Re: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)




"Do you have any thoughts on the specific changes I proposed - are they all bad?  Or do you just think any revisions are premature?"
 
Ultimately these are your decisions.  It's your variant.  As the map is now, it does play well.  It would probly play well after some of the changes too.  It would just be different.  I dunno if that's better, I'd have to play it.  You've definitely got a good start, and I'm pretty happy w how the play went from the Romanian pov.
 
If anything stood out as blaringly problematic, I'd mention it.  I think mid-game, I mentioned the difficulty Ross and I had in invading Ottoman.  But in hindsight, that was appropriate.  For even in Standard, if AR try to invade T, but Italy is propping him up, AR are going to have an insanely difficult time w that.  Same thing here, it took BR forever to break down Ottoman cuz Greece, the needed 3rd angle, was working to prop him up.  So really it wasnt a map flaw, rather an annoying Nigel.  So really what we need to be looking at here is not how to fix the map but how to fix Nigs. 
 
-mike
 



From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 6/7/2010 3:37 PM
To: Michael Sims
Cc: Nigel PHILLIPS; dc288; Garry Bledsoe; rodtheworm(at)hotmail.com; alevy(at)arubanetworks.com; allen.york(at)cchmc.org; gregory nomads; brn2dip(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net
Subject: Re: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)



Hi Mike - while in principle I agree (I actually like A/T in Standard,
think it's underutilized as part of the true Central Powers alliance
(G/A/T) - in this case I think the comparison is forced for two
reasons:

1 - In Standard, Turkey can pass peaceably south of Austria
indefinitely (and rapidly).  A stable border where Austria has Rum-Ser
vs. Bul-Gre is easily obtained, and later on the entire region can be
DMZed.  This works especially well when G/A engage and defeat Russia
early, perhaps with English or light Turkish help.

Austria-Hungary in Balkans1860 has no such clear route.  An argument
can be made that a full on invasion of Italy works - much as A/T in
Standard can attack Italy with great effect.  But in Standard Italy
can be easily divided between A/T, in Balkans 1860 not so much - and
Serbia is definitely leaving vulnerabilities open to focus much aside
from their fleet on Italian spoils.  It *is* possible for A/S to
engage Italy, and then Romania in turn (or vice versa) but I do think
(and two playtests have shown now) that it is a very unnatural
alliance.

2 - Relative concerns.  A/S *is* possible, but it is not at all
Austria's easiest path to a solo - not really comparable to a southern
attack at all in terms of rapid spoils.  (though it is worth nothing
that Austrians that do attack Serbia often find themselves pinched
between the Serbian remnant plus Italy and/or Rumania later, so
perhaps that is a consideration Austrians should take into greater
consideration.  It's not a dynamic that is readily apparent on the
map.

For this reason, I am inclined to make some revisions there.  Do you
have any thoughts on the specific changes I proposed - are they all
bad?  Or do you just think any revisions are premature?

B.

