| New Variant Map idea - FRIGATE (Oct 03, 2009, 6:15 am) |
One of the reasons that Europe works so well for war games of any type is the fact that the Mediterranean exists. In a way, you can think of all of Europe is a giant peninsula, that borders all of the Mediterranean, a giant bay. Bays and peninsulas, especially large ones, offer the most 'fun' when it comes to armies and fleets. Islands help too. (Italy, Britain, Scandinavia, Turkey)
To create another popular world map based Diplomacy game, you'd need a balance of these things. The problem is, outside of Europe, it is very hard to find. South America is one big blob. Korea, Japan, and Asia could be fun, but again, Asia is blobby.
In fact, there is only one other area of the world I can think of that has what's needed, IMHO, to create a fun map. It is here:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=47.783635,-63.720703&spn=16.606422,28.256836&t=p&z=5
The East Coast of Canada could provide for much fun IMHO. I'm wondering if anyone else see's what I'm talking about, and if so, if they'd be willing to help me make a map[Reply] |
| Unknown (Variants) david_e_cohen Oct 04, 11:24 am |
Yes, the area does provide some interesting geography, mirroring Europe to some extent, though on a somewhat different scale. Depending on where you cut things off, eastern Asia certainly has potential. Southeast Asia and Indonesia provide some similar areas, as do, the Caribean and Gulf of Mexico, and the landmasses around the North Pole. Variant designers creating maps featuring other areas have to find ways to compensate, or work around the geographical disadvantages.
But what is also usually necessary is appropriate history to go along with the geography. A lot of people are not interested in fantasy/science fiction type variants. They want to play in a scenario that bears a fair resemblance to actual history. This usually means having multiple Powers, on a relatively equal footing, with additional smaller nations around that will become neutral dots for the Powers to expand into. The problem with eastern Canada and the United States lies in the lack of such history. One or two Powers have always been dominant, and small neutral states haven't existed.
I don't want to discourage you, but rather just point out some things you might want to bear in mind. Good luck with your project. |
| Unknown (Variants) FuzzyLogic Oct 05, 08:51 am |
| Along this line I think the Great Lakes area of the US would make a nice map. The waterways are diverse, plenty of peninsulas and isthmuses, plus sufficient land around the edges. Surely there would be some hefty competition between say Chicago, Green Bay, Sault Saint Marie, Toronto, Montreal, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc. Sort of like the Fall of the American Empire map but smaller region centered just on the lakes. |
| Unknown (Variants) AceRimmer Oct 05, 10:16 am |
Frigate,
I have, in fact, secretly harbored a desire to create an Atlantic Canadian variant (I honeymooned in Nova Scotia... magnificent!), but I've always figured that I haven't the time or the variant-creating experience to make it happen. I've also contemplated using such a map for Civ Dip... oops, shouldn't have mentioned that 
David has some interesting points and some truth to support them. Drawing from amongst Americans (in Maine), Acadians, British, native tribes, and/or the Canadian provinces (Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Quebec) you could probably create historical powers... they just wouldn't be compelling to most Dip players. So, the map would probably not become a cult favorite, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to create/play. After all, I'm GM'ing a game of Asian right now, and it doesn't have any real-world basis beyond geography.
So, yeah, I'd enjoy collaborating on this (I think).
Note on the Great Lakes: isn't there a Great Lakes variant in the DipWiki using native tribes? Anybody ever played it? Should I host one?
Adam |
| Unknown (Variants) FRIGATE Oct 05, 11:25 pm |
I've seen some great lakes maps, but again with the history thing.
I'm actually hoping that the lack of history will work in my advantage. There are some world maps that split Canada in two, have a "Quebec" that for some reason owns Newfoundland and Toronto. I'd be working within the Maritimes mostly, an pretty uniform area, so arbitrary divisions might actually work. I'm also going to look into the history of native peoples in the area and see if I cannot do something with regards to that. |
| au contraire... (Variants) Kenshi777 Oct 09, 03:13 pm |
There is a long history of powerful Native American nations all across eastern canada and the NE United States. Many of these formed lasting alliances with the European colonists (if *they* must be included at all
Some will say they were all land based powers, but a significant amount of raids were made along the rivers and the Great Lakes, and to a lesser extent, along the Canadian and NE England coasts. Not every fleet in a dip variant need be a trans-atlantic galleon...
