Hi all - I'm going to split this discussion into two threads here - a discussion of this game (my EOG) and design notes.  As Andy said, your feedback *is* extremely valuable and does get considered for future versions of Dark Ages - so please pour it on!  (I'll actually be revisiting a few ideas from the previous playtest that I did not incorporate, and perhaps should have.)
 
This email however, will be my EOG - so I'm going to focus on that.  Thanks to Andy first and foremost for a top-notch job as GM.  A good GM makes for a fun game, and a bad GM sucks the life out of it.  The enjoyment we had out of it is as much a testament to his efforts as any other.
 
That said - I was somewhat reluctant to take the final spot in this game, because I knew I would be coming in with a certain bias towards trying out the functionality of some of the latest changes to the map.  I'd be lying if I said that wasn't a key consideration in my early alliance decision to work with Chris.  I wanted to see if the new Eider river canal let the Norse and Swedes have a lasting alliance (feel free to answer that question in the game design email).  Chris' decision to stab me meant that this playtest really didn't fully exercise that option in the context of a N/S alliance, but that's life I guess   Not every playtest goes just as the designer might hope - and it still was a valuable test regardless.
 
So - that said - I think Frank hit the nail head on.  N/D probably still is the best alliance option in Scandinavia, the new Eider river rule notwithstanding.  I opted against this alliance for three reasons - the one listed above, Chris' "anything-you-want-buddy" approach to our early negotiations, and Frank's intransigence on Lindholm.  Lindholm is not a Danish starting SC for a very good reason, though historically (and in previous versions of the variant) that space was.  It is impossible IMHO for either the Norse or Swedes to cooperate with the Danes against the third point of the Scandinavian triangle without either being in Lindholm, or keeping it under constant threat by remaining in Skagerrak.  I always thought they needed to be able to pass freely at sea by the Danish home SCs - and moreover, Lindholm is a key early gain that the Norse in particular have to consider, as they tend to be more SC starved than the Danes or Swedes in the first year (another thought that bears discussion in the design thread - I am already considering trying to nestle the open SCs in Scandinavia more neatly between the three powers-that-be)  Consider that of all the options they have in the first year, the only SC they can guarantee is Alvheim.  So I think the Norse need work.
 
To answer Frank's question - yes, I truly do view an Danish opening to Kattegat as pretty much the "textbook" anti-Norse opening, to deny Lindholm to the Norse, while allowing Skane to the Swedes.  Doesn't mean it's a bad play just that I took it as confirmation that you had sided against me.  But then again - that is all dependent on my assumption (very much open for challenging in the design thread) that the Danes should not expect to have an exclusive claim to Lindholm, nor that they really need to. 
 
So, designer tunnel-vision bias may have come into play here (whoever said designing the variant was an advantage?!?) - but I was truly shocked that Frank would not under any circumstances consider allowing me even a fleet presence in Lindholm as part of an alliance against the Swedes.  I think that decision sealed the deal against an N/D alliance.  I truly regret coming across as arrogant to Frank - I certainly did not mean to do so, only firm in what I was willing and unwilling to offer.  Regardless, perception only matters in the eye of the receiver, and I can certainly see that coming across as arrogant to Frank early on shot my chances in this game straight down the tubes.  Sorry Frank!
 
So let's flash forward to Chris' stab.  I agree with his assessment - it was not a bad stab, and I shouldn't have underestimated the likelihood that it was coming when it did.  I was outplayed by both my Scandinavian rivals in this game, no excuses.  What concerns me from a design perspective is that Chris considered the stab inevitable in time, to serve Swedish best interests - which suggests that the Eider river failed in its intended mission to make N/S a valid alliance. (let's spark that discussion in the other thread.) 
 
Frank is probably also correct that I passed on an opportunity to stab Chris myself that perhaps I should have considered further in Fall 826/Spring 827.  Again with the designer curiosity-bias towards the N/S alliance and my slavish dedication to it.  Stupid-stupid-stupid on my part.  Play the map as it is, not how you want it to be. 
 
So I got my casbah rocked, and then tried to mend fences with Frank, and though we were successful enough, I think Chris could have eliminated us both in time.  Mike never delivered on the idea of making a real landfall in Scandinavia that would have saved me, but I honestly can't criticize him for that decision.  That would have been a lower-payout distraction for the Scots than his blitzkrieg in the Isles.  I have a lot of other thoughts on the Isles and how that theater played out in this game, but all of it belongs in the design thread, as I am now finally convinced that -
 
1 - the Anglo-Saxon / Briton border is defective.  Forces conflict, and that is not intended. 
2 - the Scottish probably never will have adequate incentive to work with the Gaels, certainly not against the Britons (a major problem that I will have to look outside my preferred triangle structure to try and resolve) 
 
And of course, I really don't know have enough reliable insight yet into how those early negotiations went, so most of what I would have to say would probably be attributed to the wrong motivations anyway.
 