On 6/7/10, Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net> wrote:
> I dont see this problem you're trying to fix regarding AS alliances.
>
> I feared the AS in this game.  For the first couple weeks of game-time, I
> really did nothing but cower and tremble in the corner, hoping to not see an
> AS come at me, as I took a gamble early on building a couple fleets.
>
> I don't think a single game is enough to draw any proof that changes need be
> made. Get three games of history, then look at a rev.  If you change it
> every time, you'll interrupt the natural progression of the players to adapt
> their strategy to deal w what we learned from the last playing.  Standard
> has played out so many times, and each time I learn new things about it, so
> I wouldn't say "Austria cooperated w Italy two games in a row, so that means
> we need to make A/I war more certain."  It really could just be that A/I
> happened to get along or share common ideas or it just worked out that way.
>
> Anyways I wouldn't pin too much of what happened in this game purely on the
> map.  As you see we all have our own stories, and interaction as much as the
> map determines what happens.  So I'd suggest no changes as of just this
> game.  It's a good variant, see how it plays out when you get a few games
> and can look at a more statistical distribution of results.
>
> In this game, sure, AS didn't work together.  But that doesn't mean it's cuz
> of the map.  If I were Austria, I would have considered an AS a viable
> option, and I would probly have looked toward Romania or Italy as preferred
> targets.  You could look at AS in this game like AT in standard.  Here
> Serbia blocks Austria in, and Austria either has to work hard to operate
> around the fringes, or he eventually has to barrel thru S.  Likewise in
> Standard.  TA's don't often work out, cuz Turkey eventually has to break out
> of the corner, and dinking around the edges gets old.  But that doesn't mean
> AT (or AS in Balkans) is unworkable.
>
> -mike
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 6/4/2010 3:52 PM
> To: Michael Sims
> Subject: Balkans 1860 Revisions - Stage 1 (Long Version)
>
>
>
> Okay, had a chance to read Allen and Mike's remarks, and wanted to
> take a second to discuss some of their revision ideas - lots of good
> material here to work with, and I had a few thoughts of my own on some
> of these same topics that I wanted to run by you all.
>
>
> Note - This email is huge.  For those not interested in reading the
> whole thing, I have extracted the specific proposed changes paragraph
> and sent in a separate email.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - Allen, I guess this opening for me revolved largely
> around our trio w Italy.  We had a great team, we had Serbia on the
> ropes, and I had a killer stab of Bulgaria waiting to be taken.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...Now this is interesting.  I hadn't considered an IAR
> triple to really be a viable option for Austria-Hungary (or, to a
> lesser extent, Romania) over the long term.  In this plan,
> Austria-Hungary and Romania will likely face stiff resistance in a
> pure southerly drive, and a Serb/Bulgarian alliance is very likely (I
> thought) to spawn in response.  Meanwhile, Italy capitalizes on having
> a free hand to gobble up her internal open SCs (2-3 virtually
> guaranteed) and focus undistracted on Greece.  So Italy strikes me as
> the big winner here, whereas Austria-Hungary is just waiting to get
> stabbed by Italy and Romania in the mid-game phase.  Greece is the
> wild card though - if they open up an (ill-advised) second front
> against Serbia or Bulgaria in this scenario, then Austrian or Romanian
> growth could be significant.
>
>
> In fact - I had expected that the single greatest impulse *for* an
> Austrian-Serb alliance would be the Austrian fear of getting pinched
> by I/R.  After all, Italy can only go so far as a pure naval power -
> then  either an invasion of Austria or Greece seems necessary.
>
>
> So maybe I was wrong on multiple assumptions.  If IAR really was the
> natural impulse for all three of you (Allen, Mike, Adam) then I should
> not be surprised that the A/S alliance didn't last.  More on how to
> fix that farther down...
>
>
> ***Mike*** - From there it was pretty straight forward.  It was Ross'
> and my goal to try the unthinkable in this game and become naval
> superpowers.  Unheard of given our corner land powers...
>
>
> ---Ben--- More faulty assumptions on my part here it seems.  8 of the
> 9 territories on the Black Sea area coastline are SCs.  Moreover, both
> Romania and the Ottomans have 2 of their 3 home SCs on the coast in a
> variant that does *not* allow chaos builds.  So I expected that region
> to be a naval hotspot.
>
> It blew my mind to see Gregory pass on opening F Istanbul to the Black
> Sea, given the diplomatic leverage with R and B that position allows,