There is a wealth of historical material available at various points in history to make a playable variant here. Consider the Ojibwa (Council of Three Fires), Iroquois Confederacy, Great Sioux Nation, Mi'kmaq, Inuit, and many other Iroquois and Algonquian peoples. |
| Unknown (Variants) FRIGATE Oct 09, 05:42 pm |
| Also, I am part Mi'kmaq (1/16th or something) |
| any progress here? (Variants) Kenshi777 Nov 23, 11:39 am |
I'd be interested in seeing how this variant develops. Please also join (and include0 DVWorkshop(at)yahoogroups.com on your posts, as you'll find more than a few folks there that have experience designing variants and can offer useful assistance.
B. |
| Unknown - Kenshi777 (Sep 21, 2009, 6:50 pm) |
DVW was my creation
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown - charlesf (Sep 21, 2009, 5:59 pm) |
The DVW was in a way an extension of the CAT-23 Diplomacy community, which now is only a shaddow of its former self - understandably enough when other communities offer so much more (e.g. DC). But with the decline of CAT-23, so has DVW missed out on fresh faces. At least that's my impression after a 5 year break. A diminishing cadre of oldtimers.
A more visible place for variant design discussions would be preferable, imo.[Reply] |
| Unknown - Kenshi777 (Sep 21, 2009, 5:09 pm) |
Perhaps some such discussions will shift from the Diplomacy Variants Workshop over here someday. Redscape used to have a very active variants forum, but for some reason it no longer exists. A shame. Lots of interesting discussion in there, back then.
*** Hey! DVW is perfectly fine, tyvm. ***
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one?
***Ancient World does look fun. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as Charles. My game load is at 5, which is 3 more than I like to keep it at. Not sure what I was thinking.***
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown - charlesf (Sep 14, 2009, 12:07 pm) |
[quote:40779d48bc="charlesf"]Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap."
I'd say that line is pretty disheartening for someone of his caliber. I understand purists are out there, but variants take the same general premise and turn it into something fresh.[/quote:40779d48bc]
Well, Stephen is the very opposite of a purist. After all he's the custodian of the variantbank and has designed a fair number of variants himself.
Most good boardgames will develop variants or expansions. Any active boardgamers (outside of Diplomacy) will be well exposed to this.
Hm, I'd say only a small fraction of all boardgames published every year spawn expansions or whole franchises (e.g. Carcassonne) whereas there's a whole universe of fan-made Diplomacy variants. I don't think any other modern boardgame has become a hobby unto its own as Diplomacy has become.
Yes, "unpolished" variants are bad. (heh us Poles might interpret "unpolish" variants are bad  )
Yep. And Stephen contends most variants are unpolished. I agree. Few variants are as meticulously crafted as to become polished.
It takes time, and it takes all the finishing touches that many miss. I think we should use the Variants forum more for this sort of thing.
Perhaps some such discussions will shift from the Diplomacy Variants Workshop over here someday. Redscape used to have a very active variants forum, but for some reason it no longer exists. A shame. Lots of interesting discussion in there, back then.
One very important key to variant design, is that every piece, from its starting location, has to have multiple "good" places to go that will help one neighbor but hurt another.
Aye.
And that every world power has the ability to directly influence at least 3 other powers, at game start.
You think that's the case with Ancient Med?
Another place variants tend to miss the mark, is putting too much "white space".
I agree with Stephen that the unit to space ration should be in the 1:2 to 1:2.5 range. Standard clocks in at 2.2.
Another issue can be "supply lines" particularly in large variants. The distance you have to travel from your home centers in order to get new units into play. This needs to be kept down to 3-4 turns. If it takes more than that, then building new units is too slow.
Talking tempi here. An issue of course directly tied to the aforementioned unit-to-space ratio.
I've played 1900. It was good, no argument there. I really enjoyed it. But I wouldnt say it's "superior" to standard, just different.
1900 is:
- more historically accurate (e.g. Germany's the military powerhouse it ought to be)
- more interactive (e.g. Britain and Turkey have FAR MORE to discuss than in Standard)
- more balanced (i.e. no power is sure a severe underdog as Standard's Italy).
Add to that that the expanded board affords more options for many powers and stalemate lines are far less of an issue. I think this all makes 1900 the superior design.
