Further on the issue of balance, I think all the southern 2-centre powers
get a very raw deal.
***Agreed. I think all 2 SC powers on the map will be increased to 3
actually. There are a lot of reasons why having 2 SCs to start is a
bad thing.
Bolivia has no guaranteed gains,
***...a reason I am strongly considering removing the Andes rule -
would this help, along with a 3rd SC to start?
and is practically
thrown right into the fray against Chile from the outset as Golfo de Guafo
borders a home centre for both.
***...true, but this has the added effect of making Chile think twice
about dogpiling Argentina with Paraguay. I would like to retain that
dynamic, even if this particular sea zone does get redrawn.
Paraguay gets a slightly nore prosperous
first year, but then is likely to come under heavy attack from the much
larger Brasil, whil Argentina seems to be the Austria - nice initial growth
potential, but in between lots of powers.
***I always thought of Paraguay as the Austria - perhaps with a third
SC (maybe a fleet?) this will be better.
In the north, Venezuela probably gets two early builds to sit it on four
centres and a comfortable size
***Not sure if this is a given - doesn't Colombia at least consider F
Car - SaM/GDa and A Bog - Lla?
, though all four of these countries suffer > the disadvantage of only
being able to build two units a turn, which > presumably can become
important as the game goes on and powers are capable > of taking many
centres in a turn.
***Agreed - all two SC powers must go. This is doable.
Compare this with the rich earlygrowth potential of Brasil and Columbia.
Brasil probably get 2 or 3 builds putting it on 5 or 6 centres, with a good
offensive and defensive position and but a nasty case of early leader
syndrome. Columbia should really be getting two centres in the first year
(if not, why not?), ideally putting it on 5 to Venezuela's 4 and Peru's 3.
***Peru is given only to have 3? Why not Iquitos and either Galapagos
or Arica? Especially if Bolivia and Chile are destined to fight over
GdG? Not to say that the fight in GdG is not a good thing if it's
forced, but still - I see Peru as a strong candidate to get 4.
Peru/Bolivia should be a strong alliance option, even as the map is.
As seen, these two can then team up on Columbia, but I don't think his
position is any worse than a Russia with England and Turkey looking at him
with hostility. In fact, I still think a bit of deft play could see Peru
repelled with an extra fleet, while Venezuela is stalled in the north with
the remaining fleet and army. Another build could see that flank becoming
increasingly secure.
***True - Peru is disadvantaged. How would A Iquitos as a starting
SC/unit do to help with that?
In my opinion, tactical play really starts working at four units and above,
which I think is why all countries in Standard (bar England in the case of
an aggressively northward-looking Russian) have at least one centre they can
claim without contest. With two, you basically have to guess whether or not
to risk an opponent taking your home centre or not. I think in the average
game, the starting differences in size are more likely to magnify rather
than equalise.
***Agreed.
[quote:dd395c8c8f]Hopefully that's helped!
[/quote:dd395c8c8f]
***Absolutely - thanks! Please keep it coming - I'm listening!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