> the option for Sevastopol, and of course, the security of two of their
> three home SCs.  However, I suppose I really have made it too
> difficult for the Ottomans to at least guarantee one SC - usually
> Salonika.  Army Ankara and F Izmir don't seal the deal as they should
> be able to.  Perhaps I overcompensated in strengthening the Bulgarian
> position, which was disastrous in the first playtest.  Thoughts on how
> to improve this?  My knee-jerk reaction is actually to change Ankara
> to a fleet, but that just seems too strange to have the Ottomans start
> with all three units as fleets.  I suppose Istanbul could be the army
> - and that has other advantages for the Ottomans as well.  So I will
> probably switch those two starting units, but even more is probably
> needed.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - but I think we pulled it off pretty well by finally
> breaking into the Aegean in this last couple turns.  We set this goal
> really early on, upon seeing our initial placements, and it was
> refreshing to find a player excited to try less conventional
> strategies - something often lacking in Dip games.  We each trusted
> each other right by our centers, and
> this built a lot of trust.
>
>
> ---Ben--- Indeed - a B/R alliance that features heavy naval builds
> strikes me as unusual.  Mike and Ross have both also suggested it was
> an unorthodox strategy.  I will proceed with the assumption that most
> B/R alliances will have a heavy focus on building armies and driving
> west, with a token Romanian contribution to a primarily Bulgarian
> naval fight against Greece and/or the Ottomans.  Accordingly, I
> haven't identified a need for revisions based on this particular
> dynamic, though it was a very impressive alliance to watch in action,
> especially as Mike deftly weaved his armies through the Serb/Bulgarian
> border.  There was an extraordinary amount of trust in that alliance.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - This map certainly has its choke points around the
> Aegean, (separating BS from GI, with Turkey on the fulcrum) but this
> dynamic surely exists in standard too, with, say, MAO dividing TI from
> EG with F on the fulcrum.  So altho it seemed hard to break out, I
> don't know that it needs fixing so
> much, for it's just as hard for a TI duo in standard to break out into
> the northern half of the map against an EG team.
>
>
> ---Ben--- I see T/I as the one truly unorthodox alliance pair between
> neighbours on the Standard map.  Meaning that pursuing such an
> alliance usually requires that the players bypass the best
> opportunities for their own growth to pursue other goals, i.e. setting
> up long convoys or other shenanigans just for fun.  For those
> international relations scholars in the crowd - they do not behave as
> rational actors in the realist sense .
>
>
> But I digress - in Balkans1860, open water is not intended to be where
> the majority of naval action takes place.  There really isn't an
> analogy on this map to critical sea zones in standard like North Sea
> or MAO.  (Maybe Gulf of Taranto, but that's about it, and even that's
> a stretch).  The naval action largely consists of coastal fights,
> which must often be accompanied by support from inland armies to
> advance.  True, the Aegean region can bog down, but I think that is
> more so due to the Greek tendency to heavily emphasize naval growth
> than the actual borders.  This is where Nigel got into trouble I think
> - 1-2 too many fleets in his build mix (or at least sent the wrong
> way), and when they reached northern Italy, their usefulness ran out.
> That's questionable though, because it did take a lot to crack Italian
> defenses.
>
>
> Anyway, this *is* very different from Standard, where blue water
> fights - especially around MAO - can very much determine the outcome
> of the game.  I don't expect too many games of Balkans1860 to follow
> that path.  Much more likely in this variant that fleets will be an
> auxiliary force for advancing along the coastlines and breaking
> support lines on land.   The path to a solo victory lies in the heart
> of the Balkans.  I would be genuinely surprised to see someone solo in
> this map without driving into the heart, all the coastal SCs
> notwithstanding.
>
>
> ***Mike*** - Overall a very nice map.  I think Dark Ages would have to
> hold your "best creation" title, tho this comes in a close second.
> Plenty of naval action, and the play around Greece and the Aegean is
> great.  I would definitely play it again.  Good game all, and thanks
> for GM'ing it Ben!
>
>
> ---Ben--- Thank you kindly for the praise, I'm sincerely glad you
> enjoyed it, and do hope to see you take a seat by the Balkans1860 map
> again.  Good thoughts here, let's now talk about what Allen had to
> say...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - Game over.  First, thanks to B for doing another great
