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