As for Ancient Mediterranean ... utterly bland
Totally disagree. The balance in AM is fantastic, the convoy action is great, and the dichotomy of whether to build armies or fleets is great too. It is an extremely well-balanced game. Possibly too much so, as a little imbalance makes things interesting. One of my favorites.[/quote]
I think the fundamental problem is that you only have five human variables arranged in a ring. It's IMO not complex enough a situation and that is compounded by the map having two distinct theatres, the West and the East.
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one? 
He, I'm running a 1900 and my 1648 game. For the foreseeable future, I'll limit myself to GMing my own creations.
[quote:40779d48bc="charlesf"]I think in that respect Hundred got it right.
Played this one too, and I dont agree. I rather found Hundred a bit boring.[/quote:40779d48bc]
I'm not saying that a 3-people variant is advisable. But if you do go down that route, you gotta use a low victory threshold. That's what I meant, when saying: "in that respect Hundred got it right".
Still doesn't mean I want to play Hundred. So I dare say we're here in actual agreement.
Variants can be good. They just need to be well thought out, and have all the finishing touches in place.
-mike
Sure. Doesn't mean though that all or indeed most meet that standard.[Reply] |
| Unknown - FuzzyLogic (Sep 14, 2009, 10:30 am) |
Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap."
I'd say that line is pretty disheartening for someone of his caliber. I understand purists are out there, but variants take the same general premise and turn it into something fresh. Most good boardgames will develop variants or expansions. Any active boardgamers (outside of Diplomacy) will be well exposed to this.
Yes, "unpolished" variants are bad. (heh us Poles might interpret "unpolish" variants are bad ) But a GM that puts the thought into making something great can create a very rewarding game. It takes time, and it takes all the finishing touches that many miss. I think we should use the Variants forum more for this sort of thing. Discussing new variants in development, and turn them into a nice finished product.
One very important key to variant design, is that every piece, from its starting location, has to have multiple "good" places to go that will help one neighbor but hurt another. All too many variant creators overlook this and put units in places where they may have multiple choices, but only 1 makes sense. This was one of the fundamentals in my Haven game, that every unit of every power has to make an important choice in the first round which way to go. And that every world power has the ability to directly influence at least 3 other powers, at game start.
Another place variants tend to miss the mark, is putting too much "white space". Neutral / vacant SCs. Use Standard as a model. 22 neutral land spaces, to 34 centers. If the vacant spaces ever approach or exceed the number of centers, then it's too much white space.
Another issue can be "supply lines" particularly in large variants. The distance you have to travel from your home centers in order to get new units into play. This needs to be kept down to 3-4 turns. If it takes more than that, then building new units is too slow. This can be mitigated w Chaos builds, but that's another story.
I've always admired 1900 and Ambition&Empire.
I've played 1900. It was good, no argument there. I really enjoyed it. But I wouldnt say it's "superior" to standard, just different.
As for Ancient Mediterranean ... utterly bland
Totally disagree. The balance in AM is fantastic, the convoy action is great, and the dichotomy of whether to build armies or fleets is great too. It is an extremely well-balanced game. Possibly too much so, as a little imbalance makes things interesting. One of my favorites.
I think adding 2-3 northern powers.
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one?
I think in that respect Hundred got it right.
Played this one too, and I dont agree. I rather found Hundred a bit boring. If ppl play optimally, then you should have a never-ending cycle. That circle of only 2 other players to work with, and always having to work w the lesser one just to reduce the greater one would be mind numbing how many times you'd have to do that to actually get a win, before everyone has to ultimately just give up and settle for a 3-way draw, which in itself isn't satisfying in a 3-player game. In a 7-player game the final 3-way that emerges is a minor success, since at least by that point you've defeated 4 other players.
Variants can be good. They just need to be well thought out, and have all the finishing touches in place.
-mike[Reply] |
| Unknown - charlesf (Sep 14, 2009, 8:22 am) |
IMO, Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap." in his "A Call to Arms against Crap Variant. Though "unpolished" might be a more apt term.
I've always admired 1900 and Ambition&Empire. Those are my favourite variants other than my own.
For one, I consider 1900 superior to Standard Diplomacy (and many familiar with both do agree). And Ambition & Empire introduced the Diplomatic Points mechanism, which brings so much extra nuance to the table, if you ask me. Got a few reservations about some aspects of Amibition & Empire's current version, but nonetheless I hugely admire this design.
An honourable mention would go to Diplomacy Royale. I find the concept incredibly interesting.