> job as GM.  Calm, cool, and collected is our B, large and in charge.
> Seriously, he runs a fantastic game, generally on time, always
> communicative, and very professional.  Thanks bro.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...you're quite welcome!  It was truly my pleasure to run
> it, had a great set of players for this one.
>
>
> ***Allen*** - The variant.  This is my second time through.  When B.
> put out the notice for the second game and I volunteered, I told him
> I'd take whatever noone else wanted.  I was stunned to get
> Austria-Hungary.  Rumania and AH are to me the strongest 2 positions
> in the first year.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...that's what I thought!  But it has been made clear to me
> that the A/S dynamic needs work...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - They can negotiate a quick settlement between them and
> both are grateful to do it (Kol is obviously Rumanian and sets up a
> nice DMZ).  Playing both sides of this, it's a no-brainer.  AH then
> negotiates a quick peace with Italy and both sit at stare at each
> other (Ven and Tri).
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...gotta disagree here.  Austria is heavily favored in that
> uneasy balance by the ability to build in Trieste, whereas Italy (by
> design, to increase tension) does *not* have the ability to build on
> the Adriatic coast.  Plus, the quick move of F Tri - GoV threatens
> Venezia, Ancona, and convoys along the Italian coast with Serbia.  In
> fact, I consider this dynamic to be the primary check against Italy's
> otherwise rampant growth prospects.  As Italy, I would not agree to
> anything less than a complete DMZ of the region, to include Austria's
> pledge not to build in Trieste without prior Italian approval.
>
>
> ***Allen*** - Year 1 is over and both have solidified their flanks and
> looking downhill (south).  AND, to add things up, both powers have
> southern neighbors that need to come to them with some settlement or
> get pinched between them.
>
>
> ---Ben--- True.  And here lies the biggest challenge I hope to
> overcome in the next round of revisions.  For this map to be balanced,
> I *must* make an A/S alliance at least roughly as appealing to Austria
> as a southerly drive through Serbia is.  The latter option seems
> virtually guaranteed on the current map.  I like some of Allen's
> suggestions, so we can go down the list of his ideas and my own
> below...
>
>
> ***Allen*** - This is an advantage in negotiations.  In this case,
> Rumania is in a more solid position, Ottoman(enemies on 2 sides) is
> safer than Greece(enemies on 3 sides), so Rumania can work with either
> Bulgaria or Ottoman, whichever seems better.
>
>
> ---Ben--- ...glad to hear this.  I personally think the BRO triangle
> is mostly balanced, though I am considering some improvement to the
> Ottoman position (while trying to give them equal incentive to attack
> Bulgaria or Greece...aaaargh)
>
>
> ***Allen*** - So some suggestions...increase the tension between AH
> and Rumania.  Maybe take out the SC in Kol and add 2, one in Tis and
> one in Tem.  I still like Sev as a home center for Rumania, I think
> that was suggested last time.  Rumania starts with F Sev, A Ias, A
> Con.  Agm is a little too far-reaching, what if it doesn't touch Nov?
> I like the tension between Italy and AH as it is, I think a strong
> Italy and AH could either negotiate a solid alliance or be at each
> other's throats.  That seemed to play well.  AH has a natural
> inclination to move south, it's too hard for Serbia and AH to come to
> a reasonable accord.  Serbia naturally distrusts AH, if you play this
> game long enough you realize that in general, those downhill on the
> map distrust those uphill.  For some reason, AH and Serbia seem to
> have more tension between them than R-B.
>
> ---Ben--- Allen makes some valid points about the A/S relationship and
> the uphill/downhill map dynamic in general...thoughts on the changes
> proposed so far below.  First, the ones I *don't* want to do.
>
> x - Rumania gains Sev as a home SC.  While this would help, I can't
> swallow the historical inaccuracy of it.  I already go too far
> negating the influence of Russia and France in this scenario, I cannot
> give the primary Russian port on the Black Sea to Rumania outright.
>
> x - Add SC Temesvar.  I feel that this would increase Austria/Serbia
> tension, not decrease it.
>
> Then, the ideas that I am considering (a mix of Allen's and my own)...
>
> 1 - Move either SC Agram or SC Sarajevo.  This would likely be done in
> conjunction with Allen's idea to add SCs in between Austria and
> Romania.  Downside - removing Agram makes F Ven a no-brainer opening
> for F Trieste.  Removing Sarajevo gives Serbia an undesirable
> incentive to send A Kragujevac after Bulgaria, or send more than just
