| DC-322 Autumn 830 - Kenshi777 (Aug 17, 2010, 10:02 am) |
Mike's comments are the most encouraging I have heard to date - very exciting to hear that from the Scots' perspective, the C/G alliance can work. But I have yet to hear a Gaelic player say so...still another playtest is already forming, so I think I'll keep taking notes and keep observing.
B.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Scot EOG
I started the game intending to expand south down the Island. With that in mind, I wanted
to secure my flanks, and did succeed in putting together agreements with the Norse and the
Gaels. My plan was to take three centers or so on the way south, and then decide whether to
stab the Norse or the Gaels.
My decision was made fairly early on. The Norse made every move they agreed to make,
and let me take Zetland. OTOH, the Scots did not move as discussed, altho they didn't make
hostile moves. But it seemed to me that Scott was hedging his bets and was ready to side with
the Bretons or the Anglos if it proved at all advantageous. I figured that BD would put up a very
tough fight and slow me down considerably if I pressed on him, so I turned on Scott.
It all worked very well after that. I think I may have been able to win, but Chris probably had
as good a shot as I did, so rather than draw the game out I decided to go for the DIAS.
Even tho there's been a lot of discussion about changing the map, etc, I think it is balanced
pretty well the way it is. I would suggest a few more play tests with the current map before
putting thru any major changes. I actually did envision a long term alliance with the Gaels, in
which we split up the Island, the Gaels moved onto the continent and pushed east, while I
moved into Scandanavia in the north. I think this is certainly a viable strategy for a long term
Scot/Gael alliance. This could also have worked with an alliance with either the Bretons or
the Anglos, taking out the Gaels and then moving east. I imagine I am in the minority, but I
do like the map the way it is.
- Mike
the
From: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Frank Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group. After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word, Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
--
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] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - mikemorris (Aug 16, 2010, 9:15 pm) |
Scot EOG
I started the game intending to expand south down the Island. With that in mind, I wanted
to secure my flanks, and did succeed in putting together agreements with the Norse and the
Gaels. My plan was to take three centers or so on the way south, and then decide whether to
stab the Norse or the Gaels.
My decision was made fairly early on. The Norse made every move they agreed to make,
and let me take Zetland. OTOH, the Scots did not move as discussed, altho they didn't make
hostile moves. But it seemed to me that Scott was hedging his bets and was ready to side with
the Bretons or the Anglos if it proved at all advantageous. I figured that BD would put up a very
tough fight and slow me down considerably if
I pressed on him, so I turned on Scott.
It all worked very well after that. I think I may have been able to win, but Chris probably had
as good a shot as I did, so rather than draw the game out I decided to go for the DIAS.
Even tho there's been a lot of discussion about changing the map, etc, I think it is balanced
pretty well the way it is. I would suggest a few more play tests with the current map before
putting thru any major changes. I actually did envision a long term alliance with the Gaels, in
which we split up the Island, the Gaels moved onto the continent and pushed east, while I
moved into Scandanavia in the north. I think this is certainly a viable strategy for a long term
Scot/Gael alliance. This could also have worked with an alliance with either the Bretons or
the Anglos, taking out the Gaels and then moving east. I imagine I am in the minority, but I
do
like the map the way it is.
- Mike
the
From: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>;
Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Frank Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group. After all, this was a play test. Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word, Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game. I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and
proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/[Reply] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - Kenshi777 (Aug 15, 2010, 5:26 pm) |
Hi Andy -
You make some good points, and the difficulties (particularly on the Isles) make me inclined to scrap the force-fit to Standard. As for the triangular structure, I am partial to that just because if achieved, one can be almost guaranteed of having a diplomatic aspect to the game. If any two can pair up against the third, with roughly equal odds of success, then the only determining factor should be one's negotiations. That's the ideal dynamic I'm driving for. That said - with 7 players, there is always going to be that added layer of complexity. So I will bear this in mind as I go into revisions.
Speaking of revisions, by all means, no need to wait on them to play or GM another round! Please CC me as an observer -
Thanks!
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM, The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Ben,
I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc.
My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on?
Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos.
Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have 
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
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] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - TheWhiteWolf (Aug 14, 2010, 10:24 pm) |
Ben, I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc. My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to
Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on? Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite
divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos. Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm
thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the
next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.[Reply] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - Kenshi777 (Aug 14, 2010, 9:21 pm) |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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[Reply] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - Kenshi777 (Aug 14, 2010, 9:21 pm) |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - packrat (Aug 14, 2010, 9:07 pm) |
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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[Reply] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 14, 09:21 pm |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 14, 09:21 pm |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) TheWhiteWolf Aug 14, 10:24 pm |
Ben, I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc. My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to
Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on? Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite
divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos. Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm
thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the
next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B. |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 15, 05:26 pm |
Hi Andy -
You make some good points, and the difficulties (particularly on the Isles) make me inclined to scrap the force-fit to Standard. As for the triangular structure, I am partial to that just because if achieved, one can be almost guaranteed of having a diplomatic aspect to the game. If any two can pair up against the third, with roughly equal odds of success, then the only determining factor should be one's negotiations. That's the ideal dynamic I'm driving for. That said - with 7 players, there is always going to be that added layer of complexity. So I will bear this in mind as I go into revisions.
Speaking of revisions, by all means, no need to wait on them to play or GM another round! Please CC me as an observer -
Thanks!
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM, The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Ben,
I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc.
My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on?
Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos.
Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread - Kenshi777 (Aug 14, 2010, 6:55 pm) |
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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[Reply] |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) packrat Aug 14, 09:07 pm |
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 14, 09:21 pm |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 14, 09:21 pm |
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Packrat posted in dc322. The message was...
The short answer to the geal/scot question is - you can't. The Scots have more to gain
by convincing the anglos and bretons to fight while the scots go after the gaels. That is the
best way to play the whole thing since the gaels have to go around any one of, if not even
all of, them in order to get to the east. I'll look it over some more, but I think it's a matter
of geography more than anything else. The three dots are just too tempting while the east
is sorting itself out. You can choke the center of the island too easily and that more or less
forces war in the south.
That being said, if I had played a bit more conservatively it might have gone better for me,
but either way, I think the scots will always hit the
gaels.
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 7:55:41 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark
Ages Revision Thread
Here we go - I have found that this process works best if we all focus on the same list of points to discuss, rather than free-form. That said, feel free to add new points to the list!
Fundamental assumptions of the variant:
1 - Crossing the North Sea is an option in the early game, not a requirement to win. There are 19 SCs on the British Isles + Zetland, and there are 19 SC in Scandinvia, the Continent, and Zetland. So pairing up with a good ally to make the jump to the other side is meant to be a viable option. So is trying to win it all with ruthless stabs in your own backyard. Which one is best should be determined by how fast development is occuring on the other side.
2 - the prevalence of coastal SCs means that fleets should be favored over armies. I have heard this assumption strongly challenged already, and would like to hear more detail please.
