee one SC - usually
Salonika. Army Ankara and F Izmir don't seal the deal as they should
be able to. Perhaps I overcompensated in strengthening the Bulgarian
position, which was disastrous in the first playtest. Thoughts on how
to improve this? My knee-jerk reaction is actually to change Ankara
to a fleet, but that just seems too strange to have the Ottomans start
with all three units as fleets. I suppose Istanbul could be the army
- and that has other advantages for the Ottomans as well. So I will
probably switch those two starting units, but even more is probably
needed.
***Mike*** - but I think we pulled it off pretty well by finally
breaking into the Aegean in this last couple turns. We set this goal
really early on, upon seeing our initial placements, and it was
refreshing to find a player excited to try less conventional
strategies - something often lacking in Dip games. We each trusted
each other right by our centers, and
this built a lot of trust.
---Ben--- Indeed - a B/R alliance that features heavy naval builds
strikes me as unusual. Mike and Ross have both also suggested it was
an unorthodox strategy. I will proceed with the assumption that most
B/R alliances will have a heavy focus on building armies and driving
west, with a token Romanian contribution to a primarily Bulgarian
naval fight against Greece and/or the Ottomans. Accordingly, I
haven't identified a need for revisions based on this particular
dynamic, though it was a very impressive alliance to watch in action,
especially as Mike deftly weaved his armies through the Serb/Bulgarian
border. There was an extraordinary amount of trust in that alliance.
***Mike*** - This map certainly has its choke points around the
Aegean, (separating BS from GI, with Turkey on the fulcrum) but this
dynamic surely exists in standard too, with, say, MAO dividing TI from
EG with F on the fulcrum. So altho it seemed hard to break out, I
don't know that it needs fixing so
much, for it's just as hard for a TI duo in standard to break out into
the northern half of the map against an EG team.
---Ben--- I see T/I as the one truly unorthodox alliance pair between
neighbours on the Standard map. Meaning that pursuing such an
alliance usually requires that the players bypass the best
opportunities for their own growth to pursue other goals, i.e. setting
up long convoys or other shenanigans just for fun. For those
international relations scholars in the crowd - they do not behave as
rational actors in the realist sense  .
But I digress - in Balkans1860, open water is not intended to be where
the majority of naval action takes place. There really isn't an
analogy on this map to critical sea zones in standard like North Sea
or MAO. (Maybe Gulf of Taranto, but that's about it, and even that's
a stretch). The naval action largely consists of coastal fights,
which must often be accompanied by support from inland armies to
advance. True, the Aegean region can bog down, but I think that is
more so due to the Greek tendency to heavily emphasize naval growth
than the actual borders. This is where Nigel got into trouble I think
- 1-2 too many fleets in his build mix (or at least sent the wrong
way), and when they reached northern Italy, their usefulness ran out.
That's questionable though, because it did take a lot to crack Italian
defenses.
Anyway, this *is* very different from Standard, where blue water
fights - especially around MAO - can very much determine the outcome
of the game. I don't expect too many games of Balkans1860 to follow
that path. Much more likely in this variant that fleets will be an
auxiliary force for advancing along the coastlines and breaking
support lines on land. The path to a solo victory lies in the heart
of the Balkans. I would be genuinely surprised to see someone solo in
this map without driving into the heart, all the coastal SCs
notwithstanding.
***Mike*** - Overall a very nice map. I think Dark Ages would have to
hold your "best creation" title, tho this comes in a close second.
Plenty of naval action, and the play around Greece and the Aegean is
great. I would definitely play it again. Good game all, and thanks
for GM'ing it Ben!
---Ben--- Thank you kindly for the praise, I'm sincerely glad you
enjoyed it, and do hope to see you take a seat by the Balkans1860 map
again. Good thoughts here, let's now talk about what Allen had to
say...
***Allen*** - Game over. First, thanks to B for doing another great
job as GM. Calm, cool, and collected is our B, large and in charge.
Seriously, he runs a fantastic game, generally on time, always
communicative, and very professional. Thanks bro.
---Ben--- ...you're quite welcome! It was truly my pleasure to run
it, had a great set of players for this one.
***Allen*** - The variant. This is my second time through. When B.
put out the notice for the second game and I volunteered, I told him
I'd take whatever noone else wanted. I was stunned to get
Austria-Hungary. Rumania and AH are to me the strongest 2 positions
in the first year.
---Ben--- ...that's what I thought! But it has been made clear to me
that the A/S dynamic needs work...
***Allen*** - They can negotiate a quick settlement between them and
both are grateful to do it (Kol is obviously Rumanian and sets up a
nice DMZ). Playing both sides of this, it's a no-brainer. AH then
negotiates a quick peace with Italy and both sit at stare at each
other (Ven and Tri).
---Ben--- ...gotta disagree here. Austria is heavily favored in that
uneasy balance by the ability to build in Trieste, whereas Italy (by
design, to increase tension) does *not* have the ability to build on
the Adriatic coast. Plus, the quick move of F Tri - GoV threatens
Venezia, Ancona, and convoys along the Italian coast with Serbia. In
fact, I consider this dynamic to be the primary check against Italy's
otherwise rampant growth prospects. As Italy, I would not agree to
anything less than a complete DMZ of the region, to include Austria's
pledge not to build in Trieste without prior Italian approval.
***Allen*** - Year 1 is over and both have solidified their flanks and
looking downhill (south). AND, to add things up, both powers have
southern neighbors that need to come to them with some settlement or
get pinched between them.
---Ben--- True. And here lies the biggest challenge I hope to
overcome in the next round of revisions. For this map to be balanced,
I *must* make an A/S alliance at least roughly as appealing to Austria
as a southerly drive through Serbia is. The latter option seems
virtually guaranteed on the current map. I like some of Allen's
suggestions, so we can go down the list of his ideas and my own
below...
***Allen*** - This is an advantage in negotiations. In this case,
Rumania is in a more solid position, Ottoman(enemies on 2 sides) is
safer than Greece(enemies on 3 sides), so Rumania can work with either
Bulgaria or Ottoman, whichever seems better.
---Ben--- ...glad to hear this. I personally think the BRO triangle
is mostly balanced, though I am considering some improvement to the
Ottoman position (while trying to give them equal incentive to attack
Bulgaria or Greece...aaaargh)
***Allen*** - So some suggestions...increase the tension between AH
and Rumania. Maybe take out the SC in Kol and add 2, one in Tis and
one in Tem. I still like Sev as a home center for Rumania, I think
that was suggested last time. Rumania starts with F Sev, A Ias, A
Con. Agm is a little too far-reaching, what if it doesn't touch Nov?
I like the tension between Italy and AH as it is, I think a strong
Italy and AH could either negotiate a solid alliance or be at each
other's throats. That seemed to play well. AH has a natural
inclination to move south, it's too hard for Serbia and AH to come to
a reasonable accord. Serbia naturally distrusts AH, if you play this
game long enough you realize that in general, those downhill on the
map distrust those uphill. For some reason, AH and Serbia seem to
have more tension between them than R-B.
---Ben--- Allen makes some valid points about the A/S relationship and
the uphill/downhill map dynamic in general...thoughts on the changes
proposed so far below. First, the ones I *don't* want to do.
x - Rumania gains Sev as a home SC. While this would help, I can't
swallow the historical inaccuracy of it. I already go too far
negating the influence of Russia and France in this scenario, I cannot
give the primary Russian port on the Black Sea to Rumania outright.
x - Add SC Temesvar. I feel that this would increase Austria/Serbia
tension, not decrease it.
Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done in
conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
to the next idea...
2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
nonetheless be necessary)...
! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
(completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
(perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
Skopje?)
!! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be made
Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
(it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
territory gained in the Caucasus.
What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at all yet.
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) FuzzyLogic Jun 07, 10:25 am |
Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
I dont see this problem you're trying to fix regarding AS alliances.
I feared the AS in this game. For the first couple weeks of game-time, I really did nothing but cower and tremble in the corner, hoping to not see an AS come at me, as I took a gamble early on building a couple fleets.
I don't think a single game is enough to draw any proof that changes need be made. Get three games of history, then look at a rev. If you change it every time, you'll interrupt the natural progression of the players to adapt their strategy to deal w what we learned from the last playing. Standard has played out so many times, and each time I learn new things about it, so I wouldn't say "Austria cooperated w Italy two games in a row, so that means we need to make A/I war more certain." It really could just be that A/I happened to get along or share common ideas or it just worked out that way.