> F Cetinje against Greece - also undesirable.  So for this to work, we
> need to give A Kragujevac a good option against Rumania.  Which leads
> to the next idea...
>
> 2 - Add SC Craiova.  With a bit of negotiations with Bulgaria to
> secure uncontested passage through Nis, Serbia could reasonably
> guarantee Craiova.  However, I'm still trading the only guaranteed dot
> for Serbia (Sarajevo) for a definite maybe in Craiova.
>
> 3 - Change F Trieste to A Trieste.  Contrary to my intentions, that
> Fleet in Trieste seems to be a constant point of tension with the
> Serbs.  If it were only a build option rather than a starting unit,
> this could improve Austrian/Serbian relations...?
>
> 4 - Split Beograd?  Increasing the buffer between Austria and Serbia
> would help perhaps...though the main Austria/Serbia flash point seems
> to be along the Adriatic coast.  (alternate idea - disconnect Temesvar
> from Beograd somehow with a border redraw?)
>
> ...and moving into the twilight zone of major revisions (which may
> nonetheless be necessary)...
>
> ! - Leave Kolosvar as it is and make it an Austrian Home SC.  To
> understand the idea here, take the map and rotate it 90 degrees
> clockwise.  Now try to picture Austria in Balkans1860 like Russia in
> Standard.  I'm not proposing to give Austria a Black Sea port
> (completely ahistorical) but this could give Austria a good option to
> move against the Serbs, or with them against Romania.  Here I would
> need to add Allen's idea of SC Tiraspol to balance out Romanian
> options.  I would also pull another SC off the map to retain balance
> (perhaps Bitola, and redraw that to be a single territory with
> Skopje?)
>
> !! - Add another Ottoman SC in Sevastopol?  Strange and irrelevant as
> this may sound - if Serbia had a stronger partner in the SE corner,
> one that also had options to engage Romania directly (rather than just
> Bulgaria) - then perhaps Austria/Serbia could join the Ottomans and/or
> Bulgarians in a dogpile heading east.  Sevastopol could not be made
> Rumanian with any semblance of historical accuracy.  It *could*
> however be made Turkish, if I were willing to make this a "what if?"
> or to use the academic term, counterfactual scenario.
>
> Here we assume a different settlement after the Crimean War -
> historically, the Ottomans did not much real receive territorial
> compensation following Russia's defeat in the Crimean war.  In this
> case, I would suggest that the British, French, and Ottomans could
> have achieved their objective of removing the Russian naval presence
> from the Black Sea by restoring the old Ottoman claim to the Crimea
> (it had only been lost in 1783) and allowing their retention of
> territory gained in the Caucasus.
>
> What the hell...I've already really made it a counterfactual scenario
> by removing Russia from the Crimea and cutting French influence out of
> Italian unification.  Most Diplomacy variants also permit some degree
> of historical inaccuracy, Standard included...lest anyone believes
> Italy or Turkey was truly a major player in WW1?
>
> Anyway, if I give the Ottomans Sevastopol or the Austrians Kolosvar -
> Allen's idea of adding SC Tiraspol would be needed, as Romania would
> then have *no* reasonably guaranteed opening SC.  The Ottomans would
> also have F Istanbul changed to A Istanbul if they gained F
> Sevastopol.  And we would have to very closely examine the new
> Romanian situation to ensure they aren't forced into conflict with
> Austria or the Ottomans - I think not, and could work with either one
> still, but I don't want to see them always ignore the Bulgarians.
>
> Ultimately though, I keep coming back to what I said above...the path
> to a solo victory lies in the heart of the Balkans.  Austria has to
> have a working long-term plan to get to 19 SCs without hitting Serbia
> until their solo bid in the endgame.  It's *possible* to do so by
> joining Serbia to hit Italy and then Romania on the current map - but
> I think that's even more unlikely than the B/R naval alliance we saw
> here.  Serbia would have to tolerate a *large* Austrian navy pushing
> down the Adriatic.  So what I *really* need is a southeast option for
> Austria, one that bypasses Serbia altogether to hit Romania and
> Bulgaria, *while* A/S presumably contain Italy or aid Greece in
> attacking them.  Because Italy simply cannot be ignored - and it is
> very difficult to divide between Austria and Serbia as well.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on all this.  Nothing is decided at all
> yet.
>
> B.
>
> --
> Diplomacy in Texas!
> www.texasdiplomacy.com
>
> http://www.dipwiki.com <http://www.dipwiki.com/>
> Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
> American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
>
>
>


--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com

http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants