Many have brought up this link of of the north to south poles.  I am thinking about this a lot because it has significant ramifications...


 


The Pros...


 


Gives the victorious northern power and victorious southern power another front behind their lines, so they can't just sit with back to the wall and expand outward.


 


The Cons...


 


Looking at the Ogre position, with which I'm most familiar from the game I played in which Hoffman was the Ogres - they are indeed very strong - if they get situated, they will become invulnerable.  Their problem is going to be supply lines.  The Ogres inevitably build so many armies that when their conquering of the southern continent is complete, they have nowhere else to go.  New fleets built at home take several years to reach open waters, and the closest useful EBC is way out in NNL, sure to be held by someone other than the Ogres.  This dynamic ultimately limits the Ogres to around 1/3 of the centers of the board, with no chance for solo.  Compare that to say, if the Elves take out the southern continent, at that point they are ready to go to tackle the central island and beyond.  ANY other power that wins out in the south would end up better off than the Ogres.


 


Now if we connect the south to the north, and the Ogres capture that passage, now they need never build a single fleet - for if they do conquer their continent, they can still proceed, via the land bridge, right to the other large continent.  Does this not oversimplify the Ogre goals too much?  Now instead of worrying about when to stop building armies and when to start building fleets, they just go army army army all the way.


 


"but so-and-so can just block the pass" I hear you say. 


 


Of course they can.  But if the pass will just be blocked then what's the point?  Whether it requires 1 or 2 or 3 armies to block, Once (for example) the Ogres win out in the south and the Knights win out in the north and both agree to block it, it's closed off anyways.


 


 


 


 






From: Jeff Hall [mailto:hall.jeff(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 2:39 PM
To: mrh(at)panix.com
Cc: max victory; Matthias Matzinger; Balthazar Logan; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Michael Sims; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!




I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.

In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.

My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.

As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.

A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me

Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.

I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.

I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres

I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.

My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger







On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com> wrote:







On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:


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.






Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)

I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.

What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.

Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.

I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!

So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.

Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".

Mike







--
The square root of soon is never