Hi guys,
as in a recent conversation the idea of a "partisan rule" (i.e. having
minor powers return in a "zombie" fashion in some manner) has again
cropped up, I thought I might share my thoughts with you why I've chosen
not to go down that route with my 1936 design. Not that I doubt that
this might make for a fun game, but it's just not the game flavour I've
been aiming for. Here follow the odd other musings on this subject:
For starters, I'm very puristic in sticking to what's a map variant with
the basic DP system pioneered by Baron and Jeff (with my slight tweak of
not allowing no more than 2 DP spent per country). After all, my orginal
motivation for both my 1648 and 1936 variants were to bring the
"Ambition & Empire" paradigm to other suitable historical scenarios.
I think the minor powers would disappear at a lower rate if players were
to play more of a balance-of-power rather than growth-maximisation game.
But most players don't dig that style all that much, unlike me. I like
propping up weaker powers for the same of the balance of power and
extend much the same philosophy to the sphere of minor powers. Slowing
other people's growth, creating buffer regions etc all strike me as very
worthy goals. Sometimes I think players let crude greed trump over sound
strategy. This incidentally also leads to faster games (which I tend to
welcome, impatient as I am. How's that for conflicted motives?).
Now that being said, I like the narrative arc of the game's character
shifting from one in which minor powers play a major role to one in
which big power blocks under great power control vy against another. If
you think about it, that's very much the story of the 1930s/40s. Indeed,
by 1945, pretty much all other power centres in Europe were eclipsed by
"The Big Three". And that narrowed in the following years even further
into the bipolar world of the Cold War.
Compare that to the 1920s, when the sheer number of newly independent
states in Europe created a degree of power fragmentation on the
continent not seen since, I'd say, the 18th century. One reason why I do
not consider the DP system a good fit for 1815-1918, but just what
European scenarios need pre-1800 and in the inter-war period (just for
the record, I don't think post-1945 variants set in Europe make much
historical sense.)
On a very simply mechanics level, the progressive eclipse of the minor
powers also moves the game nicely along towards the endgame. If too many
SCs were to remain outside player control, well, that'd delay and
complicate solo attempts. And that's very much against the type of
gameplay I want to encourage. For I believe Dippers ought to aim high,
i.e. for the solo. For the drawist school of thought really hurts
Diplomacy. Makes for boring games. I certainly don't want to be
complicit in that as a designer!
Just felt like sharing...
Cheers,
Charles
PS: Happy to say that there shall soon be another 1648 playtest. And one
not GMed by yours truly. Happy days.