Anyways I wouldn't pin too much of what happened in this game purely on the map. As you see we all have our own stories, and interaction as much as the map determines what happens. So I'd suggest no changes as of just this game. It's a good variant, see how it plays out when you get a few games and can look at a more statistical distribution of results.
In this game, sure, AS didn't work together. But that doesn't mean it's cuz of the map. If I were Austria, I would have considered an AS a viable option, and I would probly have looked toward Romania or Italy as preferred targets. You could look at AS in this game like AT in standard. Here Serbia blocks Austria in, and Austria either has to work hard to operate around the fringes, or he eventually has to barrel thru S. Likewise in Standard. TA's don't often work out, cuz Turkey eventually has to break out of the corner, and dinking around the edges gets old. But that doesn't mean AT (or AS in Balkans) is unworkable.
-mike
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 6/4/2010 3:52 PM
To: Michael Sims
Subject: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
Okay, had a chance to read Allen and Mike's remarks, and wanted to
take a second to discuss some of their revision ideas - lots of good
material here to work with, and I had a few thoughts of my own on some
of these same topics that I wanted to run by you all.
Note - This email is huge. For those not interested in reading the
whole thing, I have extracted the specific proposed changes paragraph
and sent in a separate email.
***Mike*** - Allen, I guess this opening for me revolved largely
around our trio w Italy. We had a great team, we had Serbia on the
ropes, and I had a killer stab of Bulgaria waiting to be taken.
---Ben--- ...Now this is interesting. I hadn't considered an IAR
triple to really be a viable option for Austria-Hungary (or, to a
lesser extent, Romania) over the long term. In this plan,
Austria-Hungary and Romania will likely face stiff resistance in a
pure southerly drive, and a Serb/Bulgarian alliance is very likely (I
thought) to spawn in response. Meanwhile, Italy capitalizes on having
a free hand to gobble up her internal open SCs (2-3 virtually
guaranteed) and focus undistracted on Greece. So Italy strikes me as
the big winner here, whereas Austria-Hungary is just waiting to get
stabbed by Italy and Romania in the mid-game phase. Greece is the
wild card though - if they open up an (ill-advised) second front
against Serbia or Bulgaria in this scenario, then Austrian or Romanian
growth could be significant.
In fact - I had expected that the single greatest impulse *for* an
Austrian-Serb alliance would be the Austrian fear of getting pinched
by I/R. After all, Italy can only go so far as a pure naval power -
then either an invasion of Austria or Greece seems necessary.
So maybe I was wrong on multiple assumptions. If IAR really was the
natural impulse for all three of you (Allen, Mike, Adam) then I should
not be surprised that the A/S alliance didn't last. More on how to
fix that farther down...
***Mike*** - From there it was pretty straight forward. It was Ross'
and my goal to try the unthinkable in this game and become naval
superpowers. Unheard of given our corner land powers...
---Ben--- More faulty assumptions on my part here it seems. 8 of the
9 territories on the Black Sea area coastline are SCs. Moreover, both
Romania and the Ottomans have 2 of their 3 home SCs on the coast in a
variant that does *not* allow chaos builds. So I expected that region
to be a naval hotspot.
It blew my mind to see Gregory pass on opening F Istanbul to the Black
Sea, given the diplomatic leverage with R and B that position allows,
the option for Sevastopol, and of course, the security of two of their
three home SCs. However, I suppose I really have made it too
difficult for the Ottomans to at least guarantee one SC - usually
Salonika. Army Ankara and F Izmir don't seal the deal as they should
be able to. Perhaps I overcompensated in strengthening the Bulgarian
position, which was disastrous in the first playtest. Thoughts on how
to improve this? My knee-jerk reaction is actually to change Ankara
to a fleet, but that just seems too strange to have the Ottomans start
with all three units as fleets. I suppose Istanbul could be the army
- and that has other advantages for the Ottomans as well. So I will
probably switch those two starting units, but even more is probably
needed.
***Mike*** - but I think we pulled it off pretty well by finally
breaking into the Aegean in this last couple turns. We set this goal
really early on, upon seeing our initial placements, and it was
refreshing to find a player excited to try less conventional
strategies - something often lacking in Dip games. We each trusted
each other right by our centers, and
this built a lot of trust.
---Ben--- Indeed - a B/R alliance that features heavy naval builds
strikes me as unusual. Mike and Ross have both also suggested it was
an unorthodox strategy. I will proceed with the assumption that most
B/R alliances will have a heavy focus on building armies and driving
west, with a token Romanian contribution to a primarily Bulgarian
naval fight against Greece and/or the Ottomans. Accordingly, I
haven't identified a need for revisions based on this particular
dynamic, though it was a very impressive alliance to watch in action,
especially as Mike deftly weaved his armies through the Serb/Bulgarian
border. There was an extraordinary amount of trust in that alliance.
***Mike*** - This map certainly has its choke points around the
Aegean, (separating BS from GI, with Turkey on the fulcrum) but this
dynamic surely exists in standard too, with, say, MAO dividing TI from
EG with F on the fulcrum. So altho it seemed hard to break out, I
don't know that it needs fixing so
much, for it's just as hard for a TI duo in standard to break out into
the northern half of the map against an EG team.
---Ben--- I see T/I as the one truly unorthodox alliance pair between
neighbours on the Standard map. Meaning that pursuing such an
alliance usually requires that the players bypass the best
opportunities for their own growth to pursue other goals, i.e. setting
up long convoys or other shenanigans just for fun. For those
international relations scholars in the crowd - they do not behave as
rational actors in the realist sense .
But I digress - in Balkans1860, open water is not intended to be where
the majority of naval action takes place. There really isn't an
analogy on this map to critical sea zones in standard like North Sea
or MAO. (Maybe Gulf of Taranto, but that's about it, and even that's
a stretch). The naval action largely consists of coastal fights,
which must often be accompanied by support from inland armies to
advance. True, the Aegean region can bog down, but I think that is
more so due to the Greek tendency to heavily emphasize naval growth
than the actual borders. This is where Nigel got into trouble I think
- 1-2 too many fleets in his build mix (or at least sent the wrong
way), and when they reached northern Italy, their usefulness ran out.
That's questionable though, because it did take a lot to crack Italian
defenses.
Anyway, this *is* very different from Standard, where blue water
fights - especially around MAO - can very much determine the outcome
of the game. I don't expect too many games of Balkans1860 to follow
that path. Much more likely in this variant that fleets will be an
auxiliary force for advancing along the coastlines and breaking
support lines on land. The path to a solo victory lies in the heart
of the Balkans. I would be genuinely surprised to see someone solo in
this map without driving into the heart, all the coastal SCs
notwithstanding.
***Mike*** - Overall a very nice map. I think Dark Ages would have to
hold your "best creation" title, tho this comes in a close second.
Plenty of naval action, and the play around Greece and the Aegean is
great. I would definitely play it again. Good game all, and thanks
for GM'ing it Ben!
---Ben--- Thank you kindly for the praise, I'm sincerely glad you
enjoyed it, and do hope to see you take a seat by the Balkans1860 map
again. Good thoughts here, let's now talk about what Allen had to
say...
***Allen*** - Game over. First, thanks to B for doing another great
job as GM. Calm, cool, and collected is our B, large and in charge.
Seriously, he runs a fantastic game, generally on time, always
communicative, and very professional. Thanks bro.
---Ben--- ...you're quite welcome! It was truly my pleasure to run
it, had a great set of players for this one.
***Allen*** - The variant. This is my second time through. When B.
put out the notice for the second game and I volunteered, I told him
I'd take whatever noone else wanted. I was stunned to get
Austria-Hungary. Rumania and AH are to me the strongest 2 positions
in the first year.
---Ben--- ...that's what I thought! But it has been made clear to me
that the A/S dynamic needs work...
***Allen*** - They can negotiate a quick settlement between them and
both are grateful to do it (Kol is obviously Rumanian and sets up a
nice DMZ). Playing both sides of this, it's a no-brainer. AH then
negotiates a quick peace with Italy and both sit at stare at each
other (Ven and Tri).