I quite like a number of others, but not really to the extent that I'd be dying to play 'em.
As for Ancient Mediterranean, well, I remember playing in one game years ago. I found it utterly bland and really should have known better than to join.
I think the basic circular arrangement of five powers is a problem. I think adding 2-3 northern powers. Say the Celts/Gauls,. Germans and Sarmatians would spice things up a whole lot.
Short of such a redesign, I think Ancient Mediterranean's victory conditions ought to be significantly lowered. The 50%+1 thingie doesn't make for a compelling game, imo, with so few powers.
I think in that respect Hundred got it right. A low victory condition can make even a three-player variant work. At least if you have three good players, who are up to a permanent rebalancing effort.[Reply] |
| Favorite Variant Poll - Kenshi777 (Sep 01, 2009, 2:51 pm) |
Open question to anyone that feels like answering:
What are your top 3 favorite Diplomacy variants?
Variant Designers: No voting for your own variants!
Mine would be:
1 - Aberration (just love the concept, and it's rather balanced)
2 - Ancient Mediterranean (Don Hessong made a masterpiece, and refined it to perfection)
3 - Known World (up and coming...still needs some refining I think, but potential to be truly great)
Honorable mention goes to 1648 - might make the top 3 once I have a chance to play it.
Always interesting to hear people's responses to this, and useful for designing future variants (knowing what appealed and what didn't in other variants)
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown (Variants) charlesf Sep 14, 08:22 am |
IMO, Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap." in his "A Call to Arms against Crap Variant. Though "unpolished" might be a more apt term.
I've always admired 1900 and Ambition&Empire. Those are my favourite variants other than my own.
For one, I consider 1900 superior to Standard Diplomacy (and many familiar with both do agree). And Ambition & Empire introduced the Diplomatic Points mechanism, which brings so much extra nuance to the table, if you ask me. Got a few reservations about some aspects of Amibition & Empire's current version, but nonetheless I hugely admire this design.
An honourable mention would go to Diplomacy Royale. I find the concept incredibly interesting.
I quite like a number of others, but not really to the extent that I'd be dying to play 'em.
As for Ancient Mediterranean, well, I remember playing in one game years ago. I found it utterly bland and really should have known better than to join.
I think the basic circular arrangement of five powers is a problem. I think adding 2-3 northern powers. Say the Celts/Gauls,. Germans and Sarmatians would spice things up a whole lot.
Short of such a redesign, I think Ancient Mediterranean's victory conditions ought to be significantly lowered. The 50%+1 thingie doesn't make for a compelling game, imo, with so few powers.
I think in that respect Hundred got it right. A low victory condition can make even a three-player variant work. At least if you have three good players, who are up to a permanent rebalancing effort. |
| Unknown (Variants) FuzzyLogic Sep 14, 10:30 am |
Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap."
I'd say that line is pretty disheartening for someone of his caliber. I understand purists are out there, but variants take the same general premise and turn it into something fresh. Most good boardgames will develop variants or expansions. Any active boardgamers (outside of Diplomacy) will be well exposed to this.
Yes, "unpolished" variants are bad. (heh us Poles might interpret "unpolish" variants are bad ) But a GM that puts the thought into making something great can create a very rewarding game. It takes time, and it takes all the finishing touches that many miss. I think we should use the Variants forum more for this sort of thing. Discussing new variants in development, and turn them into a nice finished product.
One very important key to variant design, is that every piece, from its starting location, has to have multiple "good" places to go that will help one neighbor but hurt another. All too many variant creators overlook this and put units in places where they may have multiple choices, but only 1 makes sense. This was one of the fundamentals in my Haven game, that every unit of every power has to make an important choice in the first round which way to go. And that every world power has the ability to directly influence at least 3 other powers, at game start.
Another place variants tend to miss the mark, is putting too much "white space". Neutral / vacant SCs. Use Standard as a model. 22 neutral land spaces, to 34 centers. If the vacant spaces ever approach or exceed the number of centers, then it's too much white space.
Another issue can be "supply lines" particularly in large variants. The distance you have to travel from your home centers in order to get new units into play. This needs to be kept down to 3-4 turns. If it takes more than that, then building new units is too slow. This can be mitigated w Chaos builds, but that's another story.
I've always admired 1900 and Ambition&Empire.
