Well, if we didn't all have fun then we wouldn't play! It's a great variant.
All I'm saying is that I doubt that any1 would prefer a 2-sc power over England or Austria & maybe a 3-sc power. Yet the 2-sc powers have certainly shown their strength, so perhaps bumping them 1 sc would b2 much.
So along the lines of the naval half-strength move, it occurred to me that 2 one-half home sc's might give the 2-sc powers more chance against the bigger powers, without going overboard.
--- On
Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 3:09 PM
I listed Austria first and Britain second, but I had Spain over all the 3-SC powers. (Not that I'd keep that order now, necessarily.) Something else that would affect my choices is the fun factor. I figured Austria was in the middle of things, and thus have a maximum amount of diplomacy.
Jorge
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] IIRC, there was a game in which I played & Baron GM'd, where a 2-sc player was eliminated in the very 1st year or 2nd year. With all due respect, that is virtually impossible to do w/a larger power. It is certainly impossible w/England.
England's struggles (and Austria's?) to date are merely due to a small statistical sample size. And I doubt any player who is as experienced in this variant as Frank, has ever played England.
Does anyone seriously maintain that they would rather have 1 of the 2-sc powers, than England or Austria?
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:17 PM
To jump into this conversation from the extremely objective perspective of little Austria, the performances of the 2-SC powers vs that of the 3-SC powers indicates that the former need no help at all. If you factor in Britain's lousy performance and Audtria's non-domination in past games, you could say that at this point in its testing, A&E looks as balanced as possible.
Jorge
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] It has been many years since I played the game. IIRC, there was a "half strength" naval move in it.
It seemed to me that perhaps helping out the 2 SC powers might take the route of "half strength" SC's. That is, 2 specific sc's would both have to be in the countries possession for him to build 1 unit.
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM
I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).
That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.
On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)
[/quote:8e19d08454]
[/quote:8e19d08454]
[/quote:8e19d08454]
[/quote:8e19d08454]