---Ben--- ...gotta disagree here. Austria is heavily favored in that
uneasy balance by the ability to build in Trieste, whereas Italy (by
design, to increase tension) does *not* have the ability to build on
the Adriatic coast. Plus, the quick move of F Tri - GoV threatens
Venezia, Ancona, and convoys along the Italian coast with Serbia. In
fact, I consider this dynamic to be the primary check against Italy's
otherwise rampant growth prospects. As Italy, I would not agree to
anything less than a complete DMZ of the region, to include Austria's
pledge not to build in Trieste without prior Italian approval.
***Allen*** - Year 1 is over and both have solidified their flanks and
looking downhill (south). AND, to add things up, both powers have
southern neighbors that need to come to them with some settlement or
get pinched between them.
---Ben--- True. And here lies the biggest challenge I hope to
overcome in the next round of revisions. For this map to be balanced,
I *must* make an A/S alliance at least roughly as appealing to Austria
as a southerly drive through Serbia is. The latter option seems
virtually guaranteed on the current map. I like some of Allen's
suggestions, so we can go down the list of his ideas and my own
below...
***Allen*** - This is an advantage in negotiations. In this case,
Rumania is in a more solid position, Ottoman(enemies on 2 sides) is
safer than Greece(enemies on 3 sides), so Rumania can work with either
Bulgaria or Ottoman, whichever seems better.
---Ben--- ...glad to hear this. I personally think the BRO triangle
is mostly balanced, though I am considering some improvement to the
Ottoman position (while trying to give them equal incentive to attack
Bulgaria or Greece...aaaargh)
***Allen*** - So some suggestions...increase the tension between AH
and Rumania. Maybe take out the SC in Kol and add 2, one in Tis and
one in Tem. I still like Sev as a home center for Rumania, I think
that was suggested last time. Rumania starts with F Sev, A Ias, A
Con. Agm is a little too far-reaching, what if it doesn't touch Nov?
I like the tension between Italy and AH as it is, I think a strong
Italy and AH could either negotiate a solid alliance or be at each
other's throats. That seemed to play well. AH has a natural
inclination to move south, it's too hard for Serbia and AH to come to
a reasonable accord. Serbia naturally distrusts AH, if you play this
game long enough you realize that in general, those downhill on the
map distrust those uphill. For some reason, AH and Serbia seem to
have more tension between them than R-B.
---Ben--- Allen makes some valid points about the A/S relationship and
the uphill/downhill map dynamic in general...thoughts on the changes
proposed so far below. First, the ones I *don't* want to do.
x - Rumania gains Sev as a home SC. While this would help, I can't
swallow the historical inaccuracy of it. I already go too far
negating the influence of Russia and France in this scenario, I cannot
give the primary Russian port on the Black Sea to Rumania outright.
x - Add SC Temesvar. I feel that this would increase Austria/Serbia
tension, not decrease it.
Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done in
conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
to the next idea...
2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
nonetheless be necessary)...
! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
(completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
(perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
Skopje?)
!! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be made
Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
(it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
territory gained in the Caucasus.
What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at all yet.
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) Kenshi777 Jun 07, 03:37 pm |
Hi Mike - while in principle I agree (I actually like A/T in Standard,
think it's underutilized as part of the true Central Powers alliance
(G/A/T) - in this case I think the comparison is forced for two
reasons:
1 - In Standard, Turkey can pass peaceably south of Austria
indefinitely (and rapidly). A stable border where Austria has Rum-Ser
vs. Bul-Gre is easily obtained, and later on the entire region can be
DMZed. This works especially well when G/A engage and defeat Russia
early, perhaps with English or light Turkish help.
Austria-Hungary in Balkans1860 has no such clear route. An argument
can be made that a full on invasion of Italy works - much as A/T in
Standard can attack Italy with great effect. But in Standard Italy
can be easily divided between A/T, in Balkans 1860 not so much - and
Serbia is definitely leaving vulnerabilities open to focus much aside
from their fleet on Italian spoils. It *is* possible for A/S to
engage Italy, and then Romania in turn (or vice versa) but I do think
(and two playtests have shown now) that it is a very unnatural
alliance.
2 - Relative concerns. A/S *is* possible, but it is not at all
Austria's easiest path to a solo - not really comparable to a southern
attack at all in terms of rapid spoils. (though it is worth nothing
that Austrians that do attack Serbia often find themselves pinched
between the Serbian remnant plus Italy and/or Rumania later, so
perhaps that is a consideration Austrians should take into greater
consideration. It's not a dynamic that is readily apparent on the
map.
For this reason, I am inclined to make some revisions there. Do you
have any thoughts on the specific changes I proposed - are they all
bad? Or do you just think any revisions are premature?
B.
On 6/7/10, Michael Sims wrote:
I dont see this problem you're trying to fix regarding AS alliances.
I feared the AS in this game. For the first couple weeks of game-time, I
really did nothing but cower and tremble in the corner, hoping to not see an
AS come at me, as I took a gamble early on building a couple fleets.
I don't think a single game is enough to draw any proof that changes need be
made. Get three games of history, then look at a rev. If you change it
every time, you'll interrupt the natural progression of the players to adapt
their strategy to deal w what we learned from the last playing. Standard
has played out so many times, and each time I learn new things about it, so
I wouldn't say "Austria cooperated w Italy two games in a row, so that means
we need to make A/I war more certain." It really could just be that A/I
happened to get along or share common ideas or it just worked out that way.
Anyways I wouldn't pin too much of what happened in this game purely on the
map. As you see we all have our own stories, and interaction as much as the
map determines what happens. So I'd suggest no changes as of just this
game. It's a good variant, see how it plays out when you get a few games
and can look at a more statistical distribution of results.
In this game, sure, AS didn't work together. But that doesn't mean it's cuz
of the map. If I were Austria, I would have considered an AS a viable
option, and I would probly have looked toward Romania or Italy as preferred
targets. You could look at AS in this game like AT in standard. Here
Serbia blocks Austria in, and Austria either has to work hard to operate
around the fringes, or he eventually has to barrel thru S. Likewise in
Standard. TA's don't often work out, cuz Turkey eventually has to break out
of the corner, and dinking around the edges gets old. But that doesn't mean
AT (or AS in Balkans) is unworkable.
-mike
________________________________
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 6/4/2010 3:52 PM
To: Michael Sims
Subject: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
Okay, had a chance to read Allen and Mike's remarks, and wanted to
take a second to discuss some of their revision ideas - lots of good
material here to work with, and I had a few thoughts of my own on some
of these same topics that I wanted to run by you all.
Note - This email is huge. For those not interested in reading the
whole thing, I have extracted the specific proposed changes paragraph
and sent in a separate email.
***Mike*** - Allen, I guess this opening for me revolved largely
around our trio w Italy. We had a great team, we had Serbia on the
ropes, and I had a killer stab of Bulgaria waiting to be taken.
---Ben--- ...Now this is interesting. I hadn't considered an IAR
triple to really be a viable option for Austria-Hungary (or, to a
lesser extent, Romania) over the long term. In this plan,
Austria-Hungary and Romania will likely face stiff resistance in a
pure southerly drive, and a Serb/Bulgarian alliance is very likely (I
thought) to spawn in response. Meanwhile, Italy capitalizes on having
a free hand to gobble up her internal open SCs (2-3 virtually
guaranteed) and focus undistracted on Greece. So Italy strikes me as
the big winner here, whereas Austria-Hungary is just waiting to get
stabbed by Italy and Romania in the mid-game phase. Greece is the
wild card though - if they open up an (ill-advised) second front
against Serbia or Bulgaria in this scenario, then Austrian or Romanian
growth could be significant.
In fact - I had expected that the single greatest impulse *for* an
Austrian-Serb alliance would be the Austrian fear of getting pinched
by I/R. After all, Italy can only go so far as a pure naval power -
then either an invasion of Austria or Greece seems necessary.
So maybe I was wrong on multiple assumptions. If IAR really was the
natural impulse for all three of you (Allen, Mike, Adam) then I should
not be surprised that the A/S alliance didn't last. More on how to
fix that farther down...
***Mike*** - From there it was pretty straight forward. It was Ross'
and my goal to try the unthinkable in this game and become naval
superpowers. Unheard of given our corner land powers...
