I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).

/rant off


At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.

As for board fixes


Mike and I have talked a bit about tweaking the Barbarians. I think that there initial position is untenable but not so bad that it can't be remedied. I think the Leprechauns and Mages and Undead could also use a slight look. The Fairies are the only race that strike me as being too strong (and probably were set up well in this game for success if not for the above mentioned alliance). Wizards and Samurai also strike me as being slightly above average. The nice thing about diplomacy, however, is that those things tend to be somewhat self-balancing. Mike could rearrange it so that the Trolls started with 6 units and it wouldn't result in the Trolls having an overwhelming victory percentage because others would gang up. If the Fairies are recognized as being particularly strong then people will be predisposed to move aggressively against them earlier. However, weaker powers often work the other way. Why not put the Nomads out of their misery early? Or the Barbarians?


I view the Nomads (and the Dwarves to a lesser degree) like playing diplomacy on expert mode. You're disadvantaged from the start (although the Dwarves are at least in a defensible position) but if you can make "lemonade out of lemons" then you can be very proud of yourself. The nomads especially have some issues. I can think of four individual tweaks that might lead to better Nomad performance (although all of these are almost certainly too "strong" they could at least get you thinking).

1) Don't allow their home SCs to be conquered in Y1. This would give them some additional flexibility in pursuing builds.
2) They start with 6 units (but only 3 SCs means that they're bound to lose some if they don't capture some neutrals.

3) The map is rearranged such that they have an adjacent "natural" that can only be taken away from them by an ALLIANCE of two players (i.e. no ONE player can force it away from them in year one)... This one might require significant board alterations.

4) The Nomads have a special power that all conquered spaces are buildable (that feels very "nomad-y".

The only issue with the Dwarves is that they've got 3 starting units and they sit on the games only real "resource" (underworld access). They also have terrible stalemate lines to defend against (the "concurrent" spaces architecture creates very, very difficult to hold stalemate lines (in fact, only Mount Nimrod can be held from the underground). Those are more considerations for the Dwarven player then considerations for the map maker however.


I know Michael has considered bridging across the north and south. I think that should be done delicately so as not to create a completely untenable position for the Knights/Ogres and to avoid Icereach becoming some sort of hypercritical stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are merged) or a super easy stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are deemed to be touching). A better (but unfortunately more extensive) solution is to model the north/south border similar to the east/west border such that there's not an easy stalemate line.


Definitely the biggest problem with the map (and I mean problem in the sense of "strategic challenge" not a problem with the actual map) is that where, in normal diplomacy, if you make your first conquest successfully you're generally on a good start. In this variant, when you make that first conquest you need to be immediately positioning yourself to make your second conquest. And the supply lines are long with the EBCs helping alleviate that slightly but not significantly. Someone earlier suggested more EBCs. That's one way to go (certainly other "world" variants have opted for either all EBCs or "convertable" EBCs in essence). The idea of a home SC for each race being an EBC makes a lot of sense (although that Nomad EBC would be TOAST without some additional consideration). It creates an interesting conflict dynamic in how a victim is parsed out to the allies.


Either way, the lesson I learned from this game is that you have to capitalize on your momentum more than in regular dip. Many times, I've conquered France as England and then taken 1 year to "catch my breath"... finishing off French stragglers and/or repositioning for moving to Germany/Russia/Italy as needed. In this variant, you can't catch your breath until you've made a couple conquests and have comfortably created a corner for yourself (As the Knights did early).


I enjoyed the game and I'd love to play in a second game.