I echo Frank here -- I enjoyed the variant.  In fact, I enjoyed it a great deal more than I expected.
From my end, there were two crucial turning points in the play of the game.  One of them straight out of the gate, another right as we went into the midgame.

Initially, had a choice -- work with Frank against Ben, or Ben against Frank.  I wanted to wait and see who would make me the best offer, while not provoking the third choice, Ben + Frank VS a greasy smear in the northeast corner of the map.

Ben made an interesting pitch, claiming that ceding him Trondheim was worth having him as a steadfast ally.  In the end, I bought this line, and this was, I think, a mistake.  Not that it couldn't be a perfectly reasonable choice under other circumstances.  But before I made the decision, I didn't realize the consequences.  Basically, I gave up any play in the North, and any chance at impacting the destiny of the Scots, before the first move of the game.  

Is this a flaw in the design of the variant?  I am VERY curious as to why the Swedes don't begin the game with F Lappland (wc).  Needing to wait until 826 to even have a fleet on that coast made me decide to write it off, something I would regret later.

Frank and I had a good spring negotiation; , but when he declined to send all three of his units against Ben, something that would be key to a swift move to Skaggerak (which I saw as the key to breaking the Norse back from day one), I figured, ok, lets go with Ben.  I believed that Ben would be a good ally for me, because I was giving up something -- a dot next to a home center -- if he followed through on his promise to assist me vs. the Danes. If he was jobbing me, then, I would at least have good defenses against Frank, and maybe could play that game.

I bounced Frank in Reric, built 2 fleets, and Frank (I know now) saw what was going on right then and there.  I had sought to sow some confusion about who should go to Reric, and tried to smooth talk my way around the builds, which was another mistake.  I should have owned up right then and there -- I don't typically spin a line of bull unless I see a really good reason -- this was a rare instance (I think, but I may be seeing myself thru rose colored glasses) where I lied when there was no good reason to.  I hate when people do that to me, and not surprisingly, Frank decided that there wasn't much point in talking to me from there on out.

Which was a real pity, because I stabbed the bejeasus out of Ben before Frank was finished off.  If I hadn't done such a piss-poor job of diplomacy with Frank, it isn't impossible that I could have salvaged that relationship at that point, moved quickly to finish off Ben, while Frank and I got over to England for a very different endgame.

Ben, meantime, pointed out to me that stabbing him might well have cost HIM the game, but it certainly didn't win it for me.  I replied with characteristic wit and wordplay worthy of Dorothy Parker at her finest - I think my exact words were:

"Hruh?"
Ah, yes, counting for dots and stalemate lines and victory conditions.  That wasn't where my head was at all -- which, ironically is what had led Ben to leave himself so wide open to me in the first place.    

I still don't think it was a BAD stab.  Frank and Ben together from that point on were forced into a defensive war, and there was no one to threaten my flanks.  I felt like France, having captured every coastal province in the north, fighting against Italy and Turkey the Med.  There was no risk of losing the fight -- though it rapidly became clear that I might lose the war to Mike.

I had kind of counted on someone on the Island to, I don't know, not roll over and hand him their dots.  Thankfully our Benevolent Dictator was able to marshal some defense -- but not before Frank had one-dotted him to prolong his gradual decline.  

As we ended the game, I thought I had turned a corner.  Ben was on two, but had pledged to work with me against Mike -- we were going to pop his army in the spring, and try to get it re-built as a fleet in the fall.  Frank was down to two, and it didn't much matter which two units he kept, he wasn't going forward again.  I was in the North Sea, and La Resistance had, finally, slowed the bleeding on the Island to the point where Mike's advance was no longer a downhill roll.  

Some thoughts from the Swede point of view.  
I never thought, after the first year when I didn't get jumped, that I didn't have an excellent chance to win outright.  I didn't see any way for Ben to justify keeping enough force around to prevent me from gutting him with builds.  (In that sense, Trondheim was an excellent hostage to his good behaviour, and had I not stabbed him in the year I did, it wasn't going to be much longer, and it might well have been more effective)

That being said, I knew it wasn't going to be quick.  There's just nowhere to go.  No easy road to the front.  Lappland is a bottle that is so easy to cork.  There isn't a good way to disguise your intentions, either.  Armies means you attack the Norse, Fleets the Danes.  I likes me the opportunity to say "Hey, we can all be friends here!"  

Also, Ben mentioned to me at one point that he thought this was a fleet-based variant.  What I see when I look at the map is a tonne of armies, inexorably marching around, because there's no good way to stop them.  Lots of convoys?  No.  Lots of complex naval battles?  Well, there likely would have been some in the next couple of years, but unless I missed something, No.  

Well, this has gone on.  I will probably want to reply to others, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling.  I do think the variant has a lot of promise, and I may run it as an event at Tempest in a Teapot in Silver Spring, Maryland (functionally Washington DC) in October -- 15, 16, 17
so mark your calendars!  Thanks to ANDY for a stellar job GMing, especially for the constant reminders that, while it was not ambiguous in this instance, SKN is not a legal abbreviation for SKANE!  

DQ