Specifics -
Does the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance?
Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider going for, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year? (True or False - should the Danes consider allowing this to happen, or too risky?)
How should I fix the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border so that conflict is not so inevitable?
How can I make the Scots and Gaels at least have a good peace option, if not an active alliance aimed at a third party?
Some of this Frank, Chris, and Scott have already touched in in their remarks, please review those emails as well!
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
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17493] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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 |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) TheWhiteWolf Aug 14, 10:24 pm |
Ben, I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc. My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to
Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on? Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite
divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos. Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm
thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the
next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
B. |
| DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 15, 05:26 pm |
Hi Andy -
You make some good points, and the difficulties (particularly on the Isles) make me inclined to scrap the force-fit to Standard. As for the triangular structure, I am partial to that just because if achieved, one can be almost guaranteed of having a diplomatic aspect to the game. If any two can pair up against the third, with roughly equal odds of success, then the only determining factor should be one's negotiations. That's the ideal dynamic I'm driving for. That said - with 7 players, there is always going to be that added layer of complexity. So I will bear this in mind as I go into revisions.
Speaking of revisions, by all means, no need to wait on them to play or GM another round! Please CC me as an observer -
Thanks!
B.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM, The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Ben,
I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc.
My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on?
Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos.
Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.
Andy
P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the next one?
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]
so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between? Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira? I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard? Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse? (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression) Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance. N/S/D are close to that. I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?
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 |
| DC-322 Norse EOG - Kenshi777 (Aug 14, 2010, 6:44 pm) |
Hi all - I'm going to split this discussion into two threads here - a discussion of this game (my EOG) and design notes. As Andy said, your feedback *is* extremely valuable and does get considered for future versions of Dark Ages - so please pour it on! (I'll actually be revisiting a few ideas from the previous playtest that I did not incorporate, and perhaps should have.)
This email however, will be my EOG - so I'm going to focus on that. Thanks to Andy first and foremost for a top-notch job as GM. A good GM makes for a fun game, and a bad GM sucks the life out of it. The enjoyment we had out of it is as much a testament to his efforts as any other.
That said - I was somewhat reluctant to take the final spot in this game, because I knew I would be coming in with a certain bias towards trying out the functionality of some of the latest changes to the map. I'd be lying if I said that wasn't a key consideration in my early alliance decision to work with Chris. I wanted to see if the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance (feel free to answer that question in the game design email). Chris' decision to stab me meant that this playtest really didn't fully exercise that option in the context of a N/S alliance, but that's life I guess Not every playtest goes just as the designer might hope - and it still was a valuable test regardless.
So - that said - I think Frank hit the nail head on. N/D probably still is the best alliance option in Scandinavia, the new Eider river rule notwithstanding. I opted against this alliance for three reasons - the one listed above, Chris' "anything-you-want-buddy" approach to our early negotiations, and Frank's intransigence on Lindholm. Lindholm is not a Danish starting SC for a very good reason, though historically (and in previous versions of the variant) that space was. It is impossible IMHO for either the Norse or Swedes to cooperate with the Danes against the third point of the Scandinavian triangle without either being in Lindholm, or keeping it under constant threat by remaining in Skagerrak. I always thought they needed to be able to pass freely at sea by the Danish home SCs - and moreover, Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year (another thought that bears discussion in the design thread - I am already considering trying to nestle the open SCs in Scandinavia more neatly between the three powers-that-be) Consider that of all the options they have in the first year, the only SC they can guarantee is Alvheim. So I think the Norse need work.
To answer Frank's question - yes, I truly do view an Danish opening to Kattegat as pretty much the "textbook" anti-Norse opening, to deny Lindholm to the Norse, while allowing Skane to the Swedes. Doesn't mean it's a bad play just that I took it as confirmation that you had sided against me. But then again - that is all dependent on my assumption (very much open for challenging in the design thread) that the Danes should not expect to have an exclusive claim to Lindholm, nor that they really need to.
So, designer tunnel-vision bias may have come into play here (whoever said designing the variant was an advantage?!?) - but I was truly shocked that Frank would not under any circumstances consider allowing me even a fleet presence in Lindholm as part of an alliance against the Swedes. I think that decision sealed the deal against an N/D alliance. I truly regret coming across as arrogant to Frank - I certainly did not mean to do so, only firm in what I was willing and unwilling to offer. Regardless, perception only matters in the eye of the receiver, and I can certainly see that coming across as arrogant to Frank early on shot my chances in this game straight down the tubes. Sorry Frank!
So let's flash forward to Chris' stab. I agree with his assessment - it was not a bad stab, and I shouldn't have underestimated the likelihood that it was coming when it did. I was outplayed by both my Scandinavian rivals in this game, no excuses. What concerns me from a design perspective is that Chris considered the stab inevitable in time, to serve Swedish best interests - which suggests that the Eider river failed in its intended mission to make N/S a valid alliance. (let's spark that discussion in the other thread.)
Frank is probably also correct that I passed on an opportunity to stab Chris myself that perhaps I should have considered further in Fall 826/Spring 827. Again with the designer curiosity-bias towards the N/S alliance and my slavish dedication to it. Stupid-stupid-stupid on my part. Play the map as it is, not how you want it to be.
So I got my casbah rocked, and then tried to mend fences with Frank, and though we were successful enough, I think Chris could have eliminated us both in time. Mike never delivered on the idea of making a real landfall in Scandinavia that would have saved me, but I honestly can't criticize him for that decision. That would have been a lower-payout distraction for the Scots than his blitzkrieg in the Isles. I have a lot of other thoughts on the Isles and how that theater played out in this game, but all of it belongs in the design thread, as I am now finally convinced that -
1 - the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border is defective. Forces conflict, and that is not intended.
2 - the Scottish probably never will have adequate incentive to work with the Gaels, certainly not against the Britons (a major problem that I will have to look outside my preferred triangle structure to try and resolve)
And of course, I really don't know have enough reliable insight yet into how those early negotiations went, so most of what I would have to say would probably be attributed to the wrong motivations anyway.
So - as for the endgame, I think Mike or Chris had a decent shot at a solo - and maybe that's why neither one wanted to press the issue. They deserve top honors for this game to be certain, but I was very pleased also with Frank's efforts at the stop Chris coalition, and impressed with Steve's resistance of the Scottish drive. I didn't have much substantial interaction with Scott past the first season (to be expected) and even less with Darren - again, neither personal nor surprising - just a function of our positions.
Let me thank you all that have written so far for the praises of the variant - I truly appreciate it, and am pleased beyond words that you enjoyed the experience. I can only ask that you participate - extensively - in the design process so that I can bring you a bigger and better Dark Ages in the future. That process takes a lot of time though (I have several variants that I have designed and am constantly reviewing) - so feel free to play V4 again if you like - it's not that bad, and no position is truly screwed I think.
Thanks to all for playing - hope to see you all again soon!