---Ben--- More faulty assumptions on my part here it seems. 8 of the
9 territories on the Black Sea area coastline are SCs. Moreover, both
Romania and the Ottomans have 2 of their 3 home SCs on the coast in a
variant that does *not* allow chaos builds. So I expected that region
to be a naval hotspot.
It blew my mind to see Gregory pass on opening F Istanbul to the Black
Sea, given the diplomatic leverage with R and B that position allows,
the option for Sevastopol, and of course, the security of two of their
three home SCs. However, I suppose I really have made it too
difficult for the Ottomans to at least guarantee one SC - usually
Salonika. Army Ankara and F Izmir don't seal the deal as they should
be able to. Perhaps I overcompensated in strengthening the Bulgarian
position, which was disastrous in the first playtest. Thoughts on how
to improve this? My knee-jerk reaction is actually to change Ankara
to a fleet, but that just seems too strange to have the Ottomans start
with all three units as fleets. I suppose Istanbul could be the army
- and that has other advantages for the Ottomans as well. So I will
probably switch those two starting units, but even more is probably
needed.
***Mike*** - but I think we pulled it off pretty well by finally
breaking into the Aegean in this last couple turns. We set this goal
really early on, upon seeing our initial placements, and it was
refreshing to find a player excited to try less conventional
strategies - something often lacking in Dip games. We each trusted
each other right by our centers, and
this built a lot of trust.
---Ben--- Indeed - a B/R alliance that features heavy naval builds
strikes me as unusual. Mike and Ross have both also suggested it was
an unorthodox strategy. I will proceed with the assumption that most
B/R alliances will have a heavy focus on building armies and driving
west, with a token Romanian contribution to a primarily Bulgarian
naval fight against Greece and/or the Ottomans. Accordingly, I
haven't identified a need for revisions based on this particular
dynamic, though it was a very impressive alliance to watch in action,
especially as Mike deftly weaved his armies through the Serb/Bulgarian
border. There was an extraordinary amount of trust in that alliance.
***Mike*** - This map certainly has its choke points around the
Aegean, (separating BS from GI, with Turkey on the fulcrum) but this
dynamic surely exists in standard too, with, say, MAO dividing TI from
EG with F on the fulcrum. So altho it seemed hard to break out, I
don't know that it needs fixing so
much, for it's just as hard for a TI duo in standard to break out into
the northern half of the map against an EG team.
---Ben--- I see T/I as the one truly unorthodox alliance pair between
neighbours on the Standard map. Meaning that pursuing such an
alliance usually requires that the players bypass the best
opportunities for their own growth to pursue other goals, i.e. setting
up long convoys or other shenanigans just for fun. For those
international relations scholars in the crowd - they do not behave as
rational actors in the realist sense .
But I digress - in Balkans1860, open water is not intended to be where
the majority of naval action takes place. There really isn't an
analogy on this map to critical sea zones in standard like North Sea
or MAO. (Maybe Gulf of Taranto, but that's about it, and even that's
a stretch). The naval action largely consists of coastal fights,
which must often be accompanied by support from inland armies to
advance. True, the Aegean region can bog down, but I think that is
more so due to the Greek tendency to heavily emphasize naval growth
than the actual borders. This is where Nigel got into trouble I think
- 1-2 too many fleets in his build mix (or at least sent the wrong
way), and when they reached northern Italy, their usefulness ran out.
That's questionable though, because it did take a lot to crack Italian
defenses.
Anyway, this *is* very different from Standard, where blue water
fights - especially around MAO - can very much determine the outcome
of the game. I don't expect too many games of Balkans1860 to follow
that path. Much more likely in this variant that fleets will be an
auxiliary force for advancing along the coastlines and breaking
support lines on land. The path to a solo victory lies in the heart
of the Balkans. I would be genuinely surprised to see someone solo in
this map without driving into the heart, all the coastal SCs
notwithstanding.
***Mike*** - Overall a very nice map. I think Dark Ages would have to
hold your "best creation" title, tho this comes in a close second.
Plenty of naval action, and the play around Greece and the Aegean is
great. I would definitely play it again. Good game all, and thanks
for GM'ing it Ben!
---Ben--- Thank you kindly for the praise, I'm sincerely glad you
enjoyed it, and do hope to see you take a seat by the Balkans1860 map
again. Good thoughts here, let's now talk about what Allen had to
say...
***Allen*** - Game over. First, thanks to B for doing another great
job as GM. Calm, cool, and collected is our B, large and in charge.
Seriously, he runs a fantastic game, generally on time, always
communicative, and very professional. Thanks bro.
---Ben--- ...you're quite welcome! It was truly my pleasure to run
it, had a great set of players for this one.
***Allen*** - The variant. This is my second time through. When B.
put out the notice for the second game and I volunteered, I told him
I'd take whatever noone else wanted. I was stunned to get
Austria-Hungary. Rumania and AH are to me the strongest 2 positions
in the first year.
---Ben--- ...that's what I thought! But it has been made clear to me
that the A/S dynamic needs work...
***Allen*** - They can negotiate a quick settlement between them and
both are grateful to do it (Kol is obviously Rumanian and sets up a
nice DMZ). Playing both sides of this, it's a no-brainer. AH then
negotiates a quick peace with Italy and both sit at stare at each
other (Ven and Tri).
---Ben--- ...gotta disagree here. Austria is heavily favored in that
uneasy balance by the ability to build in Trieste, whereas Italy (by
design, to increase tension) does *not* have the ability to build on
the Adriatic coast. Plus, the quick move of F Tri - GoV threatens
Venezia, Ancona, and convoys along the Italian coast with Serbia. In
fact, I consider this dynamic to be the primary check against Italy's
otherwise rampant growth prospects. As Italy, I would not agree to
anything less than a complete DMZ of the region, to include Austria's
pledge not to build in Trieste without prior Italian approval.
***Allen*** - Year 1 is over and both have solidified their flanks and
looking downhill (south). AND, to add things up, both powers have
southern neighbors that need to come to them with some settlement or
get pinched between them.
---Ben--- True. And here lies the biggest challenge I hope to
overcome in the next round of revisions. For this map to be balanced,
I *must* make an A/S alliance at least roughly as appealing to Austria
as a southerly drive through Serbia is. The latter option seems
virtually guaranteed on the current map. I like some of Allen's
suggestions, so we can go down the list of his ideas and my own
below...
***Allen*** - This is an advantage in negotiations. In this case,
Rumania is in a more solid position, Ottoman(enemies on 2 sides) is
safer than Greece(enemies on 3 sides), so Rumania can work with either
Bulgaria or Ottoman, whichever seems better.
---Ben--- ...glad to hear this. I personally think the BRO triangle
is mostly balanced, though I am considering some improvement to the
Ottoman position (while trying to give them equal incentive to attack
Bulgaria or Greece...aaaargh)
***Allen*** - So some suggestions...increase the tension between AH
and Rumania. Maybe take out the SC in Kol and add 2, one in Tis and
one in Tem. I still like Sev as a home center for Rumania, I think
that was suggested last time. Rumania starts with F Sev, A Ias, A
Con. Agm is a little too far-reaching, what if it doesn't touch Nov?
I like the tension between Italy and AH as it is, I think a strong
Italy and AH could either negotiate a solid alliance or be at each
other's throats. That seemed to play well. AH has a natural
inclination to move south, it's too hard for Serbia and AH to come to
a reasonable accord. Serbia naturally distrusts AH, if you play this
game long enough you realize that in general, those downhill on the
map distrust those uphill. For some reason, AH and Serbia seem to
have more tension between them than R-B.
---Ben--- Allen makes some valid points about the A/S relationship and
the uphill/downhill map dynamic in general...thoughts on the changes
proposed so far below. First, the ones I *don't* want to do.
x - Rumania gains Sev as a home SC. While this would help, I can't
swallow the historical inaccuracy of it. I already go too far
negating the influence of Russia and France in this scenario, I cannot
give the primary Russian port on the Black Sea to Rumania outright.
x - Add SC Temesvar. I feel that this would increase Austria/Serbia
tension, not decrease it.
Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done in
conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
to the next idea...
2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
nonetheless be necessary)...
! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
(completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
(perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
Skopje?)
!! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be made
Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
(it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
territory gained in the Caucasus.
What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at all
yet.
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) FuzzyLogic Jun 08, 08:28 am |
Re: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
"Do you have any thoughts on the specific changes I proposed - are they all bad? Or do you just think any revisions are premature?"
Ultimately these are your decisions. It's your variant. As the map is now, it does play well. It would probly play well after some of the changes too. It would just be different. I dunno if that's better, I'd have to play it. You've definitely got a good start, and I'm pretty happy w how the play went from the Romanian pov.
If anything stood out as blaringly problematic, I'd mention it. I think mid-game, I mentioned the difficulty Ross and I had in invading Ottoman. But in hindsight, that was appropriate. For even in Standard, if AR try to invade T, but Italy is propping him up, AR are going to have an insanely difficult time w that. Same thing here, it took BR forever to break down Ottoman cuz Greece, the needed 3rd angle, was working to prop him up. So really it wasnt a map flaw, rather an annoying Nigel. So really what we need to be looking at here is not how to fix the map but how to fix Nigs.
-mike
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 6/7/2010 3:37 PM
To: Michael Sims
Cc: Nigel PHILLIPS; dc288; Garry Bledsoe; rodtheworm(at)hotmail.com; alevy(at)arubanetworks.com; allen.york(at)cchmc.org; gregory nomads; brn2dip(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net
Subject: Re: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
Hi Mike - while in principle I agree (I actually like A/T in Standard,
think it's underutilized as part of the true Central Powers alliance
(G/A/T) - in this case I think the comparison is forced for two
reasons:
1 - In Standard, Turkey can pass peaceably south of Austria
indefinitely (and rapidly). A stable border where Austria has Rum-Ser
vs. Bul-Gre is easily obtained, and later on the entire region can be
DMZed. This works especially well when G/A engage and defeat Russia
early, perhaps with English or light Turkish help.
Austria-Hungary in Balkans1860 has no such clear route. An argument
can be made that a full on invasion of Italy works - much as A/T in
Standard can attack Italy with great effect. But in Standard Italy
can be easily divided between A/T, in Balkans 1860 not so much - and
Serbia is definitely leaving vulnerabilities open to focus much aside
from their fleet on Italian spoils. It *is* possible for A/S to
engage Italy, and then Romania in turn (or vice versa) but I do think
(and two playtests have shown now) that it is a very unnatural
alliance.
2 - Relative concerns. A/S *is* possible, but it is not at all
Austria's easiest path to a solo - not really comparable to a southern
attack at all in terms of rapid spoils. (though it is worth nothing
that Austrians that do attack Serbia often find themselves pinched
between the Serbian remnant plus Italy and/or Rumania later, so
perhaps that is a consideration Austrians should take into greater
consideration. It's not a dynamic that is readily apparent on the
map.
For this reason, I am inclined to make some revisions there. Do you
have any thoughts on the specific changes I proposed - are they all
bad? Or do you just think any revisions are premature?
B.
On 6/7/10, Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net> wrote:
> I dont see this problem you're trying to fix regarding AS alliances.
>
> I feared the AS in this game. For the first couple weeks of game-time, I
> really did nothing but cower and tremble in the corner, hoping to not see an
> AS come at me, as I took a gamble early on building a couple fleets.
>
> I don't think a single game is enough to draw any proof that changes need be
> made. Get three games of history, then look at a rev. If you change it
> every time, you'll interrupt the natural progression of the players to adapt
> their strategy to deal w what we learned from the last playing. Standard
> has played out so many times, and each time I learn new things about it, so
> I wouldn't say "Austria cooperated w Italy two games in a row, so that means
> we need to make A/I war more certain." It really could just be that A/I
> happened to get along or share common ideas or it just worked out that way.
>
> Anyways I wouldn't pin too much of what happened in this game purely on the
> map. As you see we all have our own stories, and interaction as much as the
> map determines what happens. So I'd suggest no changes as of just this
> game. It's a good variant, see how it plays out when you get a few games
> and can look at a more statistical distribution of results.
>
> In this game, sure, AS didn't work together. But that doesn't mean it's cuz
> of the map. If I were Austria, I would have considered an AS a viable
> option, and I would probly have looked toward Romania or Italy as preferred
> targets. You could look at AS in this game like AT in standard. Here
> Serbia blocks Austria in, and Austria either has to work hard to operate
> around the fringes, or he eventually has to barrel thru S. Likewise in
> Standard. TA's don't often work out, cuz Turkey eventually has to break out
> of the corner, and dinking around the edges gets old. But that doesn't mean
> AT (or AS in Balkans) is unworkable.
>
> -mike
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 6/4/2010 3:52 PM
> To: Michael Sims
> Subject: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
>
>
>
> Okay, had a chance to read Allen and Mike's remarks, and wanted to
> take a second to discuss some of their revision ideas - lots of good
> material here to work with, and I had a few thoughts of my own on some
> of these same topics that I wanted to run by you all.
>
>
> Note - This email is huge. For those not interested in reading the
> whole thing, I have extracted the specific proposed changes paragraph
> and sent in a separate email.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - Allen, I guess this opening for me revolved largely
> around our trio w Italy. We had a great team, we had Serbia on the
> ropes, and I had a killer stab of Bulgaria waiting to be taken.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...Now this is interesting. I hadn't considered an IAR
> triple to really be a viable option for Austria-Hungary (or, to a
> lesser extent, Romania) over the long term. In this plan,
> Austria-Hungary and Romania will likely face stiff resistance in a
> pure southerly drive, and a Serb/Bulgarian alliance is very likely (I
> thought) to spawn in response. Meanwhile, Italy capitalizes on having
> a free hand to gobble up her internal open SCs (2-3 virtually
> guaranteed) and focus undistracted on Greece. So Italy strikes me as
> the big winner here, whereas Austria-Hungary is just waiting to get
> stabbed by Italy and Romania in the mid-game phase. Greece is the
> wild card though - if they open up an (ill-advised) second front
> against Serbia or Bulgaria in this scenario, then Austrian or Romanian
> growth could be significant.
>
>
> In fact - I had expected that the single greatest impulse *for* an
> Austrian-Serb alliance would be the Austrian fear of getting pinched
> by I/R. After all, Italy can only go so far as a pure naval power -
> then either an invasion of Austria or Greece seems necessary.
>
>
> So maybe I was wrong on multiple assumptions. If IAR really was the
> natural impulse for all three of you (Allen, Mike, Adam) then I should
> not be surprised that the A/S alliance didn't last. More on how to
> fix that farther down...
>
>
> ***Mike*** - From there it was pretty straight forward. It was Ross'
> and my goal to try the unthinkable in this game and become naval
> superpowers. Unheard of given our corner land powers...
>
>
> ---Ben--- More faulty assumptions on my part here it seems. 8 of the
> 9 territories on the Black Sea area coastline are SCs. Moreover, both
> Romania and the Ottomans have 2 of their 3 home SCs on the coast in a
> variant that does *not* allow chaos builds. So I expected that region
> to be a naval hotspot.
>
> It blew my mind to see Gregory pass on opening F Istanbul to the Black
> Sea, given the diplomatic leverage with R and B that position allows,
> the option for Sevastopol, and of course, the security of two of their
> three home SCs. However, I suppose I really have made it too
> difficult for the Ottomans to at least guarantee one SC - usually
> Salonika. Army Ankara and F Izmir don't seal the deal as they should
> be able to. Perhaps I overcompensated in strengthening the Bulgarian
> position, which was disastrous in the first playtest. Thoughts on how
> to improve this? My knee-jerk reaction is actually to change Ankara
> to a fleet, but that just seems too strange to have the Ottomans start
> with all three units as fleets. I suppose Istanbul could be the army
> - and that has other advantages for the Ottomans as well. So I will
> probably switch those two starting units, but even more is probably
> needed.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - but I think we pulled it off pretty well by finally
> breaking into the Aegean in this last couple turns. We set this goal
> really early on, upon seeing our initial placements, and it was
> refreshing to find a player excited to try less conventional
> strategies - something often lacking in Dip games. We each trusted
> each other right by our centers, and
> this built a lot of trust.
