Hey Gang,

I realize I'm late to this discussion and many of you have moved on to other projects, but I still wanted to say a few words about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the Powers.

I realize that no one has been calling for the Powers to be exactly equal in strength. If that were our goal, we would all be playing Migraine. Since we are not extolling the virtues of Migraine and we are all fans of Standard Diplomacy, I think we can agree that absolute equality is not a prerequisite for variant design.

The question then becomes this: how much disparity is acceptable in the relative strengths of the Powers before we consider the variant too imbalanced to be enjoyable? Clearly, that disparity cannot be too large or people will shun the variant simply to avoid being stuck with Power X.

Standard Diplomacy's Italy is the one Power that most people complain about as being too weak, yet it is clearly not so badly off that folks have stopped playing Standard.

In 1900, even though only a relatively small sample size was in available (just over 40 games at the time), I was hearing enough negative buzz about Russia's poor play to be convinced that I needed to make a change that strengthened Russia or risk losing my audience. After making that change by introducing the vaunted Steamroller, I again received enough negative feedback to tell me that I had to tone Russia down or again risk having 1900 drift into the category of variants that are imbalanced and unplayable. Hence the Russian Emergency Measures Rule. So far, so good.

The question then must be asked: are the ten Powers in A&E sufficiently viable that a player can be assigned any of them and still have a reasonable expectation of success? While Jeff and I are optimistic, the jury is clearly still out.

Certainly, many of the players that participate in an A&E game do so for reasons that go beyond merely playing diplomacy. I suspect a significant number of A&E players are historians of sorts and that the map/rules of the variant appeal to them in some aesthetic way. If I'm correct, these players are willing to cut the variant some slack, at least initially, because they would be offended on some level by a Poland that could stand toe-to-toe with Russia or a Denmark that could make the Royal Navy tremble in fear. Such circumstances would so violate historical reality that they would seem contrived.

At the same time, even the most ardent supporter of Poland & Saxony as a played Power or the most die-hard fan of Sweden would eventually have to admit that a game where these two Powers are regularly crushed under the heels of more powerful neighbors is simply not that good a game. This being the case, Jeff and I have had to balance at least a semblance of historical accuracy against playability. Over the course of the game's evolution, Jeff and I (and many others) have discussed and implemented several ideas designed to enhance the relative playability of the smaller Powers without completely sacrificing the historical feel of post Seven Years War Europe. These ideas have included establishing buffers where non existed previously (e.g., Dresden initially consisted of all of Saxony...only later did we insert Lusatia), changing the internal configurations of certain Powers (e.g., Spain now is arranged very differently from how it was initially), limiting the number of DPs a power can have, making neutrals more accessible to Powers that otherwise had no access to them (e.g., the addition of Courland and Crimea), and allowing the 2-SC Powers to claim a third home SC.

Are these changes enough? Jeff and I hope so. I think we both have become rather fond of A&E's small children and we cheer for their success. I for one would be devastated to see an A&E map without Poland & Saxony as a played Power (and I couldn't have been happier when it actually won a game some time ago). Only time will tell, however. If, after a significant number of games have been played, we determine that the variant requires tweaking, then you can be assured we will do so. Right now, however, I don't believe we are anywhere close to that point.

BTW... I have been somewhat amused by the general consensus of this group that Britain & Hanover is one of the "Big Boys" of A&E, along with Austria. Curiously, after a recent game in which Russia raced to a solo, the general consensus was that Russia was a monster that was likely to win more games than just about any other Power, with the possible exceptions of Austria and France. After all, four of Russia's neighbors (Denmark-Norway, Sweden, Poland & Saxony, and Prussia) were all "terminally weak," Austria was likely to be preoccupied in Germany and Italy, and the "rational Sultan" would head for the Mediterranean rather than north into Crimea. By the time Austria and Turkey were aware of the danger, Russia would have crushed it Scandinavian and Central European neighbors, and would be cruising to victory. It would be so easy.

Funny... In this game Russia's northern and central neighbors were weak for many of the early years, Austria did focus on Germany and Italy, and Turkey did sail into Mediterranean waters. Despite all of this and a very capable Tsar at the helm, Russia didn't explode to victory. In fact, it was barely a factor in the game's final outcome. How strange.

The fact remains that all of the people who have been following A&E for a while now have seen every Power, to include the supposed weaklings, have fantastic games where they looked absolutely dominant, and horrible games where they struggled to avoid elimination right out of the blocks. Even mighty Austria has been humbled by bad starts.

All this means that I look forward to Nick's next game. I'm eager to see which Powers will exceed expectations and which Powers will look dead in the water after only one bad turn.

Happy Stabbing

Baron


**************
Refinance and lower payments online with Ditech. Visit www.ditech.com Today! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221879746x1201405835/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fclk.atdmt.com%2FDEG%2Fgo%2F155848685%2Fdirect%2F01%2F)