B. of the Norse
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:
With the thorough analysis of Chris I can hardly do any less. Or give it a try at least.
I loved the map when I saw and as I do like the experimental Dip games I was glad I could join. I prefer games with up to 10-12 players over the huge multi-player games (my mind just can't grab all the possible scenarios with so many 'uncertainties' . And what I also liked about this game's map is the large amount of water spaces in the central area as well as the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony: plenty of opportunities for fleets and convoys! More on that later.
I was really glad I was assigned the Danes. They seemed safely set - far away from the powers on the island and at least visually at a safe distance from the Norse and the Swedes. Visually I say because there is only one landspace separating the Danish home SC in Roskilde and the Swedish home SC in Gotar. But the Swedes in Gotar would have to compete with the Norse over Alvheim too. That would give me some time to expand while not immediately threatened. UNLESS the Swedes and the Norse would form an alliance against me. So my goal for the first year was to befriend both and form an alliance with either or with both (even though that would not last forever). I guessed the strategically best alliance would be a Danes - Norse alliance. We would have the Swedes cornered and with little threat from the other powers for the first few years we could give the Swedes a devastating blow that he would not be able to overcome. But two things bothered me: one was the Norse demanding control over Lindholm which I saw as a direct threat to the dots I considered mine by right, and secondly the Norse sounded so arrogant in their communication that I wanted to teach them a lesson. This led me to consider something else: as this was a test play I didn't want to play the obvious strategy with a Danes-Norse alliance finishing off the Swedes and rather do something unexpected: finish off the Norse. With the odds so much in favor of a Danes-Norse alliance I bet Ben would not expect this.
To make this strategy work I would have to wait until Fall in the first year to make any moves that would show the Norse I was not his ally. And that is why I could not give the Swedes what they insisted on: I turn all my units towards the Norse in the first Spring. From what Chris said in his EOG comments that apparently is what made him choose the Norse alliance over the Danes'. A pity.
And it was very clear in Fall 825 when the Swedes tried to enter Reric where I had asked him not to. He gave me a very poor excuse which I didn't buy at all. Further attempts to smoothen over what he had done only made this worse and I decided that an alliance with the Swedes was over. I was quite upset that Chris had not even given this beautiful strategy a chance and that he didn't see that his position 'behind' the Norse would make him very dependent on the Norse to expand west. But of course I wasn't gonna let Chris know that I was mad over his 'ignorance' and pretended to be slightly annoyed but still considering us allies against the Norse (so nice of PBEM that you can't read body language).
So now I had to fight both the Swedes and the Norse: since their potential enemies were all too engaged and far away there was only a small chance of survival for me. Time to start working both powers to sow the seeds of envy and distrust. And ensure that the Anglos were friendly with me: we had agreed that I would leave him Austrasia and he would leave me Frisia.
Ben and I were both upset after F825 because we had bounced eachother in Lindholm while each of us insisted that the other shouldn't. Didn't make him a good candidate for an ally but I was considering it but also wanted him to support that future relationship with some immediate actions. And that never happened (until much later and with the Norse in a very different position). Worse, right after Winter 825 Ben blamed me for making the single-most anti-Norse build right after the single-most anti-Norse move. Of course I saw it differently (and I would like to know Ben whether you really believed so or was you just increasing pressure on me?).
Meanwhile Sweden was trying to convince me to attack the Norse in Alvheim with multiple units. No chance as it would leave me very vulnerable to the Norse and the Swedes but also because Sweden had just neglected to move 2 units into the battle zone with Sweden (he favored convoying his army from Skane to VIN).
That Fall in the 2nd year both the Swedes and the Norse attacked me full-force: Reric, Bay of Reric, and Roskilde; but I 'only' lost Roskilde as I had expected something along that line. In Winter 826 I still had one build, just like the Swedes and the Norse but the Norse had ships all around my borders and in Roskilde while the Swedes did not have a particularly strong position (and in my view were at the mercy of the Norse; could have been a tipping had Ben wished to).
Spring 827 the Norse and the Swedes attacked me and forced me from Jelling and Reric. My army in Reric could disband or flee south. I decided to go south but since my army was now at the border of Anglo Saxon Austrasia, Steve went paranoid; and he was right, of course, because next thing I did, in F 827, is take Austrasia hoping to limit my losses by taking his SC. That would cost me dearly later as Steve joined the Swedes in their attack on me. But if I hadn't done so I might not have made it to the DIAS.
Much to my relief the Swedes decided to take Roskilde from the Norse by force while I was so fortunate to dislodge them in Jelling.
Winter 827: the Norse had to disband one unit, on top of its fleet that had been disbanded from Roskilde. The Danes still had 4 units, the Norse 5 and the Swedes suddenly had 9. This was the turning point for Chris (nice job!).
From there on I was just trying to survive while Sweden was focussing its attacks on the Norse. The Norse was forced out of its SCs one by one and at some was left with 3 or 2 units. And that's when the Norse approached me to work together. Although there wasn't much that he could do for me I tried to find opportunities for us. Ben however was so lucky at that time to have another power helping him: the Scots.
In 829 I realized I wouldn't be able to keep the Swedes out of my Home SCs so I changed strategy to aim for his Home SCs in retribution. I knew it wasn't going to bring him down but certainly going to annoy him: my defiance of the Swedish force that was more than twice as big as the Danes. And at the end of Autumn 830 I had my fleet in Skane, Bay of Reric, and Baltic Sea. But I was glad we agreed on the DIAS as I would have had to disband 2 units the coming Winter.
Thanks Andy for an excellent GM job. For all the timely reminders especially when I happened to be in rural France in the first year.
My feedback on the arrangement of the powers across the map:
The distance between the powers on the mainland (Norse, Swedes, and Danes) and the powers on the islands makes it difficult to get any interaction between these powers until a few years into the game. The only exception I see is the Anglos but they usually will have enough worries to deal with on their island to start looking for trouble elsewhere. Zetland is strategically positioned between the two but I don't see why the Scots would pick one dot on Zetland (even as a launching pad for attacks to the mainland) over all those dots right to the south of it; especially with the Gaels near enough to compete over those. Yes, if the Scots or the Anglos are confident with alliances with respectively the Gaels and the Bretons, they might focus on longterm over shortterm gains but with stabs being such a common event in a Dip game, I think most players will opt for the short term dot increase.
In general I think that the Swedes are at a disadvantage although you wouldn't say from this game. Can't really say though how to improve this. Perhaps giving the Swedes a Home SC and starting position in VIN? But that would put the Danes too much at a disadvantage.
