.hmmessage P {margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
Indeed, I am in agreement with the others - good job in GMing.

For this game, my original strategy of careful neutrality was easy for me in the Westlands. Once my own area's SCs were captured I could have very easily sat back and watched the rest of the continent fight it out. Choosing to side with the Borderlands once the Midlands/Seafolk looked to be gaining the upper hand was simple prudence - which unfortunately was too far along when almost all the players changed. From then on out, the sides were pretty much set. If it hadn't been for the Seachan and Trollocs arriving during those last couple of turns - things would have turned out very differently.

As for a post-action report on the Westlands game play, its remarkably easy to get to a certain point - then next to impossible to move onwards. With easy choke points in the north and central areas, you're channeled into either attacking the Whitecloaks or the Seafolk. The Seafolk can easily block but the Whitecloaks are in more of a pickle.

Then there are the Barbarians at the gate. The Seachan. The Seafolk can block them easily enough if they aren't distracted by other things. The Trollocs - easily blocked if the Borderlands aren't distracted. The Aiel - ditto.

But one of the advantages to the Southlands, the Whitecloaks (and to a lesser extent the Midlands) is that they aren't going to be impacted by any Barbarians until they've expanded enough to be only minimally inconvenienced by them. The Seafolk aren't going to be ever touched by the Trollocs or the Aiel - and can easily deal with the Seachan with minimal foresight. Meanwhile the Borderlands are required to keep at least one army in the rear at all times, and more prudently 2-3 which is a huge handicap. This leaves the other countries with armies which don't have to be held in reserve just in case.

-Mark Duffield





I only have a limited perspective as I jumped in late as a replacement.

First, thanks to my fellow players and thanks especially to Jason for GMing. Jason always has a lot of patience for us "orders laggards," and I both appreciate that as well as apologize for the any delays I may have caused in this one. I don't really have a legitimate excuse, but no sooner had I signed on to play, than I came under fire from what seemed to be every direction in the real world.

The upside was that Midlands, it seems, had recently been the big dog of the board and I had been handed what appeared to be a pretty solid starting position and all the other players were immediately open and communicative. The downside was that Midlands had been the big dog of the board and what looked like a solid position was actually a strategic retreat in progress as a couple of other players had just handed Midlands its shorts.

And while indeed everyone was open to a conversation, it was apparent from the beginning that there was little hope to change the already well established balance of play around the board. Again, not that people were not open to ideas--everyone listened and commented (or at least paid lip service to my BS) I just couldn't find any strategic logic (even the fuzzy type) that I could use to persuade either Borderlands or Westlands to attack each other, or support me in some other way. Conversely, it was a no-brainer that I'd work with the Sea Folk and the Whiteclouds.

I was actually prepared to continue this one and support the Seafolk who did have a plan with some merit to it. Producing any significant results from that plan, however, would be a long haul it was agreed and I was personally concerned I'd dash our joint hopes by acting the blockhead and either miss-ordering or pulling a NMR out of a hat. So as they say in free-fall parachuting, I pulled everything red and shiny...

A Final note. Although I didn't play Borderlands, and thus was not the harass-ee, I generally enjoy the quirks of some of these non-standard games, such as the sudden appearance of units or other similar "act of god." Given the geography of this board, it's probably one of the most effective ways to help ensure there is not an early stalemate.

No matter, thanks again to all and until next time!

Bruce

From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
To: Alan Farrington <alley_cat_1990(at)hotmail.com>
Cc: Jason K <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; Bruce Quinn <coebq(at)yahoo.com>; dc216(at)diplomaticcorp.com; Mark Duffield <captain_sicarius(at)hotmail.com>; Stephen Lytton <stevelytton(at)hotmail.com>; Eric Shum <ecommander0(at)hotmail.com>; former.trout(at)gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:30:38 AM
Subject: Re: DC 216 Children of the Light EoG

Thanks again, Jason, for a second round of a variant where your interest shines though so clearly. You've made both my forays a lot of fun.

I think Alan's analysis is excellent, and a great jumping-off point. He is a good player who was totally stymied by Eduardo Kyono, the original Sea Folk leader. (I had similar issues with Eric Shum, playing Southlands.) The major drawback to this otherwise very enjoyable variant is that geography limits the diplomatic options of almost every player. Borderlands and Midlands have to fight. Westlands and Whitecloaks almost certainly have to fight. Southlands has two options - Whitecloaks or Midlands - and the Sea Folk have three. This sense of being locked in continues throughout the game; it's almost impossible to for most of the powers to solo. It may be telling that the two tests so far have resulted in two large draws.


I would recommend taking the same beautiful map and adding more provinces, with more ways around the all-too-limiting impassable spaces. (This applies to the sea as well: two Sea Folk fleets can seal off a Westlands armada from touching either the Sea Folk homeland or making the turn to attack the Whitecloaks or Southlands.)


On a personal note playing Borderlands, I wound up pretty frustrated by the too-frequent appearances of Men In Black. I mis-ordered once vs Midlands well before Bruce took over, and that may have made a difference - but that one instance aside, every time I had a head of steam going, I had to deal with an attack from behind. To be clear, I'm not saying that the game is unbalanced in this way - more that it's not a lot of fun to have such frequent random elements in a game designed to have none (no dice, simultaneous moves, etc.). Or not fun for me, anyway!


Jorge

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Alan Farrington <alley_cat_1990(at)hotmail.com ([email]alley_cat_1990(at)hotmail.com[/email])> wrote:

Hello again everybody,

I dont have a whole lot to say about this game so this should be a relatively short EoG. First of all let me say thank you to Jason who ran this game. He did a great job at GM and I know he's really put a lot of time into making this Wheel of Time diplomacy idea work.

As for the actual game, the whole time I felt like a caged mouse. My biggest success of the game was taking Ghealdan. I built an army in the fall and figured it was time to get down to business. Boy was I wrong. Expanding West was a poor option for me because of the Mountains of Mist. Likewise expanding north was equally as challenging. I set my sights to the East and hoped to take Illian from the Soutlanders with some Seafolk help. I still curse the seafolk name, as far as I'm concerned it was one of the worst diplomacy experiences I've ever had.

The seafolk just could nto be reached. I tried to negotiate me taking Illian in exchange for my help with him taking Tear. Tear Gordon and Mayene would have all been his I would have been happy with Far madding and Illian. The relationship with seafolk never really got off the board so I tried to set my sights on the Ocean. Maybe With some cunning strategy I could get some fleets out to see and cause some real problems for the Sea Folk. The West seemed on board so around spring 1002 I believe I planned to move on Illian with support from the Soutlanders. After taking Illian I would then allow my army to be popped for a Southland army. This would give me a build, in which I could raise a Fleet to take on the Sea Folk. It was a desperate time and a desperate measure, but the plan never sunk in with anyone else and ended up being a flop.

Shortly after the West and the Midlands took me out of the game quite handily. A painful game with a painful end.

Thank you all for playing, If I were to play this board again i would enjoy to see some changes. The impassable territories in the West make the game very difficult for The Whitecloaks and the West. If Ghaeldon touched more provinces it would have made my lfe a lot easier as well. Only one outlet into Emonds field made negotiating above me very difficult.

Thanks,
Alan Farrington

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

Windows Live helps you keep up with all your friends, in one place.