>
>
> ---Ben--- Indeed - a B/R alliance that features heavy naval builds
> strikes me as unusual. Mike and Ross have both also suggested it was
> an unorthodox strategy. I will proceed with the assumption that most
> B/R alliances will have a heavy focus on building armies and driving
> west, with a token Romanian contribution to a primarily Bulgarian
> naval fight against Greece and/or the Ottomans. Accordingly, I
> haven't identified a need for revisions based on this particular
> dynamic, though it was a very impressive alliance to watch in action,
> especially as Mike deftly weaved his armies through the Serb/Bulgarian
> border. There was an extraordinary amount of trust in that alliance.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - This map certainly has its choke points around the
> Aegean, (separating BS from GI, with Turkey on the fulcrum) but this
> dynamic surely exists in standard too, with, say, MAO dividing TI from
> EG with F on the fulcrum. So altho it seemed hard to break out, I
> don't know that it needs fixing so
> much, for it's just as hard for a TI duo in standard to break out into
> the northern half of the map against an EG team.
>
>
> ---Ben--- I see T/I as the one truly unorthodox alliance pair between
> neighbours on the Standard map. Meaning that pursuing such an
> alliance usually requires that the players bypass the best
> opportunities for their own growth to pursue other goals, i.e. setting
> up long convoys or other shenanigans just for fun. For those
> international relations scholars in the crowd - they do not behave as
> rational actors in the realist sense .
>
>
> But I digress - in Balkans1860, open water is not intended to be where
> the majority of naval action takes place. There really isn't an
> analogy on this map to critical sea zones in standard like North Sea
> or MAO. (Maybe Gulf of Taranto, but that's about it, and even that's
> a stretch). The naval action largely consists of coastal fights,
> which must often be accompanied by support from inland armies to
> advance. True, the Aegean region can bog down, but I think that is
> more so due to the Greek tendency to heavily emphasize naval growth
> than the actual borders. This is where Nigel got into trouble I think
> - 1-2 too many fleets in his build mix (or at least sent the wrong
> way), and when they reached northern Italy, their usefulness ran out.
> That's questionable though, because it did take a lot to crack Italian
> defenses.
>
>
> Anyway, this *is* very different from Standard, where blue water
> fights - especially around MAO - can very much determine the outcome
> of the game. I don't expect too many games of Balkans1860 to follow
> that path. Much more likely in this variant that fleets will be an
> auxiliary force for advancing along the coastlines and breaking
> support lines on land. The path to a solo victory lies in the heart
> of the Balkans. I would be genuinely surprised to see someone solo in
> this map without driving into the heart, all the coastal SCs
> notwithstanding.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - Overall a very nice map. I think Dark Ages would have to
> hold your "best creation" title, tho this comes in a close second.
> Plenty of naval action, and the play around Greece and the Aegean is
> great. I would definitely play it again. Good game all, and thanks
> for GM'ing it Ben!
>
>
> ---Ben--- Thank you kindly for the praise, I'm sincerely glad you
> enjoyed it, and do hope to see you take a seat by the Balkans1860 map
> again. Good thoughts here, let's now talk about what Allen had to
> say...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - Game over. First, thanks to B for doing another great
> job as GM. Calm, cool, and collected is our B, large and in charge.
> Seriously, he runs a fantastic game, generally on time, always
> communicative, and very professional. Thanks bro.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...you're quite welcome! It was truly my pleasure to run
> it, had a great set of players for this one.
>
>
> ***Allen*** - The variant. This is my second time through. When B.
> put out the notice for the second game and I volunteered, I told him
> I'd take whatever noone else wanted. I was stunned to get
> Austria-Hungary. Rumania and AH are to me the strongest 2 positions
> in the first year.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...that's what I thought! But it has been made clear to me
> that the A/S dynamic needs work...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - They can negotiate a quick settlement between them and
> both are grateful to do it (Kol is obviously Rumanian and sets up a
> nice DMZ). Playing both sides of this, it's a no-brainer. AH then
> negotiates a quick peace with Italy and both sit at stare at each
> other (Ven and Tri).
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...gotta disagree here. Austria is heavily favored in that
> uneasy balance by the ability to build in Trieste, whereas Italy (by
> design, to increase tension) does *not* have the ability to build on
> the Adriatic coast. Plus, the quick move of F Tri - GoV threatens
> Venezia, Ancona, and convoys along the Italian coast with Serbia. In
> fact, I consider this dynamic to be the primary check against Italy's
> otherwise rampant growth prospects. As Italy, I would not agree to
> anything less than a complete DMZ of the region, to include Austria's
> pledge not to build in Trieste without prior Italian approval.
>
>
> ***Allen*** - Year 1 is over and both have solidified their flanks and
> looking downhill (south). AND, to add things up, both powers have
> southern neighbors that need to come to them with some settlement or
> get pinched between them.
>
>
> ---Ben--- True. And here lies the biggest challenge I hope to
> overcome in the next round of revisions. For this map to be balanced,
> I *must* make an A/S alliance at least roughly as appealing to Austria
> as a southerly drive through Serbia is. The latter option seems
> virtually guaranteed on the current map. I like some of Allen's
> suggestions, so we can go down the list of his ideas and my own
> below...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - This is an advantage in negotiations. In this case,
> Rumania is in a more solid position, Ottoman(enemies on 2 sides) is
> safer than Greece(enemies on 3 sides), so Rumania can work with either
> Bulgaria or Ottoman, whichever seems better.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...glad to hear this. I personally think the BRO triangle
> is mostly balanced, though I am considering some improvement to the
> Ottoman position (while trying to give them equal incentive to attack
> Bulgaria or Greece...aaaargh)
>
>
> ***Allen*** - So some suggestions...increase the tension between AH
> and Rumania. Maybe take out the SC in Kol and add 2, one in Tis and
> one in Tem. I still like Sev as a home center for Rumania, I think
> that was suggested last time. Rumania starts with F Sev, A Ias, A
> Con. Agm is a little too far-reaching, what if it doesn't touch Nov?
> I like the tension between Italy and AH as it is, I think a strong
> Italy and AH could either negotiate a solid alliance or be at each
> other's throats. That seemed to play well. AH has a natural
> inclination to move south, it's too hard for Serbia and AH to come to
> a reasonable accord. Serbia naturally distrusts AH, if you play this
> game long enough you realize that in general, those downhill on the
> map distrust those uphill. For some reason, AH and Serbia seem to
> have more tension between them than R-B.
>
> ---Ben--- Allen makes some valid points about the A/S relationship and
> the uphill/downhill map dynamic in general...thoughts on the changes
> proposed so far below. First, the ones I *don't* want to do.
>
> x - Rumania gains Sev as a home SC. While this would help, I can't
> swallow the historical inaccuracy of it. I already go too far
> negating the influence of Russia and France in this scenario, I cannot
> give the primary Russian port on the Black Sea to Rumania outright.
>
> x - Add SC Temesvar. I feel that this would increase Austria/Serbia
> tension, not decrease it.
>
> Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
>
> 1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done in
> conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
> Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
> for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
> incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
> F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
> need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
> to the next idea...
>
> 2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
> secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
> guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
> for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
>
> 3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
> Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
> Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
> this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
>
> 4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
> would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
> to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
> from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
>
> ...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
> nonetheless be necessary)...
>
> ! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
> understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
> clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
> Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
> (completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
> move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
> need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
> options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
> (perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
> Skopje?)
>
> !! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
> this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
> one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
> Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
> Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be made
> Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
> however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
> or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
>
> Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
> historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
> compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
> case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
> have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
> from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
> (it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
> territory gained in the Caucasus.
>
> What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
> by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
> Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
> of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
> Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
>
> Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
> Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
> then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
> also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
> Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
> Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
> Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
> still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
>
> Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
> to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
> have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
> until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
> joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
> I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
> here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
> down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
> Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
> Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
> attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
> very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at all
> yet.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Diplomacy in Texas!
> www.texasdiplomacy.com
>
> http://www.dipwiki.com <http://www.dipwiki.com/>
> Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
> American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
>
>
>
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) Kenshi777 Jun 08, 05:23 pm |
Ultimately these are your decisions. It's your variant.
***Well, yeah, but the point of the playtest is to solicit your
opinions As I'm learning in DC 322 (Dark Ages) you never really
see all the cracks in the design until you play yourself. Second best
is to listen closely to feedback from others who have played.***
As the map is now, it does play well. It would probly play well after
some of the changes too. It would just be different. I dunno if
that's better, I'd have to play it.