I've played 1900. It was good, no argument there. I really enjoyed it. But I wouldnt say it's "superior" to standard, just different.
As for Ancient Mediterranean ... utterly bland
Totally disagree. The balance in AM is fantastic, the convoy action is great, and the dichotomy of whether to build armies or fleets is great too. It is an extremely well-balanced game. Possibly too much so, as a little imbalance makes things interesting. One of my favorites.
I think adding 2-3 northern powers.
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one?
I think in that respect Hundred got it right.
Played this one too, and I dont agree. I rather found Hundred a bit boring. If ppl play optimally, then you should have a never-ending cycle. That circle of only 2 other players to work with, and always having to work w the lesser one just to reduce the greater one would be mind numbing how many times you'd have to do that to actually get a win, before everyone has to ultimately just give up and settle for a 3-way draw, which in itself isn't satisfying in a 3-player game. In a 7-player game the final 3-way that emerges is a minor success, since at least by that point you've defeated 4 other players.
Variants can be good. They just need to be well thought out, and have all the finishing touches in place.
-mike |
| Unknown (Variants) charlesf Sep 14, 12:07 pm |
[quote:40779d48bc="charlesf"]Stephen Agar was right in saying: "I have no hesitation in saying that most variants are crap."
I'd say that line is pretty disheartening for someone of his caliber. I understand purists are out there, but variants take the same general premise and turn it into something fresh.[/quote:40779d48bc]
Well, Stephen is the very opposite of a purist. After all he's the custodian of the variantbank and has designed a fair number of variants himself.
Most good boardgames will develop variants or expansions. Any active boardgamers (outside of Diplomacy) will be well exposed to this.
Hm, I'd say only a small fraction of all boardgames published every year spawn expansions or whole franchises (e.g. Carcassonne) whereas there's a whole universe of fan-made Diplomacy variants. I don't think any other modern boardgame has become a hobby unto its own as Diplomacy has become.
Yes, "unpolished" variants are bad. (heh us Poles might interpret "unpolish" variants are bad )
Yep. And Stephen contends most variants are unpolished. I agree. Few variants are as meticulously crafted as to become polished.
It takes time, and it takes all the finishing touches that many miss. I think we should use the Variants forum more for this sort of thing.
Perhaps some such discussions will shift from the Diplomacy Variants Workshop over here someday. Redscape used to have a very active variants forum, but for some reason it no longer exists. A shame. Lots of interesting discussion in there, back then.
One very important key to variant design, is that every piece, from its starting location, has to have multiple "good" places to go that will help one neighbor but hurt another.
Aye.
And that every world power has the ability to directly influence at least 3 other powers, at game start.
You think that's the case with Ancient Med?
Another place variants tend to miss the mark, is putting too much "white space".
I agree with Stephen that the unit to space ration should be in the 1:2 to 1:2.5 range. Standard clocks in at 2.2.
Another issue can be "supply lines" particularly in large variants. The distance you have to travel from your home centers in order to get new units into play. This needs to be kept down to 3-4 turns. If it takes more than that, then building new units is too slow.
Talking tempi here. An issue of course directly tied to the aforementioned unit-to-space ratio.
I've played 1900. It was good, no argument there. I really enjoyed it. But I wouldnt say it's "superior" to standard, just different.
1900 is:
- more historically accurate (e.g. Germany's the military powerhouse it ought to be)
- more interactive (e.g. Britain and Turkey have FAR MORE to discuss than in Standard)
- more balanced (i.e. no power is sure a severe underdog as Standard's Italy).
Add to that that the expanded board affords more options for many powers and stalemate lines are far less of an issue. I think this all makes 1900 the superior design.
As for Ancient Mediterranean ... utterly bland
Totally disagree. The balance in AM is fantastic, the convoy action is great, and the dichotomy of whether to build armies or fleets is great too. It is an extremely well-balanced game. Possibly too much so, as a little imbalance makes things interesting. One of my favorites.[/quote]
I think the fundamental problem is that you only have five human variables arranged in a ring. It's IMO not complex enough a situation and that is compounded by the map having two distinct theatres, the West and the East.
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one?
He, I'm running a 1900 and my 1648 game. For the foreseeable future, I'll limit myself to GMing my own creations.
[quote:40779d48bc="charlesf"]I think in that respect Hundred got it right.