My feedback on the arrangement of water spaces versus land spaces:
As I said in the beginning this game's map with its large amount of water spaces in the central area and the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony gives plenty of opportunities for fleet movements and convoys. I haven't seen that many variants where fleets play a major role. Even when the map often seems ideal for fleet actions, the play usually is all about armies. And so was this game. And I had really not expected it to be. Not with the game starting with 12 fleets out of 21 units. Scott already said that he tried desperately to get players to build fleets but his pleads fell on deaf ears. Maybe it's just the human nature (born with feet and lungs instead of fins and gills). I don't think subtle changes to the map or number of fleets will improve this. Perhaps assigning a dot to a few water spaces might do it but I have to admit that when I wrote this my mind immediately told me that it would require an island for a dot to be placed in a 'water' space. Funny how the mind likes to reconfirm existing patterns.
Looking back at the fun I had playing this game I can only say: when are we going to play this variant again?
Frank
2010/8/14 The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.
However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ
--
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] |
| DC-322 Swede EOG - bielf11 (Aug 14, 2010, 1:28 pm) |
With the thorough analysis of Chris I can hardly do any less. Or give it a try at least.
I loved the map when I saw and as I do like the experimental Dip games I was glad I could join. I prefer games with up to 10-12 players over the huge multi-player games (my mind just can't grab all the possible scenarios with so many 'uncertainties'. And what I also liked about this game's map is the large amount of water spaces in the central area as well as the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony: plenty of opportunities for fleets and convoys! More on that later.
I was really glad I was assigned the Danes. They seemed safely set - far away from the powers on the island and at least visually at a safe distance from the Norse and the Swedes. Visually I say because there is only one landspace separating the Danish home SC in Roskilde and the Swedish home SC in Gotar. But the Swedes in Gotar would have to compete with the Norse over Alvheim too. That would give me some time to expand while not immediately threatened. UNLESS the Swedes and the Norse would form an alliance against me. So my goal for the first year was to befriend both and form an alliance with either or with both (even though that would not last forever). I guessed the strategically best alliance would be a Danes - Norse alliance. We would have the Swedes cornered and with little threat from the other powers for the first few years we could give the Swedes a devastating blow that he would not be able to overcome. But two things bothered me: one was the Norse demanding control over Lindholm which I saw as a direct threat to the dots I considered mine by right, and secondly the Norse sounded so arrogant in their communication that I wanted to teach them a lesson. This led me to consider something else: as this was a test play I didn't want to play the obvious strategy with a Danes-Norse alliance finishing off the Swedes and rather do something unexpected: finish off the Norse. With the odds so much in favor of a Danes-Norse alliance I bet Ben would not expect this.
To make this strategy work I would have to wait until Fall in the first year to make any moves that would show the Norse I was not his ally. And that is why I could not give the Swedes what they insisted on: I turn all my units towards the Norse in the first Spring. From what Chris said in his EOG comments that apparently is what made him choose the Norse alliance over the Danes'. A pity.
And it was very clear in Fall 825 when the Swedes tried to enter Reric where I had asked him not to. He gave me a very poor excuse which I didn't buy at all. Further attempts to smoothen over what he had done only made this worse and I decided that an alliance with the Swedes was over. I was quite upset that Chris had not even given this beautiful strategy a chance and that he didn't see that his position 'behind' the Norse would make him very dependent on the Norse to expand west. But of course I wasn't gonna let Chris know that I was mad over his 'ignorance' and pretended to be slightly annoyed but still considering us allies against the Norse (so nice of PBEM that you can't read body language).
So now I had to fight both the Swedes and the Norse: since their potential enemies were all too engaged and far away there was only a small chance of survival for me. Time to start working both powers to sow the seeds of envy and distrust. And ensure that the Anglos were friendly with me: we had agreed that I would leave him Austrasia and he would leave me Frisia.
Ben and I were both upset after F825 because we had bounced eachother in Lindholm while each of us insisted that the other shouldn't. Didn't make him a good candidate for an ally but I was considering it but also wanted him to support that future relationship with some immediate actions. And that never happened (until much later and with the Norse in a very different position). Worse, right after Winter 825 Ben blamed me for making the single-most anti-Norse build right after the single-most anti-Norse move. Of course I saw it differently (and I would like to know Ben whether you really believed so or was you just increasing pressure on me?).
Meanwhile Sweden was trying to convince me to attack the Norse in Alvheim with multiple units. No chance as it would leave me very vulnerable to the Norse and the Swedes but also because Sweden had just neglected to move 2 units into the battle zone with Sweden (he favored convoying his army from Skane to VIN).
That Fall in the 2nd year both the Swedes and the Norse attacked me full-force: Reric, Bay of Reric, and Roskilde; but I 'only' lost Roskilde as I had expected something along that line. In Winter 826 I still had one build, just like the Swedes and the Norse but the Norse had ships all around my borders and in Roskilde while the Swedes did not have a particularly strong position (and in my view were at the mercy of the Norse; could have been a tipping had Ben wished to).
Spring 827 the Norse and the Swedes attacked me and forced me from Jelling and Reric. My army in Reric could disband or flee south. I decided to go south but since my army was now at the border of Anglo Saxon Austrasia, Steve went paranoid; and he was right, of course, because next thing I did, in F 827, is take Austrasia hoping to limit my losses by taking his SC. That would cost me dearly later as Steve joined the Swedes in their attack on me. But if I hadn't done so I might not have made it to the DIAS.
Much to my relief the Swedes decided to take Roskilde from the Norse by force while I was so fortunate to dislodge them in Jelling.
Winter 827: the Norse had to disband one unit, on top of its fleet that had been disbanded from Roskilde. The Danes still had 4 units, the Norse 5 and the Swedes suddenly had 9. This was the turning point for Chris (nice job!).
From there on I was just trying to survive while Sweden was focussing its attacks on the Norse. The Norse was forced out of its SCs one by one and at some was left with 3 or 2 units. And that's when the Norse approached me to work together. Although there wasn't much that he could do for me I tried to find opportunities for us. Ben however was so lucky at that time to have another power helping him: the Scots.
In 829 I realized I wouldn't be able to keep the Swedes out of my Home SCs so I changed strategy to aim for his Home SCs in retribution. I knew it wasn't going to bring him down but certainly going to annoy him: my defiance of the Swedish force that was more than twice as big as the Danes. And at the end of Autumn 830 I had my fleet in Skane, Bay of Reric, and Baltic Sea. But I was glad we agreed on the DIAS as I would have had to disband 2 units the coming Winter.
Thanks Andy for an excellent GM job. For all the timely reminders especially when I happened to be in rural France in the first year.
My feedback on the arrangement of the powers across the map:
The distance between the powers on the mainland (Norse, Swedes, and Danes) and the powers on the islands makes it difficult to get any interaction between these powers until a few years into the game. The only exception I see is the Anglos but they usually will have enough worries to deal with on their island to start looking for trouble elsewhere. Zetland is strategically positioned between the two but I don't see why the Scots would pick one dot on Zetland (even as a launching pad for attacks to the mainland) over all those dots right to the south of it; especially with the Gaels near enough to compete over those. Yes, if the Scots or the Anglos are confident with alliances with respectively the Gaels and the Bretons, they might focus on longterm over shortterm gains but with stabs being such a common event in a Dip game, I think most players will opt for the short term dot increase.
