I might from now on post some of the 1648 variant design discussions here. The following is a reply to a posting in the DVWorkshop, a yahoo group focused on variant design.

---

Cristiano, thanks for your note. Let me add my two cents to what you wrote:

> I suggest you take a look at Tommy Larsson's 1600 variant

I've known about 1600 for quite some time (2000?), long before I embarked on designing my own 17th century design. I disagree with a number of Larsson's design decisions and, had I done a pure map variant as he did, it would have also been very different from his.

That being said, I do think it should make for fun gaming. Indeed, I've always thought it one of the better Diplomacy variants.

Did my knowledge of 1600 influence 1648? It may have encouraged me to deliver my own take on the 17th century, but since I did not consult 1600's map while designing my own, I dare say any similarities are quite coincidental, both being based on the historical dynamics of the time.

> It has nine powers, exactly the same ones of 1648.

Those nine are the obvious choices, so this is not too surprising. Other possible candidates, e.g. the Dutch and Venetian Republics, are left out for good reason.

> The map is roughly the same.

In terms of geographic scope, yes. But other than, I think the maps have very little in common. 1648 is a good deal closer to A&E in terms of provinces adjacencies, I should say. Yet Tommy and I arranged the Russian and in part the English SCs in the same way. Being guided by history, we evidently came to quite similar results on that count.

> Tommy's 1600 is definetely equilibrated. One good thing, it kept the number of supply centers at a minimal necessary.

Five of his great powers start off with 4 SCs. I don't think 1600 is minimalist, but then I don't agree with you that having more SCs is necessarily bad.

> Feaux's 1648 presents about 60 SCs. Having standard's 34 scs for 7 players as an ideal account, a 9 player-map should have about 44 SCs.

58, to be exact. Perhaps having roughly 44 SCs might make sense were 1648 a pure map variant.

> At the openings stage, the garrisoned neutrals will masque the excessive number of SCs, but soon into midgame the game may become tactics excercise.

First of all, I think a number of minor powers will prove remarkably resilient and survive the first two years.

But given the minor power mechanism, I think having 30 neutral SCs is perfectly appropriate. It's not clear to me why this might reduce a game to a tactics exercise, as you suggest.

In any case, I consider both Standard Diplomacy (owing to it being the hobby's point of reference) and Ambition & Empire (the origin of the Diplomatic Points mechanism) by far the most useful benchmarks for comparative analysis. Actually, I completed an article for the upcoming Diplomacy World issue focussing to a large extent on precisely such comparisons between Standard and 1648.

Cheers,

Charles