Played this one too, and I dont agree. I rather found Hundred a bit boring.[/quote:40779d48bc]
I'm not saying that a 3-people variant is advisable. But if you do go down that route, you gotta use a low victory threshold. That's what I meant, when saying: "in that respect Hundred got it right".
Still doesn't mean I want to play Hundred. So I dare say we're here in actual agreement.
Variants can be good. They just need to be well thought out, and have all the finishing touches in place.
-mike
Sure. Doesn't mean though that all or indeed most meet that standard. |
| Unknown (Variants) Kenshi777 Sep 21, 05:09 pm |
Perhaps some such discussions will shift from the Diplomacy Variants Workshop over here someday. Redscape used to have a very active variants forum, but for some reason it no longer exists. A shame. Lots of interesting discussion in there, back then.
*** Hey! DVW is perfectly fine, tyvm. ***
Then see Ancient World. It's AM w just like you describe. Great variant. Want to run one?
***Ancient World does look fun. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as Charles. My game load is at 5, which is 3 more than I like to keep it at. Not sure what I was thinking.***
B. |
| Unknown (Variants) charlesf Sep 21, 05:59 pm |
The DVW was in a way an extension of the CAT-23 Diplomacy community, which now is only a shaddow of its former self - understandably enough when other communities offer so much more (e.g. DC). But with the decline of CAT-23, so has DVW missed out on fresh faces. At least that's my impression after a 5 year break. A diminishing cadre of oldtimers.
A more visible place for variant design discussions would be preferable, imo. |
| Unknown (Variants) Kenshi777 Sep 21, 06:50 pm |
DVW was my creation
B. |
| map for religions variant - Kenshi777 (Sep 01, 2009, 11:23 am) |
by the way, if anyone wanted to give this idea a spin, here's a great site for free outline maps. I use them for most of my projects:
http://d-maps.com/?lang=en
The Perry-Castaneda collection at UT Austin also has some decent offerings.
B.
Creator of the Sengoku, South American Supremacy, Dark Ages, and Balkans 1860 variants...with several more irons in the fire[Reply] |
| Unknown - FuzzyLogic (Sep 01, 2009, 8:17 am) |
| The Crowded game is this year's DC Invitational! See the DCI forum for more info... It looks like a fun map, if anyone wants to run a second board, feel free. [Reply] |
| Crowded - AlanRFarrington (Aug 31, 2009, 11:55 pm) |
Did a crowded really just fill up in a very short amount of time? I've been looking for a crowded or similar variant for some time. The first time I see it on DC and its already going!?
--Alan[Reply] |
| Unknown (Variants) FuzzyLogic Sep 01, 08:17 am |
| The Crowded game is this year's DC Invitational! See the DCI forum for more info... It looks like a fun map, if anyone wants to run a second board, feel free. |
| Interesting idea... - Kenshi777 (Aug 24, 2009, 3:36 pm) |
I had to study Huntington's rather biased book during college (where Africa was reduced to a quasi-civilization) - but nonetheless the idea of a religion based Diplomacy variant remains an interesting one.
A possible alternate twist on this that I would propose would be to either make the variant anachronistic (or take a particular snapshot in time when most of the religions were still young) and have them expand, rather than try to capture them in the modern day, where the major religions have saturated the far corners of the globe.
I think the exclusion of Judaism is perhaps unwarranted, though it would certainly make for a difficult balance (with Arabia and Constantinople/Moscow containing them sharply in Israel).
Let's see - where would the powers be in the Middle Ages...
Orthodoxy in Moscow, Constantinople, and Athens???
Catholicism in Rome, Paris, and Vienna perhaps?
Protestantism in London, Amsterdam, and Berlin? or maybe a Scandinavian or Swiss SC?
Islam in Makkah, Madinah, and Jiddah? (split into Sunni and Shi'a?)
- Sunni - Makkah, Madinah, Jiddah
- Shi'a - Najaf, Karbala, Damascus
Hinduism in Varanasi and...? Angkor? Delhi?
Buddhism in Bodh Gaya and ...? Lhasa? Angkor? Yangon?
Atheism in Beijing, Moscow?, Wall Street?
Judaism in Jerusalem, (several others to choose from here, depending on the period of history) - Persian, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.
All random thoughts...but this is an interesting idea. Someone should run with it...perhaps multiple flavors of it.