You've definitely got a good start, and I'm pretty happy w how the play went from the Romanian pov.
***It's arguably the strongest position on the map right now
If anything stood out as blaringly problematic, I'd mention it. I think
mid-game, I mentioned the difficulty Ross and I had in invading Ottoman.
But in hindsight, that was appropriate.
***Now this is interesting - you had me sold on the whole north
Anatolian coast argument. But I suppose you're right - when Turkey is
invaded by A/R, there are only three points of entry - Constantinople,
Ankara, and Armenia. Balkans has three (Istanbul, Ankara, and Bursa)
plus a questionable fourth option - forcing the Bosporus and Sea of
Marmara. So perhaps that is okay.***
For even in Standard, if AR try to > invade T, but Italy is propping
him up, AR are going to have an insanely > difficult time w that.
Same thing here, it took BR forever to break down > Ottoman cuz
Greece, the needed 3rd angle, was working to prop him up. So
really it wasnt a map flaw, rather an annoying Nigel. So really what we > need to be looking at here is not how to fix the map but how to fix Nigs. >
***Good luck with that re: Nigs But please (all of you) take a
look at the attached map, and be particularly critical in your review
of it. If I have gone too far in my revisions, or not considered
second order effects of the changes, please let me know...
List of changes:
1 - Skopje/Bitola combined - Bitola no longer an SC.
2 - Agram/Spalato combined - Agram remains an SC.
3 - Sarajevo is no longer an SC. (considering canceling this)
4 - Brasov is an open SC. (considering Calarasi or Tiraspol as alternatives)
5 - Craiova is an open SC.
6 - Kolosvar is an Austrian starting SC (Army).
7 - Sevastopol is a Turkish starting SC (Fleet).
8 - Istanbul now has a Turkish army instead of a fleet.
Specific questions I would like your answers to:
1 - Does the new Austrian position in Kolosvar force Austrian/Romanian
conflict too much, or can it also help them attack Serbia together?
2 - Does the new Turkish position in Sevastopol allow the Turks the
option to work with or against the Romanians? (ideally, DMZing BeC
and Ode is a good option, and R/T could attack B together?) Or the
Turks could join in a dogpile on the Romanians.
3 - Are Austria and Serbia now somewhat more inclined to work together
with SC Sarajevo removed, and the new opportunities against Romania
(offset slightly by increased tension over Agram). Concerned that I
hurt Serbia too much by removing Sarajevo - should I restore it and
remove something else?
4 - simply - is Romania too disadvantaged now, or does their corner
position compensate them for the new slower growth opportunities and
external threats? I chose Brasov for now to give them one guaranteed
SC at least, but I think this, coupled with Craiova, promotes conflict
with Serbia too much.
5 - finally - please examine the specific Turkish opening of:
F Sev - Bla
A Ist - Sak
A Ank - Ist
F Izm - Bursa
Salonika is now safe even against a concerted Bulgarian/Greek attack
(F Brg - Edi, A Plo - Ser, A Lar - Koz) - but does it make the Turks
too strong?
Notes - the intent here is to make both Austria and the Ottomans (the
true regional level powers in this variant) like Russia in Standard:
strong to start, but with slower growth, and burdened by having their
fingers in lots of pies, and with more vulnerabilities.
Please let me know what you all think!
Thanks!
B.
> Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
>
> 1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done in
> conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
> Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
> for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
> incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
> F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
> need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
> to the next idea...
>
> 2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
> secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
> guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
> for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
>
> 3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
> Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
> Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
> this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
>
> 4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
> would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
> to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
> from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
>
> ...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
> nonetheless be necessary)...
>
> ! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
> understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
> clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
> Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
> (completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
> move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
> need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
> options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
> (perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
> Skopje?)
>
> !! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
> this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
> one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
> Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
> Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be made
> Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
> however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
> or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
>
> Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
> historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
> compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
> case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
> have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
> from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
> (it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
> territory gained in the Caucasus.
>
> What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
> by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
> Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
> of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
> Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
>
> Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
> Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
> then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
> also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
> Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
> Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
> Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
> still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
>
> Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
> to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
> have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
> until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
> joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
> I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
> here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
> down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
> Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
> Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
> attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
> very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at all
> yet.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Diplomacy in Texas!
> www.texasdiplomacy.com
>
> http://www.dipwiki.com
>
> Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
> American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
>
>
>
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) FuzzyLogic Jun 08, 06:48 pm |
Turkey starts w 4 and a F Sev? And Austria is right behind Romaina?
Wow. Glad I didn't get Romania in this version! Italy is way too
isolated. One of the problems of the map, Italy gets that whole
peninsula to himself. A starting next to I was needed. Now it's too
easy to split Salz/Ven, call a DMZ, and Italy grows to 7 unincumbered.
-mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:23 PM
To: Michael Sims
Cc: Nigel PHILLIPS; dc288; Garry Bledsoe; rodtheworm(at)hotmail.com;
alevy(at)arubanetworks.com; allen.york(at)cchmc.org; gregory nomads;
brn2dip(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net
Subject: Re: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
Ultimately these are your decisions. It's your variant.
***Well, yeah, but the point of the playtest is to solicit your opinions
As I'm learning in DC 322 (Dark Ages) you never really see all the
cracks in the design until you play yourself. Second best is to listen
closely to feedback from others who have played.***
As the map is now, it does play well. It would probly play well after
some of the changes too. It would just be different. I dunno if that's
better, I'd have to play it.
You've definitely got a good start, and I'm pretty happy w how the
play went from the Romanian pov.
***It's arguably the strongest position on the map right now
If anything stood out as blaringly problematic, I'd mention it. I
think mid-game, I mentioned the difficulty Ross and I had in invading
Ottoman.
But in hindsight, that was appropriate.
***Now this is interesting - you had me sold on the whole north
Anatolian coast argument. But I suppose you're right - when Turkey is
invaded by A/R, there are only three points of entry - Constantinople,
Ankara, and Armenia. Balkans has three (Istanbul, Ankara, and Bursa)
plus a questionable fourth option - forcing the Bosporus and Sea of
Marmara. So perhaps that is okay.***
For even in Standard, if AR try to > invade T, but Italy is propping him
up, AR are going to have an insanely > difficult time w that.
Same thing here, it took BR forever to break down > Ottoman cuz Greece,
the needed 3rd angle, was working to prop him up. So
really it wasnt a map flaw, rather an annoying Nigel. So really what
we > need to be looking at here is not how to fix the map but how to
fix Nigs. >
***Good luck with that re: Nigs But please (all of you) take a look
at the attached map, and be particularly critical in your review of it.
If I have gone too far in my revisions, or not considered second order
effects of the changes, please let me know...
List of changes:
1 - Skopje/Bitola combined - Bitola no longer an SC.
2 - Agram/Spalato combined - Agram remains an SC.
3 - Sarajevo is no longer an SC. (considering canceling this)
4 - Brasov is an open SC. (considering Calarasi or Tiraspol as
alternatives)
5 - Craiova is an open SC.
6 - Kolosvar is an Austrian starting SC (Army).
7 - Sevastopol is a Turkish starting SC (Fleet).
8 - Istanbul now has a Turkish army instead of a fleet.
Specific questions I would like your answers to:
1 - Does the new Austrian position in Kolosvar force Austrian/Romanian
conflict too much, or can it also help them attack Serbia together?
2 - Does the new Turkish position in Sevastopol allow the Turks the
option to work with or against the Romanians? (ideally, DMZing BeC and
Ode is a good option, and R/T could attack B together?) Or the Turks
could join in a dogpile on the Romanians.
3 - Are Austria and Serbia now somewhat more inclined to work together
with SC Sarajevo removed, and the new opportunities against Romania
(offset slightly by increased tension over Agram). Concerned that I
hurt Serbia too much by removing Sarajevo - should I restore it and
remove something else?
4 - simply - is Romania too disadvantaged now, or does their corner
position compensate them for the new slower growth opportunities and
external threats? I chose Brasov for now to give them one guaranteed SC
at least, but I think this, coupled with Craiova, promotes conflict with
Serbia too much.