So - as for the endgame, I think Mike or Chris had a decent shot at a solo - and maybe that's why neither one wanted to press the issue.  They deserve top honors for this game to be certain, but I was very pleased also with Frank's efforts at the stop Chris coalition, and impressed with Steve's resistance of the Scottish drive.  I didn't have much substantial interaction with Scott past the first season (to be expected) and even less with Darren - again, neither personal nor surprising - just a function of our positions. 
 
Let me thank you all that have written so far for the praises of the variant - I truly appreciate it, and am pleased beyond words that you enjoyed the experience.  I can only ask that you participate - extensively - in the design process so that I can bring you a bigger and better Dark Ages in the future.  That process takes a lot of time though (I have several variants that I have designed and am constantly reviewing) - so feel free to play V4 again if you like - it's not that bad, and no position is truly screwed I think. 
 
Thanks to all for playing - hope to see you all again soon!
 
B. of the Norse


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com> wrote:

With the thorough analysis of Chris I can hardly do any less. Or give it a try at least.
 
I loved the map when I saw and as I do like the experimental Dip games I was glad I could join. I prefer games with up to 10-12 players over the huge multi-player games (my mind just can't grab all the possible scenarios with so many 'uncertainties'. And what I also liked about this game's map is the large amount of water spaces in the central area as well as the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony: plenty of opportunities for fleets and convoys! More on that later.
 
I was really glad I was assigned the Danes. They seemed safely set - far away from the powers on the island and at least visually at a safe distance from the Norse and the Swedes. Visually I say because there is only one landspace separating the Danish home SC in Roskilde and the Swedish home SC in Gotar. But the Swedes in Gotar would have to compete with the Norse over Alvheim too. That would give me some time to expand while not immediately threatened. UNLESS the Swedes and the Norse would form an alliance against me. So my goal for the first year was to befriend both and form an alliance with either or with both (even though that would not last forever). I guessed the strategically best alliance would be a Danes - Norse alliance. We would have the Swedes cornered and with little threat from the other powers for the first few years we could give the Swedes a devastating blow that he would not be able to overcome. But two things bothered me: one was the Norse demanding control over Lindholm which I saw as a direct threat to the dots I considered mine by right, and secondly the Norse sounded so arrogant in their communication that I wanted to teach them a lesson. This led me to consider something else: as this was a test play I didn't want to play the obvious strategy with a Danes-Norse alliance finishing off the Swedes and rather do something unexpected: finish off the Norse. With the odds so much in favor of a Danes-Norse alliance I bet Ben would not expect this.
 
To make this strategy work I would have to wait until Fall in the first year to make any moves that would show the Norse I was not his ally. And that is why I could not give the Swedes what they insisted on: I turn all my units towards the Norse in the first Spring. From what Chris said in his EOG comments that apparently is what made him choose the Norse alliance over the Danes'. A pity.
And it was very clear in Fall 825 when the Swedes tried to enter Reric where I had asked him not to. He gave me a very poor excuse which I didn't buy at all. Further attempts to smoothen over what he had done only made this worse and I decided that an alliance with the Swedes was over. I was quite upset that Chris had not even given this beautiful strategy a chance and that he didn't see that his position 'behind' the Norse would make him very dependent on the Norse to expand west. But of course I wasn't gonna let Chris know that I was mad over his 'ignorance' and pretended to be slightly annoyed but still considering us allies against the Norse (so nice of PBEM that you can't read body language).
So now I had to fight both the Swedes and the Norse: since their potential enemies were all too engaged and far away there was only a small chance of survival for me. Time to start working both powers to sow the seeds of envy and distrust. And ensure that the Anglos were friendly with me: we had agreed that I would leave him Austrasia and he would leave me Frisia.
 
Ben and I were both upset after F825 because we had bounced eachother in Lindholm while each of us insisted that the other shouldn't. Didn't make him a good candidate for an ally but I was considering it but also wanted him to support that future relationship with some immediate actions. And that never happened (until much later and with the Norse in a very different position). Worse, right after Winter 825 Ben blamed me for making the single-most anti-Norse build right after the single-most anti-Norse move. Of course I saw it differently (and I would like to know Ben whether you really believed so or was you just increasing pressure on me?).
 
Meanwhile Sweden was trying to convince me to attack the Norse in Alvheim with multiple units. No chance as it would leave me very vulnerable to the Norse and the Swedes but also because Sweden had just neglected to move 2 units into the battle zone with Sweden (he favored convoying his army from Skane to VIN).
 
