Hi Andy -
 
You make some good points, and the difficulties (particularly on the Isles) make me inclined to scrap the force-fit to Standard.  As for the triangular structure, I am partial to that just because if achieved, one can be almost guaranteed of having a diplomatic aspect to the game.  If any two can pair up against the third, with roughly equal odds of success, then the only determining factor should be one's negotiations.  That's the ideal dynamic I'm driving for.  That said - with 7 players, there is always going to be that added layer of complexity.  So I will bear this in mind as I go into revisions.
 
Speaking of revisions, by all means, no need to wait on them to play or GM another round!  Please CC me as an observer -
 
Thanks!
B.


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM, The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> wrote:



Ben,
  I like that you know what you want this variant to be, and that you've been working solidly at it all this time. However, I'm starting to think the analogy you're drawing to Standard may not be completely accurate. More precisely, I don't think your representation of Standard is completely accurate. I agree that the Standard setup is prone to triangles, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I know we've all seen games break in different directions - E/G gunning for R out of the gates, A/T heading straight toward I and ignoring R, A/F squashing I early, etc.
  My point is, I think you may be trying to force this variant to be played out like two parallel games with minimal crossover. If you're going to compare it to Standard, maybe you should try to push a little more cross-sea interaction a little earlier on. I believe this would also solve some of the problems you're having on both sides of the board. If the Norse/Scot and Dane/Anglo players had more opportunities to interact in the early game, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have the same dynamic you do now; the Gaels might have more opportunity to succeed or fail on the player's diplomatic merits instead of the other players' lack of options, the D/N/S dynamic wouldn't be so constant, and so on. I'm not saying you should take this back to the drawing board altogether, but maybe you should reassess some of the fundamentals. Do you want this to play out as two side-by-side games early on?
  Another point is that you're trying to draw the Anglo position as an Italy analogue, but I don't think think that's really the case. Sure, they're on the southern tip of the island, but there's a definite divide between their position and those of the Bretons and the Danes, as well as better first year prospects. Italy only realistically has one growth option in 1901, unless he plans on a full-frontal against either France or Austria. At the same time, Italy shares a home dot border with Austria. It's a tricky country to play, but it's balanced by Austria's tough decisions and France's relative distance and inability to field forces toward them in the first year. I think your Scots-as-Italy analogue might be a bit more accurate positionally, but they've got even better growth potential than the Anglos.
  Instead of trying to compare Dark Ages to Standard, why not look at this in a completely detached light? This is an amazing variant (don't let it go to your head), and it should be able to stand on it's own feet. You've shown us that, with enough play tests and revisions, any of your maps can make for an excellent variant game (I'm thinking specifically of Sengoku here). Don't let the comparisons to Standard drag this variant in any directions that could be harmful to playability or enjoyability in the long run. Let it grow in a unique direction, and it will stand the test of time beautifully.


Andy


P.S. - I know I keep saying that I want to minimize my Dip obligations, but this is a variant I have a hard time putting down. I'm down to two Dip games at present - if there's enough interest (I doubt there isn't), I'm very wiling to either GM another round or play in one. I think your ability to judge the effectiveness of this revision would be much stronger with more play tests under the game's proverbial belt. One game does not an accurate sampling make. I say we give it another go with different personalities and play styles facing off against each other. Who knows - maybe you'll see a Gael solo or a sweet Swede/Norse draw in the next one?

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





From: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>
To: F Bielschowsky <dipcorp.player(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Christopher Martin <dance.scholar(at)gmail.com>; Scott Troemel <brn2dip(at)yahoo.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: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:21:55 PM
Subject: DC-322 - Dark Ages Revision Thread [post:17493]



so then, I have to give them more external distractions/more appealing options - close the gap with the Norse perhaps, and boost the spoils in between?  Or close the gap between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots on the coast - and give them more to fight about than Deira?  I can't just leave any position with only one clear-cut option for success, and I'm not about to scrap the most successful variant I have
 
Perhaps the answer is just to make it harder for the Scots and Gaels to fight each other at all - isolate the Scots entirely like Italy in Standard?  Low early SC gain opportunity in a neutral direction, then equal odds of entering the fight against the Gaels or the Norse?  (who would both be compensated for being on the receiving end of the 7th position wildcard aggression)  Currently the Anglo-Saxons fill this role for me, but no reason that the Scots couldn't do it instead.
 
I really do want to break this game down into two triangles, plus a 7th - which is roughly how i feel Standard usually plays out, with some variance.  N/S/D are close to that.  I agree that G/C/B never will be - but if I shifted the focus (and spoils) - perhaps G/B/A could be a triangle?

B.




--
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