5 - finally - please examine the specific Turkish opening of:
F Sev - Bla
A Ist - Sak
A Ank - Ist
F Izm - Bursa
Salonika is now safe even against a concerted Bulgarian/Greek attack (F
Brg - Edi, A Plo - Ser, A Lar - Koz) - but does it make the Turks too
strong?
Notes - the intent here is to make both Austria and the Ottomans (the
true regional level powers in this variant) like Russia in Standard:
strong to start, but with slower growth, and burdened by having their
fingers in lots of pies, and with more vulnerabilities.
Please let me know what you all think!
Thanks!
B.
> Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my
own)...
>
> 1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo. This would likely be done
> in conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
> Romania. Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
> for F Trieste. Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
> incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
> F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable. So for this to work, we
> need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania. Which leads
> to the next idea...
>
> 2 - Add SC Craiova. With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
> secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
> guarantee Craiova. However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed
> dot for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
>
> 3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste. Contrary to my intentions, that
> Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
> Serbs. If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
> this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
>
> 4 - Split Beograd? Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
> would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
> to be along the Adriatic coast. (alternate idea - disconnect
> Temesvar from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
>
> ...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
> nonetheless be necessary)...
>
> ! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC. To
> understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
> clockwise. Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
> Standard. I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
> (completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
> move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania. Here I would
> need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
> options. I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
> (perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
> Skopje?)
>
> !! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol? Strange and irrelevant as
> this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
> one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than
> just
> Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans
> and/or Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east. Sevastopol could not be
> made Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy. It *could*
> however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
> or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
>
> Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
> historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
> compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war. In this
> case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
> have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
> from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
> (it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
> territory gained in the Caucasus.
>
> What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
> by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out
> of Italian unification. Most Diplomacy variants also permit some
> degree of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone
> believes Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
>
> Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
> Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
> then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC. The Ottomans would
> also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
> Sevastopol. And we would have to very closely examine the new
> Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
> Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
> still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
>
> Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
> to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans. Austria has to
> have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
> until their solo bid in the endgame. It's *possible* to do so by
> joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
> I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
> here. Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
> down the Adriatic. So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
> Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
> Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
> attacking them. Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
> very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on all this. Nothing is decided at
> all yet.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Diplomacy in Texas!
> www.texasdiplomacy.com
>
> http://www.dipwiki.com
> Realpolitik files available here for the
> Sengoku, Balkans1860, South American Supremacy, and DarkAges
> Diplomacy Variants
>
>
>
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com Realpolitik files
available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South American Supremacy,
and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) Kenshi777 Jun 09, 11:14 am |
Greece can throw a wrench in Italy's plans no (as we saw in DC 28 ?
Palermo can be guaranteed in the first year with good follow on
options. (of course
they do need either Austria or Serbia to help). Greece is intended to
be the big playmaker between Italy and the Turks - they can guarantee
either Palermo or Heraklion, but not both. Typically, I expect they
will choose to guarantee one of those two using both fleets, and
continue their drive in that direction (against either the Turks or
Italians).
Thanks!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version) (dc288) Kenshi777 Jun 09, 02:38 pm |
Hi Allen and all, please see comments inserted below with ***
I think some of this is going too far.
1 - Does the new Austrian position in Kolosvar force Austrian/Romanian
conflict too much, or can it also help them attack Serbia together?
Too much, and Romania has almost the same advantage, just needs to
drive AH out of Kolosvar. Also may weaken AH so Serbia attacks with
Italy almost inevitably. My temptation as AH would be to cede Kol to
Rumania and elicit a juggernaut.
***Hm. That would be undesirable. I was fairly convinced the Turkish
F Sev was a good thing, but not so much about Austria gaining
Kolosvar. So okay, Austrian A Kolosvar will be removed. Instead, I
will consolidate Budapest and Pecs to give the Austrians more freedom
to swing forces from east to west rapidly.***
2 - Does the new Turkish position in Sevastopol allow the Turks the
option to work with or against the Romanians? (ideally, DMZing BeC
and Ode is a good option, and R/T could attack B together?) Or the
Turks could join in a dogpile on the Romanians.
This I actually like, but I think encourages Ottoman-Rumania alliance
and reduces the chance of Bulgaria surviving. Maybe I was wrong about
this, now that I look at this map, Sev seems like an open center.
***Hm - perhaps. But aren't the Bulgarians pretty strong now? They
were weak before, granted - but they stand a very strong chance of
gaining three SCs in the first year in either of the two openings
below:
F Brg - Var
A Plo - Edi
A Sof - Rus
or
F Brg S A Plo - Edi
A Plo - Edi
A Sof - Rus
We also have yet to see a real Bulgarian/Ottoman alliance, but I think
it would be a powerhouse, and the Ottomans have a lot of really good
reasons to help the Bulgarians against Romania with F Sev in exchange
for support against Greece. All that to say - I think B/O is every
bit as much of a good juggernaut as R/O would be with the addition of
F Sev. B/G should work well too, a strong threat to Ottoman survival,
though by design Greece should favor going after Italy unless Bulgaria
is committed to their cause against the Ottomans.***
3 - Are Austria and Serbia now somewhat more inclined to work together
with SC Sarajevo removed, and the new opportunities against Romania
(offset slightly by increased tension over Agram). Concerned that I
hurt Serbia too much by removing Sarajevo - should I restore it and
remove something else?
Without SC Sarajevo Serbia has no easy task and could face a 6 center
Austria...is there a way to divide Agram a little by cutting of it's
southern jut and making that part either a territory or SC? Agram
would still touch the sea, but there'd be something between Agram and
Cetinje. Maybe that alone would reduce the tensions. Leave Sarajevo
as a SC.
***That's the way it was in Rev1 - for this draft, I removed Spalato,
which separated Cetinje from Agram, but virtually guaranteed Agram
went to the Austrians. That was the problem though - if the Austrians
usually guarantee Agram, and the Serbs usually guarantee Sarajevo,
that leaves them staring each other down at the beginning of the
second year.
Another option is to go back to the first draft and make Nis an open
SC, but detach the bottom part to make a buffer (non SC) territory
between Nis and Sofia (called Vranje). Then the question becomes
whether Nis or Kragujevac should be the Serb home SC. I'm thinking
Nis - to allow an option to play for the new Craiova SC. I'm trying
to achieve the dynamic where Austria and Serbia can bounce each other
with fleets in Agram at least in the Spring, and Serbia isn't pushed
right up to the Austrian border in Sarajevo. *That* is a big part of
what leads to the forced conflict I think.
One more wild option - Cetinje was actually the capital of independent
Montenegro, a Serbian ally. I could make *that* an open SC, and house
the Serbs in Nis (split as above), Kragujevac, and Beograd. But that
leaves the Serbs without any sea port home SC - so I then need to
either switch the variant to chaos builds (which I don't want to do)
or accept that Serbia will be completely removed from the fight in
Italy (which I don't want either). Or I could drastically (and
ahistorically) redraw the borders to give Serbia another seaport.
Thoughts on both these options? (the last is reflected on the new
draft map, along with a new SC in Prizren and a move of SC Agram to
Spalato (with redraw)***
Maybe Mike's right, the map needs another playtest before this serious
of an edit. Putting units in Sev and Kol may be too much.
***I disagree - I gleaned a lot of useful information out of this
playtest, and am convinced there are some glaring flaws that need to
be addressed. Besides - this variant is young by most standards -
only born in 2008, and only been through one revision so far. Ancient
Med went through 9 full revisions, with other minor tweaks in between
- and that's what makes it one of the best and most balanced variants
out there today.
That said - I think you and Mike have talked me out of the Austrian
addition of Kolosvar as a starting SC. Still looking at the Serbian
thing - hope to hear some good feedback on the changes shown on the
attached map. Includes some revisions that almost made the cut for
Rev1, but were removed at the last second. It can be prettied up
later, but just trying to show the new SC tweaks and border redraws
for now.
One more miscellaneous change (not yet shown on the draft map) -
Myrtoan Sea - does anyone think that serves a good purpose? Or should
I just consolidate it with Ionian Sea?
Also - just for your amusement, I attached a list of thoughts I had
after the Spring 1860 opening moves in this game. Most of my
predictions were off, but it makes for an interesting read...
And for Nigel - just found out Spalato (Split), which is now an SC,
was also a Greek colony - so you can add it to your target list next
time ***
Thanks!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