In general I think that the Swedes are at a disadvantage although you wouldn't say from this game. Can't really say though how to improve this. Perhaps giving the Swedes a Home SC and starting position in VIN? But that would put the Danes too much at a disadvantage.
My feedback on the arrangement of water spaces versus land spaces:
As I said in the beginning this game's map with its large amount of water spaces in the central area and the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony gives plenty of opportunities for fleet movements and convoys. I haven't seen that many variants where fleets play a major role. Even when the map often seems ideal for fleet actions, the play usually is all about armies. And so was this game. And I had really not expected it to be. Not with the game starting with 12 fleets out of 21 units. Scott already said that he tried desperately to get players to build fleets but his pleads fell on deaf ears. Maybe it's just the human nature (born with feet and lungs instead of fins and gills). I don't think subtle changes to the map or number of fleets will improve this. Perhaps assigning a dot to a few water spaces might do it but I have to admit that when I wrote this my mind immediately told me that it would require an island for a dot to be placed in a 'water' space. Funny how the mind likes to reconfirm existing patterns.
Looking back at the fun I had playing this game I can only say: when are we going to play this variant again?
Frank
2010/8/14 The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.
However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ[Reply] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - Kenshi777 (Aug 14, 2010, 10:32 am) |
This is one of the nicer things anyone has ever said about one of my variants, especially Dark Ages. Thanks Scott -
my full EOG will come separately, as I'm finally feeling well enough to write it. Slow recovery...
B.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Packrat <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmmm - I deleted all my dip folders and cleaned out the filters so were it not for
Dr. Martin's post I would have missed this altogether.
I would like to say the DIAS outcome surprised me, but, alas, it did not. Matter of
fact, I told Scot player that would be the outcome as a result of his stab. I've been
in every playtest there has been for this game and is the only game I would even
remotely consider playing at this point. So far I've played the Scots, the Britons,
and the Norse.
That being said - I started this game trying to work with the Scots and Anglos against
the Bretons with the intention of wheeling around on the scots as that finished up.
I tried numerous times too get players to see the need to mobilize fleets to the east, but
that key strategy was lost on all but Steve. He knew exactly what I meant, but he couldn't
get out from under either. The Scot player played me rather well and even though I suspected
what came was coming I was hoping I could gain position before he turned. Once he did that
and Chris stabbed in the east I knew where it would end. Based on the more or less lack of
communication I figured this board did not have what it needed to fight this one out and would
DIAS.
Steves moves toward the end puzzled me to no end - WHY he was worrying about the mainland
while we had bigger issues at home was beyond me. That allowed the Bretons to hold his own
and that gave him enough hope to work with the Scots. Repeated emails to both the Bretons and
Scots were not returned, Steve's position was such that even if he did turn around it was too late
to do much good.
I confess to not watching the east as closely as I should have, but honestly, where I was I didn't need
to. I needed to get the Scots and Anglos into the water and they wouldn't go. This game is more dynamic
than many appear to be able to see and it requires the players to think outside the box. You can play just
about any variant much the same way you play standard dip - not so here. And THAT is why these play
tests play out as they do. Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels.
Thanks all for the game.
Goodnight.
Scott
From: "dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com" <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:57:31 PM
Subject: RE: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
--
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] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - TheWhiteWolf (Aug 13, 2010, 9:44 pm) |
Oh, sweet memories...
From: Packrat <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>
Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels.[Reply] |
| DC-322 Swede EOG - TheWhiteWolf (Aug 13, 2010, 9:30 pm) |
Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ[Reply] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - packrat (Aug 13, 2010, 9:13 pm) |
Hmmm - I deleted all my dip folders and cleaned out the filters so were it not for
Dr. Martin's post I would have missed this altogether.
I would like to say the DIAS outcome surprised me, but, alas, it did not. Matter of
fact, I told Scot player that would be the outcome as a result of his stab. I've been
in every playtest there has been for this game and is the only game I would even
remotely consider playing at this point. So far I've played the Scots, the Britons,
and the Norse.
That being said - I started this game trying to work with the Scots and Anglos against
the Bretons with the intention of wheeling around on the scots as that finished up.
I tried numerous times too get players to see the need to mobilize fleets to the east,
but
that key strategy was lost on all but Steve. He knew exactly what I meant, but he couldn't
get out from under either. The Scot player played me rather well and even though I suspected
what came was coming I was hoping I could gain position before he turned. Once he did that
and Chris stabbed in the east I knew where it would end. Based on the more or less lack of
communication I figured this board did not have what it needed to fight this one out and would
DIAS.
Steves moves toward the end puzzled me to no end - WHY he was worrying about the mainland
while we had bigger issues at home was beyond me. That allowed the Bretons to hold his own
and that gave him enough hope to work with the Scots. Repeated emails to both the Bretons and
Scots were not returned, Steve's position was such that even if he did turn around it was too late
to do much good.
I confess to not
watching the east as closely as I should have, but honestly, where I was I didn't need
to. I needed to get the Scots and Anglos into the water and they wouldn't go. This game is more dynamic
than many appear to be able to see and it requires the players to think outside the box. You can play just
about any variant much the same way you play standard dip - not so here. And THAT is why these play
tests play out as they do. Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels.
Thanks all for the game.
Goodnight.
Scott
From: "dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com" <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:57:31 PM
Subject: RE: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to
Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
[Reply] |
| DC-322 Swede EOG - Dancing_Queen (Aug 13, 2010, 7:55 pm) |
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ[Reply] |
| DC-322 Swede EOG (dc322) TheWhiteWolf Aug 13, 09:30 pm |
Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ |
| DC-322 Swede EOG (dc322) bielf11 Aug 14, 01:28 pm |
With the thorough analysis of Chris I can hardly do any less. Or give it a try at least.
I loved the map when I saw and as I do like the experimental Dip games I was glad I could join. I prefer games with up to 10-12 players over the huge multi-player games (my mind just can't grab all the possible scenarios with so many 'uncertainties'. And what I also liked about this game's map is the large amount of water spaces in the central area as well as the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony: plenty of opportunities for fleets and convoys! More on that later.
I was really glad I was assigned the Danes. They seemed safely set - far away from the powers on the island and at least visually at a safe distance from the Norse and the Swedes. Visually I say because there is only one landspace separating the Danish home SC in Roskilde and the Swedish home SC in Gotar. But the Swedes in Gotar would have to compete with the Norse over Alvheim too. That would give me some time to expand while not immediately threatened. UNLESS the Swedes and the Norse would form an alliance against me. So my goal for the first year was to befriend both and form an alliance with either or with both (even though that would not last forever). I guessed the strategically best alliance would be a Danes - Norse alliance. We would have the Swedes cornered and with little threat from the other powers for the first few years we could give the Swedes a devastating blow that he would not be able to overcome. But two things bothered me: one was the Norse demanding control over Lindholm which I saw as a direct threat to the dots I considered mine by right, and secondly the Norse sounded so arrogant in their communication that I wanted to teach them a lesson. This led me to consider something else: as this was a test play I didn't want to play the obvious strategy with a Danes-Norse alliance finishing off the Swedes and rather do something unexpected: finish off the Norse. With the odds so much in favor of a Danes-Norse alliance I bet Ben would not expect this.
