Welcome Guest!  [Log In]  [Sign Up]

Diplomaticcorp Discussion Forum:  dc319

(1936 Playtest)


Post:< 17862 >
Subject:< 1936 v1.4 >
Topic:< dc319 >
Category:< Active Games >
Author:Nitsch
Posted:Sep 19, 2010 at 6:39 am
Viewed:359 times

  [New Post]  [Reply]  [Quote]

Gentlemen,
having the chance to lead USSR to it's doom in the current game, I thought
I add my 2 cents considering the balance in the east:
I found it rather hard to find a position for my soviet armies in the very
early game, that did not leave another front totally vulnerable (well, the
two times I was daring enough to do it both were followed by my neighbors
jumping exactly on me exactly there... but that could have to do with the
diplomatic situation as well). Heading south, you forfeit your options in
Scandinavia and with some bad luck, you lose the Baltic states and have
Britain knocking on your door with two tempi and neutral support in
Leningrad. Heading completely north, you forfeit Iraq and Iran, having
Turkey eying Stalingrad directly, able to support themselves in easily.
Sending one unit south, one north and on west makes you completely
depending on DP and other player's help (where I managed to get screwed,
say... three times?).
There are two major weak points that can be very easily addressed inmho:
1.) NRG borders LEN. This does give the British player a major advantage
in taking Scanfinavia, as he will almost for sure have a fleet sitting in
NRG, which is in fact necessary to take Norway - but does put constant
pressure on LEN. a USSR fleet build LEN(nc) in case you have an early gain
is not only the most direct declaration of war to britain, but cannot be
used for anything else than northern Scandinavia, while Soviet armies are
desperately needed everywhere on the map. Removing Len(nc) is not an
option, but reacing it via ARO and Finland (not to forget it's baltic
borders) should suffice to balance the region. Thus, I would relocate NRG
to not border LEN.
2.) The second, I even think grave problem is the "claim" the map gives
Poland on the Baltic states, which makes it difficult to dip about their
fate. They are polish home SC right now, and that will always make Poland
want them badly. It does in the end give you more flexibility to build.
Yet as three of them is much too much - it does neither reflect Poland's
situation in the era, nor does it by any means reflect the importance of
the SC that are flagged "build SC" in the Baltic. Yet simply removing one
or two pink circles does not do the job for me, as any expansion of both
USSR and Poland will still result in a clash there with units, that cannot
be send elsewhere easily. So what I would do redrawing the map is:
- Remove SC LAT completely. It didn't have that much importance
historically, and for the sake of the game's balance in the region this
serves as well.
- Create an SC EUK, not being a build SC for anyone.
- redraw WUK and STA so EUK does no longer touch Moscow.
- optional: redraw STA to not have an (wc) and make EUK a build SC (home
of the Black Sea fleet)
This does result, in terms of tempi, almost in the same location:
bordering a single Soviet home SC and a neutral (polish build option) SC,
which is another move away from a Polish home Sc. Moreover, this gives the
Russian player a single option to take an easy SC, but having to forfeit
concentrating his troops on the north or the Baltic in the first turn. It
will as well never be a completely safe SC, as it is not to far away from
Turkey. And thus it serves to have another reason for Turkey and USSR to
fight over, as an IRAQ/IRAN agreement now can be done too easily imho. As
a plus, it gives a strategic very important region the role it deserves -
just think of the battles of Sevastopol and Kharkov, both EUk.
Just my 2 cents, but happy to read some responses...
Best,
Karsten

This message is in reply to post 17847:

Hi guys,



I've now decided to run with the various changes I discussed in my
past mail and implemented those on the below v1.4 map. Here a
summary of the changes:



- Both Algiers and Suez are no longer marked with a red
circle as they're now regular HSCs.



- The Tyrrhenian Sea has been divided into Northern and Southern
Tyrrhenian Sea spaces.



- Tuscany makes a comeback.



- The Adriatic now adjoins Greece.



- I've removed the Abruzzi buffer province that was geared to
facilitate an amphibious landing in Italy. Given the redrawn
Adriatic adds to Italy's defense worries in the East, I felt I
might help out Italy be removing that landing-site.



- I also cut out the now fairly redundant-seeming Ligurian Sea
space. As the SC-space ratio is already pretty high at 1:2.56, I
felt it wise to not further increase the number of overall spaces.
Standard has a ratio of 1:2.2. Plainly 1936 is a whole lot more
fluid variant, though some of 1936's spaces (e.g. Iceland, Kuweit,
Caspian) are only of very marginal use. So the "effective" ratio
is arguably somewhat lower.


All-in-all, I'd say that Franco-Italian tension is increased in
Africa (owing to the threat potential of the Algiers HSC), while
round Piedmont it has been reduced by a fair amount. To the East,
Turkish-Italian rivalry over Greece has been intensified.



I'd be interested to hear your take on these recalibration measures
in the wake of Algiers and Suez being promoted to HSC status.



Charles

There are 7 Messages in this Thread:


1936 v1.4 (charlesf) Sep 17, 12:06 pm

1936 v1.4 (dknemeyer) Sep 18, 10:58 am

1936 v1.4 (buyz2men) Oct 01, 03:41 am

1936 v1.4 (charlesf) Sep 18, 02:27 pm

1936 v1.4 (Nigs) Sep 18, 04:18 pm

1936 v1.4 (Nitsch) Sep 19, 06:39 am

1936 v1.4 (charlesf) Sep 19, 09:08 am

Diplomacy games may contain lying, stabbing, or deliberately deceiving communications that may not be suitable for and may pose a hazard to young children, gullible adults, and small farm animals.

Powered by Fuzzy Logic 

Visitor number 48777. Thank you for stopping by!