Perhaps Jerusalem should have some special status, like being a home SC for any Christian, Jewish, or Muslim power. In fact, if you split them into their sects, you could have a whole variant comprised exclusively of those who consider themselves Sons of Abraham, with a map radial from Jerusalem. Finding a start date would be a challenge though, as the Protestant Revolution occurred rather late in the game...
B.[Reply] |
| finally got it...and where's our last three for SA... - Kenshi777 (Aug 24, 2009, 2:42 pm) |
Re: my avatar. I had been trying to upload it. Never got that to work. Couldn't use the second option either (link to copy). Finally got the third option, link to offsite URL, to work for me - hence my glorious tribute to Watterson that now graces the DC boards.
That aside - where are my last three brave souls that are ready to enter the age of ironclads (yes, they *were* used outside of the U.S.) and seize power in South America? The borders of South America as we know it today were anything but certain in the 19th century - when Paraguay held the largest standing army, Bolivia still held the Pacific Coast, and Chile dreamed of dominating both Peru and Bolivia...so sign up already, and grab the reins of an ambitious young post-colonial nation for yourself...
Cheers ché
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown - FuzzyLogic (Aug 13, 2009, 11:33 pm) |
| Dunno. Your avatar is screwed up. What is the file? Try emailing it to me so I can make sure it's a normal graphic file, no errors. Then are you trying to upload it or link via URL? Either one should work. I checked out your profile and I just see the red X image, so that would indicate a broken link to a URL. Try uploading it instead. If uploading doesnt work, let me know. [Reply] |
| PS - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2009, 4:01 pm) |
any idea why my avatar won't display? Because of course that's the most important matter in the world...
B.[Reply] |
| I can try... - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2009, 3:53 pm) |
I'll poll on the ACD list, and was hoping the rest would respond to an announcement here...If you set it up on the new games list, I'll launch the PR campaign.
Thanks!!!
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown - FuzzyLogic (Aug 13, 2009, 3:47 pm) |
| Ben, I might give this one a go, it looks good. Are you going to find me 8 guppies to play in it? [Reply] |
| South American Supremacy - Kenshi777 (Aug 13, 2009, 3:07 pm) |
Any semi-brave GM willing to step up and run a game of SAS here in DC? I say semi-brave since it's RP coded, so all the heavy lifting is done for you... (see the South American Supremacy DipWiki)
Fairly standard variant - the only really special rules are the impassable Andes mountains, and the navigable rivers, which are suitable to the time period - one of the few settings outside of the Crimean and American Civil War that saw naval action between true ironclads...
Interested? Send an email to screwtape777 AT gmail DOT com, or just download the files from the DipWiki and take charge... I would run one myself, but I'm over-Dip-committed as it is.
B.[Reply] |
| Unknown (Variants) FuzzyLogic Aug 13, 03:47 pm |
| Ben, I might give this one a go, it looks good. Are you going to find me 8 guppies to play in it? |
| I can try... (Variants) Kenshi777 Aug 13, 03:53 pm |
I'll poll on the ACD list, and was hoping the rest would respond to an announcement here...If you set it up on the new games list, I'll launch the PR campaign.
Thanks!!!
B. |
| PS (Variants) Kenshi777 Aug 13, 04:01 pm |
any idea why my avatar won't display? Because of course that's the most important matter in the world...
B. |
| Unknown (Variants) FuzzyLogic Aug 13, 11:33 pm |
| Dunno. Your avatar is screwed up. What is the file? Try emailing it to me so I can make sure it's a normal graphic file, no errors. Then are you trying to upload it or link via URL? Either one should work. I checked out your profile and I just see the red X image, so that would indicate a broken link to a URL. Try uploading it instead. If uploading doesnt work, let me know. |
| finally got it...and where's our last three for SAS? (Variants) Kenshi777 Aug 24, 02:42 pm |
Re: my avatar. I had been trying to upload it. Never got that to work. Couldn't use the second option either (link to copy). Finally got the third option, link to offsite URL, to work for me - hence my glorious tribute to Watterson that now graces the DC boards.
That aside - where are my last three brave souls that are ready to enter the age of ironclads (yes, they *were* used outside of the U.S.) and seize power in South America? The borders of South America as we know it today were anything but certain in the 19th century - when Paraguay held the largest standing army, Bolivia still held the Pacific Coast, and Chile dreamed of dominating both Peru and Bolivia...so sign up already, and grab the reins of an ambitious young post-colonial nation for yourself...