That Fall in the 2nd year both the Swedes and the Norse attacked me full-force: Reric, Bay of Reric, and Roskilde; but I 'only' lost Roskilde as I had expected something along that line. In Winter 826 I still had one build, just like the Swedes and the Norse but the Norse had ships all around my borders and in Roskilde while the Swedes did not have a particularly strong position (and in my view were at the mercy of the Norse; could have been a tipping had Ben wished to).
 
Spring 827 the Norse and the Swedes attacked me and forced me from Jelling and Reric. My army in Reric could disband or flee south. I decided to go south but since my army was now at the border of Anglo Saxon Austrasia, Steve went paranoid; and he was right, of course, because next thing I did, in F 827, is take Austrasia hoping to limit my losses by taking his SC. That would cost me dearly later as Steve joined the Swedes in their attack on me. But if I hadn't done so I might not have made it to the DIAS.
Much to my relief the Swedes decided to take Roskilde from the Norse by force while I was so fortunate to dislodge them in Jelling.
Winter 827: the Norse had to disband one unit, on top of its fleet that had been disbanded from Roskilde. The Danes still had 4 units, the Norse 5 and the Swedes suddenly had 9. This was the turning point for Chris (nice job!).
 
From there on I was just trying to survive while Sweden was focussing its attacks on the Norse. The Norse was forced out of its SCs one by one and at some was left with 3 or 2 units. And that's when the Norse approached me to work together. Although there wasn't much that he could do for me I tried to find opportunities for us. Ben however was so lucky at that time to have another power helping him: the Scots.
In 829 I realized I wouldn't be able to keep the Swedes out of my Home SCs so I changed strategy to aim for his Home SCs in retribution. I knew it wasn't going to bring him down but certainly going to annoy him: my defiance of the Swedish force that was more than twice as big as the Danes. And at the end of Autumn 830 I had my fleet in Skane, Bay of Reric, and Baltic Sea. But I was glad we agreed on the DIAS as I would have had to disband 2 units the coming Winter.
 
Thanks Andy for an excellent GM job. For all the timely reminders especially when I happened to be in rural France in the first year.
 
My feedback on the arrangement of the powers across the map:
The distance between the powers on the mainland (Norse, Swedes, and Danes) and the powers on the islands makes it difficult to get any interaction between these powers until a few years into the game. The only exception I see is the Anglos but they usually will have enough worries to deal with on their island to start looking for trouble elsewhere. Zetland is strategically positioned between the two but I don't see why the Scots would pick one dot on Zetland (even as a launching pad for attacks to the mainland) over all those dots right to the south of it; especially with the Gaels near enough to compete over those. Yes, if the Scots or the Anglos are confident with alliances with respectively the Gaels and the Bretons, they might focus on longterm over shortterm gains but with stabs being such a common event in a Dip game, I think most players will opt for the short term dot increase. 
In general I think that the Swedes are at a disadvantage although you wouldn't say from this game. Can't really say though how to improve this. Perhaps giving the Swedes a Home SC and starting position in VIN? But that would put the Danes too much at a disadvantage.

My feedback on the arrangement of water spaces versus land spaces:
As I said in the beginning this game's map with its large amount of water spaces in the central area and the strategically placed waterway between Ribe and Saxony gives plenty of opportunities for fleet movements and convoys. I haven't seen that many variants where fleets play a major role. Even when the map often seems ideal for fleet actions, the play usually is all about armies. And so was this game. And I had really not expected it to be. Not with the game starting with 12 fleets out of 21 units. Scott already said that he tried desperately to get players to build fleets but his pleads fell on deaf ears. Maybe it's just the human nature (born with feet and lungs instead of fins and gills). I don't think subtle changes to the map or number of fleets will improve this. Perhaps assigning a dot to a few water spaces might do it but I have to admit that when I wrote this my mind immediately told me that it would require an island for a dot to be placed in a 'water' space. Funny how the mind likes to reconfirm existing patterns.
 
Looking back at the fun I had playing this game I can only say: when are we going to play this variant again?

Frank
 
2010/8/14 The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>





Thanks for getting the first narrative on the table, DQ. Hopefully we'll see some interesting "from my point of view" recountings, and a whole lot of discussion about the variant for Ben.
However, what I think you were trying to say at the end is that SKN is the only acceptable abbreviation for Skane. SKA is what I kept hitting you on!


Andy
 I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/





From: Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>
To: dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com

Cc: Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.com>; Andrew Jameson <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Ben Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Darren McAdam-OConnell <dmcaoc(at)gmail.com>; DC322 Forum <dc322(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Mike Morris <mikemorris101(at)yahoo.com>; Steve Emmert <steve.emmert(at)cox.net>

Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:55:54 PM
Subject: DC-322 Swede EOG



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







--
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