To make this strategy work I would have to wait until Fall in the first year to make any moves that would show the Norse I was not his ally. And that is why I could not give the Swedes what they insisted on: I turn all my units towards the Norse in the first Spring. From what Chris said in his EOG comments that apparently is what made him choose the Norse alliance over the Danes'. A pity.
And it was very clear in Fall 825 when the Swedes tried to enter Reric where I had asked him not to. He gave me a very poor excuse which I didn't buy at all. Further attempts to smoothen over what he had done only made this worse and I decided that an alliance with the Swedes was over. I was quite upset that Chris had not even given this beautiful strategy a chance and that he didn't see that his position 'behind' the Norse would make him very dependent on the Norse to expand west. But of course I wasn't gonna let Chris know that I was mad over his 'ignorance' and pretended to be slightly annoyed but still considering us allies against the Norse (so nice of PBEM that you can't read body language).
So now I had to fight both the Swedes and the Norse: since their potential enemies were all too engaged and far away there was only a small chance of survival for me. Time to start working both powers to sow the seeds of envy and distrust. And ensure that the Anglos were friendly with me: we had agreed that I would leave him Austrasia and he would leave me Frisia.
Ben and I were both upset after F825 because we had bounced eachother in Lindholm while each of us insisted that the other shouldn't. Didn't make him a good candidate for an ally but I was considering it but also wanted him to support that future relationship with some immediate actions. And that never happened (until much later and with the Norse in a very different position). Worse, right after Winter 825 Ben blamed me for making the single-most anti-Norse build right after the single-most anti-Norse move. Of course I saw it differently (and I would like to know Ben whether you really believed so or was you just increasing pressure on me?).
Meanwhile Sweden was trying to convince me to attack the Norse in Alvheim with multiple units. No chance as it would leave me very vulnerable to the Norse and the Swedes but also because Sweden had just neglected to move 2 units into the battle zone with Sweden (he favored convoying his army from Skane to VIN).
That Fall in the 2nd year both the Swedes and the Norse attacked me full-force: Reric, Bay of Reric, and Roskilde; but I 'only' lost Roskilde as I had expected something along that line. In Winter 826 I still had one build, just like the Swedes and the Norse but the Norse had ships all around my borders and in Roskilde while the Swedes did not have a particularly strong position (and in my view were at the mercy of the Norse; could have been a tipping had Ben wished to).
Spring 827 the Norse and the Swedes attacked me and forced me from Jelling and Reric. My army in Reric could disband or flee south. I decided to go south but since my army was now at the border of Anglo Saxon Austrasia, Steve went paranoid; and he was right, of course, because next thing I did, in F 827, is take Austrasia hoping to limit my losses by taking his SC. That would cost me dearly later as Steve joined the Swedes in their attack on me. But if I hadn't done so I might not have made it to the DIAS.
Much to my relief the Swedes decided to take Roskilde from the Norse by force while I was so fortunate to dislodge them in Jelling.
Winter 827: the Norse had to disband one unit, on top of its fleet that had been disbanded from Roskilde. The Danes still had 4 units, the Norse 5 and the Swedes suddenly had 9. This was the turning point for Chris (nice job!).
From there on I was just trying to survive while Sweden was focussing its attacks on the Norse. The Norse was forced out of its SCs one by one and at some was left with 3 or 2 units. And that's when the Norse approached me to work together. Although there wasn't much that he could do for me I tried to find opportunities for us. Ben however was so lucky at that time to have another power helping him: the Scots.
In 829 I realized I wouldn't be able to keep the Swedes out of my Home SCs so I changed strategy to aim for his Home SCs in retribution. I knew it wasn't going to bring him down but certainly going to annoy him: my defiance of the Swedish force that was more than twice as big as the Danes. And at the end of Autumn 830 I had my fleet in Skane, Bay of Reric, and Baltic Sea. But I was glad we agreed on the DIAS as I would have had to disband 2 units the coming Winter.
Thanks Andy for an excellent GM job. For all the timely reminders especially when I happened to be in rural France in the first year.
My feedback on the arrangement of the powers across the map:
The distance between the powers on the mainland (Norse, Swedes, and Danes) and the powers on the islands makes it difficult to get any interaction between these powers until a few years into the game. The only exception I see is the Anglos but they usually will have enough worries to deal with on their island to start looking for trouble elsewhere. Zetland is strategically positioned between the two but I don't see why the Scots would pick one dot on Zetland (even as a launching pad for attacks to the mainland) over all those dots right to the south of it; especially with the Gaels near enough to compete over those. Yes, if the Scots or the Anglos are confident with alliances with respectively the Gaels and the Bretons, they might focus on longterm over shortterm gains but with stabs being such a common event in a Dip game, I think most players will opt for the short term dot increase.
In general I think that the Swedes are at a disadvantage although you wouldn't say from this game. Can't really say though how to improve this. Perhaps giving the Swedes a Home SC and starting position in VIN? But that would put the Danes too much at a disadvantage.
My feedback on the arrangement of water spaces versus land spaces:
As I said in the beginning this game's map with its large amount of water spaces in the central area and the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony gives plenty of opportunities for fleet movements and convoys. I haven't seen that many variants where fleets play a major role. Even when the map often seems ideal for fleet actions, the play usually is all about armies. And so was this game. And I had really not expected it to be. Not with the game starting with 12 fleets out of 21 units. Scott already said that he tried desperately to get players to build fleets but his pleads fell on deaf ears. Maybe it's just the human nature (born with feet and lungs instead of fins and gills). I don't think subtle changes to the map or number of fleets will improve this. Perhaps assigning a dot to a few water spaces might do it but I have to admit that when I wrote this my mind immediately told me that it would require an island for a dot to be placed in a 'water' space. Funny how the mind likes to reconfirm existing patterns.
Looking back at the fun I had playing this game I can only say: when are we going to play this variant again?
Frank
2010/8/14 The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.
However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG
I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant. In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game. One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.
Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank. I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.
Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally. In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake. Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances. But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences. Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.
Is this a flaw in the design of the variant? I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc). Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.
Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben. I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.
I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there. I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake. I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to. I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.
Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off. If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.
Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me. I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:
"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions. That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.
I still don't think it was a BAD stab. Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks. I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med. There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.
I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots. Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.
As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner. Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall. Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again. I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.
Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright. I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds. (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)
That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick. There's just nowhere to go. No easy road to the front. Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork. There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either. Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes. I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"
Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant. What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them. Lots of convoys? No. Lots of complex naval battles? Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.
Well, this has gone on. I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars! Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!
DQ |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - bielf11 (Aug 13, 2010, 6:57 pm) |
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/[Reply] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 - TheWhiteWolf (Aug 13, 2010, 4:08 pm) |
Guys, I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group. After all, this was a play test. Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word, Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game. I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and
proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/[Reply] |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) packrat Aug 13, 09:13 pm |
Hmmm - I deleted all my dip folders and cleaned out the filters so were it not for
Dr. Martin's post I would have missed this altogether.
I would like to say the DIAS outcome surprised me, but, alas, it did not. Matter of
fact, I told Scot player that would be the outcome as a result of his stab. I've been
in every playtest there has been for this game and is the only game I would even
remotely consider playing at this point. So far I've played the Scots, the Britons,
and the Norse.
That being said - I started this game trying to work with the Scots and Anglos against
the Bretons with the intention of wheeling around on the scots as that finished up.
I tried numerous times too get players to see the need to mobilize fleets to the east,
but
that key strategy was lost on all but Steve. He knew exactly what I meant, but he couldn't
get out from under either. The Scot player played me rather well and even though I suspected
what came was coming I was hoping I could gain position before he turned. Once he did that
and Chris stabbed in the east I knew where it would end. Based on the more or less lack of
communication I figured this board did not have what it needed to fight this one out and would
DIAS.
Steves moves toward the end puzzled me to no end - WHY he was worrying about the mainland
while we had bigger issues at home was beyond me. That allowed the Bretons to hold his own
and that gave him enough hope to work with the Scots. Repeated emails to both the Bretons and
Scots were not returned, Steve's position was such that even if he did turn around it was too late
to do much good.
I confess to not
watching the east as closely as I should have, but honestly, where I was I didn't need
to. I needed to get the Scots and Anglos into the water and they wouldn't go. This game is more dynamic
than many appear to be able to see and it requires the players to think outside the box. You can play just
about any variant much the same way you play standard dip - not so here. And THAT is why these play
tests play out as they do. Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels.
Thanks all for the game.
Goodnight.
Scott
From: "dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com" <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:57:31 PM
Subject: RE: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to
Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
|
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) TheWhiteWolf Aug 13, 09:44 pm |
Oh, sweet memories...
From: Packrat <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>
Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels. |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 14, 10:32 am |
This is one of the nicer things anyone has ever said about one of my variants, especially Dark Ages. Thanks Scott -
my full EOG will come separately, as I'm finally feeling well enough to write it. Slow recovery...
B.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Packrat <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmmm - I deleted all my dip folders and cleaned out the filters so were it not for
Dr. Martin's post I would have missed this altogether.
I would like to say the DIAS outcome surprised me, but, alas, it did not. Matter of
fact, I told Scot player that would be the outcome as a result of his stab. I've been
in every playtest there has been for this game and is the only game I would even
remotely consider playing at this point. So far I've played the Scots, the Britons,
and the Norse.
That being said - I started this game trying to work with the Scots and Anglos against
the Bretons with the intention of wheeling around on the scots as that finished up.
I tried numerous times too get players to see the need to mobilize fleets to the east, but
that key strategy was lost on all but Steve. He knew exactly what I meant, but he couldn't
get out from under either. The Scot player played me rather well and even though I suspected
what came was coming I was hoping I could gain position before he turned. Once he did that
and Chris stabbed in the east I knew where it would end. Based on the more or less lack of
communication I figured this board did not have what it needed to fight this one out and would
DIAS.
Steves moves toward the end puzzled me to no end - WHY he was worrying about the mainland
while we had bigger issues at home was beyond me. That allowed the Bretons to hold his own
and that gave him enough hope to work with the Scots. Repeated emails to both the Bretons and
Scots were not returned, Steve's position was such that even if he did turn around it was too late
to do much good.
I confess to not watching the east as closely as I should have, but honestly, where I was I didn't need
to. I needed to get the Scots and Anglos into the water and they wouldn't go. This game is more dynamic
than many appear to be able to see and it requires the players to think outside the box. You can play just
about any variant much the same way you play standard dip - not so here. And THAT is why these play
tests play out as they do. Except the first one, that was just a melt down on so many levels.
Thanks all for the game.
Goodnight.
Scott
From: "dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com" <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:57:31 PM
Subject: RE: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
--
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 |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) mikemorris Aug 16, 09:15 pm |
Scot EOG
I started the game intending to expand south down the Island. With that in mind, I wanted
to secure my flanks, and did succeed in putting together agreements with the Norse and the
Gaels. My plan was to take three centers or so on the way south, and then decide whether to
stab the Norse or the Gaels.
My decision was made fairly early on. The Norse made every move they agreed to make,
and let me take Zetland. OTOH, the Scots did not move as discussed, altho they didn't make
hostile moves. But it seemed to me that Scott was hedging his bets and was ready to side with
the Bretons or the Anglos if it proved at all advantageous. I figured that BD would put up a very
tough fight and slow me down considerably if
I pressed on him, so I turned on Scott.
It all worked very well after that. I think I may have been able to win, but Chris probably had
as good a shot as I did, so rather than draw the game out I decided to go for the DIAS.
Even tho there's been a lot of discussion about changing the map, etc, I think it is balanced
pretty well the way it is. I would suggest a few more play tests with the current map before
putting thru any major changes. I actually did envision a long term alliance with the Gaels, in
which we split up the Island, the Gaels moved onto the continent and pushed east, while I
moved into Scandanavia in the north. I think this is certainly a viable strategy for a long term
Scot/Gael alliance. This could also have worked with an alliance with either the Bretons or
the Anglos, taking out the Gaels and then moving east. I imagine I am in the minority, but I
do
like the map the way it is.
- Mike
the
From: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>;
Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Frank Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys, I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group. After all, this was a play test. Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word, Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game. I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and
proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/ |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) Kenshi777 Aug 17, 10:02 am |
Mike's comments are the most encouraging I have heard to date - very exciting to hear that from the Scots' perspective, the C/G alliance can work. But I have yet to hear a Gaelic player say so...still another playtest is already forming, so I think I'll keep taking notes and keep observing.
B.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Scot EOG
I started the game intending to expand south down the Island. With that in mind, I wanted
to secure my flanks, and did succeed in putting together agreements with the Norse and the
Gaels. My plan was to take three centers or so on the way south, and then decide whether to
stab the Norse or the Gaels.
My decision was made fairly early on. The Norse made every move they agreed to make,
and let me take Zetland. OTOH, the Scots did not move as discussed, altho they didn't make
hostile moves. But it seemed to me that Scott was hedging his bets and was ready to side with
the Bretons or the Anglos if it proved at all advantageous. I figured that BD would put up a very
tough fight and slow me down considerably if I pressed on him, so I turned on Scott.
It all worked very well after that. I think I may have been able to win, but Chris probably had
as good a shot as I did, so rather than draw the game out I decided to go for the DIAS.