Cheers ché
B. |
| Unknown - FuzzyLogic (Jul 31, 2009, 3:04 pm) |
| Holy cow I just started reading the rules for this, and it's insanely complex! You want to run one of these? What map? I'm interested to see it go so let's make it happen! [Reply] |
| Royale - zeclient (Jul 30, 2009, 10:15 pm) |
me me me me me!!!
I wanna play! It's looks extremely complex but also a lot of fun... the ultimate diplomacy game! You can sign me in! lol[Reply] |
| Unknown - ccr (Jul 29, 2009, 8:40 am) |
Charles, the crusades maps are not "yet another map variant".
They are made specifically for royale play, and they were designed by someone who previously had, out of the first 7 royale games, played 3 and gm'ed 2.
I have the impression you analyze the Crusades maps and pure map variants. You have to look at them as royale map variants. I will not list here all the special conditions that make a royale game different. If you consider them, then they are among the best.
Royale games tend to be longer in real-time span (twice more turns per year); at the same time, after just a few game years (decades, in the case) the players are already playing a mid-to-endgame situation. The map must be small. The powers must be small. The neutral SCs must be few.
I don't know of any other map suited to play the clergy papacy rules. And, having learned potential flaws of royale, the clergy and the papacy rules were made to improve playability, specially regarding the acceleration of the shift of alliances. It avoid early loss of interest by players who find themselves unable to change course of things in the short-term, as they are used to do in any Diplomacy game.
Usually, the crowd get very interested in the Crusades map. In any case, if you point some maps that can be used to play a royale game with its most developed rules, great. In the end, among the options given, the players can chose what map they prefer. THe game is for the player, not a property of the GM.
Each Royale game ever played by the core developers of the rules (John Pitre, Jeff Ladd, Tommy Larsson) presented rules evolution from the previous one. It would be a pity everything experience taught them not-to-do get repeated, to be learned again. We must restart from the point they were, and this is why the only thing I define as potential gm of a royale game is that it must include Clergy rules, from Priest to Pope. Do you want to play?[Reply] |
| Unknown - charlesf (Jul 29, 2009, 7:32 am) |
Hey Cristiano, I think any good variant set between say 500 and 1789 would lend itself well to Diplomacy Royale. Papacy rules though perhaps not for the entire time-span.
I myself am however not all that convinced that the Crusades variant is all that polished.[Reply] |
| Unknown - charlesf (Jul 29, 2009, 7:24 am) |
I think it does and it doesn't.
Oh, I thought you were talking of a seven-player game with Chaos-style builds rather than 34 single powers.[Reply] |
| Unknown - ccr (Jul 29, 2009, 4:09 am) |
I also had the pleasure of doing quite well until Cristiano Restitutti joined in as a replacement Ukraine and ousted me.
Ouch! This topic is really hot!
Cheers, Alan! That was a remarkable game for someone who just entered to help the Trout!
C.C.R. - Cristiano Corte Restitutti[Reply] |
| Unknown - ccr (Jul 29, 2009, 3:55 am) |
(...) Diplomacy Royale (a rules variant which fleshes out dynastic politics - fascinating stuff, if you ask me. Best combined with a medieval or early modern map variant)
Hi Charles and all. I have just registered to DC and of course the first exploration was on my favorite topic - variants (check to the left - joined: today; posts: the first).
And it happens this whole month I have been wondering where is the best place to start a game of Diplomacy Royale, which I want to GM. Read again - i want to GM. I am experienced at it. I took over for Tommy Larsson the GMing of game "Heir", when he left the hobby, and later in 2001 I GMed the first and only known game with the optional Papacy rules.
I plan to GM a new Diplomacy Royale game with Papacy Rules, which of course include Clergy Rules.
The suggested maps are the two Crusades 1200 maps made by Tommy, of which version 1.2 is known, and version 1.4 only exists in my computer. These may be played respectively by 18 (or 9 major-minor double power) players and 14 players (or 7 major-minor double power).
These suggested maps, and, more importantly, the only COMPLETE set of Diplomacy Royale rules can be found here: http://aefgirt.atspace.com/
I say this is the only complete rules because, when Tommy decided to become a professional bridge player, then I became the final depositary of the amended rules, detailing which are the additional rules, and with an Errata on one FAQ.
CCR[Reply] |