Even tho there's been a lot of discussion about changing the map, etc, I think it is balanced
pretty well the way it is. I would suggest a few more play tests with the current map before
putting thru any major changes. I actually did envision a long term alliance with the Gaels, in
which we split up the Island, the Gaels moved onto the continent and pushed east, while I
moved into Scandanavia in the north. I think this is certainly a viable strategy for a long term
Scot/Gael alliance. This could also have worked with an alliance with either the Bretons or
the Anglos, taking out the Gaels and then moving east. I imagine I am in the minority, but I
do like the map the way it is.
- Mike
the
From: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
To: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Frank Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 2:08:29 PM
Subject: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group. After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word, Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
--
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 |
| DC-322 Autumn 830 (dc322) bielf11 Aug 13, 06:57 pm |
Guys, thanks for playing. Enjoyed every bit of it although recalling the early days I have to admit I liked the successful attacks over the succesful retreats.
I will share my EoG thougts with you later.
Frank
----Origineel bericht----
Van: The White Wolf
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 23:08:29
Aan: Scott Troemel; Andrew Jameson; Ben Hester; Christopher Martin; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: DC-322 Autumn 830
Guys,
I hope that nobody minds me putting this out an hour early. I figure we'd all
be better off without the tense waiting game. The DIAS has been unanimously
voted for, so this game is over. I'm sure I speak for Ben when I ask you all to
share your points of view, opinions, and EoG statements with the whole group.
After all, this was a play test.
Congratulations to our survivors (most of you), and thanks to Scott once again
for putting up a valiant defense. As our only eliminee, if that's even a word,
Scott has a unique spot in the wrap up of this game.
I look forward to seeing all of you in the future, and thanks for playing.
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/ |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2010, 3:26 pm) |
sign me up! (and I vote yes on the DIAS, would be foolish not to)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes! Solidarity! Liberty! Equality! Fraternities! Sororities! The 35 hour work-week and 6 weeks paid vacation for all!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:08 PM, dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Can I join you? I mean going on strike and such?
--
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] |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2010, 3:23 pm) |
Mike (or Chris for that matter) - no one would fault you for pressing on for the solo if you think it's within reach. You know that's what any of us vassal states would do if we were in your shoes
B.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:42 AM, <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com> wrote:
Dancing_Queen posted in dc322. The message was...
Oh, sure, NOW that I FINALLY get to the NORTH SEA!
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
OK guys, I'll accept the will of the supermajority. I propose a DIAS and I
vote yes on it.
________________________________
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the [post:17467] in the subject line so your message is routed to the appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc322 forum at diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
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] |
| DC-322 Draw Proposal - TheWhiteWolf (Aug 13, 2010, 2:53 pm) |
Guys, I have both retreats, and will still publish Autumn as planned later this evening. The game's not over unless I get a unanimous yes vote on that DIAS Mike proposed. On that note, I've yet to hear from two players, so I'd like their votes by the winter deadline - I'll set one in tonight's adjudication.
Cheers, Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/[Reply] |
| DC-322 Message from Ben - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2010, 2:35 pm) |
sleep-deprived? check. malnourished? check. Color-blind? Nope - can still see which dots are Norse, and all those swedish units all around it. No such luck Chris
B.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM, dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Nice try Chris, but I think it was surgery not lobotomy
----Origineel bericht----
Van: Christopher Martin
Verzonden: 12-08-2010 22:15:32
Aan: The White Wolf
Cc: Ben Hester; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Mike Morris; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: Re: DC-322 Message from Ben
And if you don't need those dots anymore, I can take them off your hands . . .
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM, The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Likewise - Ben, you take your time getting back on your proverbial feet with
> regard to the game. If you need an extension, I'll happily grant it.
> Andy
>
> I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
> http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
>
> ________________________________
> From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
> To: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
> Cc: Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell
> <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Frank
> Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; Mike Morris
> <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 3:38:06 PM
> Subject: DC-322 Message from Ben
>
> Ben Hester asked me to forward this:
>
> "Apologies to all for recent silence - just got out of surgery
> wednesday, and the recovery has been more painful than expected.
> Shouldn't have any problem making the deadline, however, negotiations
> might be delayed... "
>
> Get well soon Ben!
>
>
--
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] |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - Dancing_Queen (Aug 13, 2010, 1:19 pm) |
Yes! Solidarity! Liberty! Equality! Fraternities! Sororities! The 35 hour work-week and 6 weeks paid vacation for all!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:08 PM, dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Can I join you? I mean going on strike and such?[Reply] |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - bielf11 (Aug 13, 2010, 1:08 pm) |
Can I join you? I mean going on strike and such?
----Origineel bericht----
Van: Christopher Martin
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 19:37:11
Aan: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com
Cc: Mike Morris; The White Wolf; Ben Hester; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: Re: DC-322 Fall 830
No no -- I was done after I got to the Skaggerak. THAT was the main thing I
wanted.
That, and alcohol that isn't made from honey. I mean, that stuff we drink
is increadibly . . .
Meadiocre.
That's right. I went there. End the game or I will strike again!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM, dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com wrote:
Thought that was all you're after just to prove you could.
----Origineel bericht----
Van: Christopher Martin
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 15:36:58
Aan: Mike Morris
Cc: The White Wolf; Ben Hester; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank
Bielschowsky; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: Re: DC-322 Fall 830
Oh, sure, NOW that I FINALLY get to the NORTH SEA!
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Mike Morris
wrote:
OK guys, I'll accept the will of the supermajority. I propose a DIAS and
I
vote yes on it.
________________________________[Reply] |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - Dancing_Queen (Aug 13, 2010, 12:37 pm) |
No no -- I was done after I got to the Skaggerak. THAT was the main thing I wanted.
That, and alcohol that isn't made from honey. I mean, that stuff we drink is increadibly . . .
Meadiocre.
That's right. I went there. End the game or I will strike again!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM, dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thought that was all you're after just to prove you could.
----Origineel bericht----
Van: Christopher Martin
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 15:36:58
Aan: Mike Morris
Cc: The White Wolf; Ben Hester; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: Re: DC-322 Fall 830
Oh, sure, NOW that I FINALLY get to the NORTH SEA!
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK guys, I'll accept the will of the supermajority. I propose a DIAS and I
> vote yes on it.
>
> ________________________________[Reply] |
| DC-322 Fall 830 - bielf11 (Aug 13, 2010, 12:33 pm) |
Thought that was all you're after just to prove you could.
----Origineel bericht----
Van: Christopher Martin
Verzonden: 13-08-2010 15:36:58
Aan: Mike Morris
Cc: The White Wolf; Ben Hester; Darren McAdam-OConnell; DC322 Forum; Frank Bielschowsky; Steve Emmert
Onderw.: Re: DC-322 Fall 830
Oh, sure, NOW that I FINALLY get to the NORTH SEA!
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
OK guys, I'll accept the will of the supermajority. I propose a DIAS and I
vote yes on it.
________________________________[Reply] |
