Modern World

GM: Waterice Man. Game ended with no resolution.

Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 22 Jun 2009, 19:37

My plan with this game is to develop it before playing. The idea is similar to that of standard Modern, except based around Military expenditure rather than population. My plan is to have 100 units on the board at the beginning, and 30-40 neutral SCs, with the ratio of military expenditure:units roughly the same across the board

I have already done some work:
-To create a significant challenge to the US, the EU was made one country, rather than the individual, inevitably infighting nations that there would have been instead.
-To give the other countries a chance, the units for the EU and the USA were cut drastically (The USA would have won before the first go without)

Units distribution:
USA: 23
EU: 19
PR China: 12
Arab League: 9
Japan: 8
Russia: 7
India: 5
Turkey: 5
South Korea: 5
Brazil: 4
Australia: 4

Here's a map, currently just showing who's where
Modern World2.png
Modern World2.png (33.65 KiB) Viewed 1647 times


At the moment, I plan to discuss respective powers' strength and positioning, before moving onto the locations of the neutrals, then unit placing, then other territory/ocean divisions, then more on neutrals, before testing

I am using this for information on powers' expenditure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure

At the moment, we're seeing
Last edited by Waterice man on 15 Jul 2009, 22:45, edited 2 times in total.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby sroca » 22 Jun 2009, 20:17

The US is still quite powerful and Canada seems to be an easy target for the US to feed off. Canada needs time to grow to fend off an early US conquest. This is assuming that the units will be placed inside the countries designated colors as of now. Otherwise you could split off the US into several different areas solving its issue with being too powerful.

Some research needs to go into Africa so that units can be placed throughout it so that Brazil and others just can't send two or three units over that way to continually feed of off centers. And of course we can't just leave Africa without any supply centers.

Thought also needs to be put into making triangles so that a country like Russia doesn't have the prospect of having to fight Japan, China, Turkey and the EU all at once. Especially if they only have six units.

Sea tiles are also a main issue. How far apart do we want the landmasses? Do the powers need to focus more intently on settling their continent before setting sail or will there be a balance?

This looks to be even bigger than World Diplomacy so if this map is going to get anywhere we are going to need loads of input. We have pages and pages of discussions about World Dip and this will require even more so I encourage others to get in here and help out. Basically we are creating our own map. Would be cool if there was a map made by "The Playdiplomacy Community," don't you think?
Hebrews 3:7-8a (ESV)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...'"

Please donate funds to the site for its extended operation. Here is the link: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/premium.php
User avatar
sroca
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:30
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1100
All-game rating: 1151
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 22 Jun 2009, 20:35

The US is still quite powerful and Canada seems to be an easy target for the US to feed off. Canada needs time to grow to fend off an early US conquest. This is assuming that the units will be placed inside the countries designated colors as of now. Otherwise you could split off the US into several different areas solving its issue with being too powerful.


Perhaps if the USA didn't get Alaska, but it became a neutral SC, and maybe we could place the US SCs towards the Atlantic coast, reducing the zone of conflict. Units could also be placed abroad, such as in Bahrain and Guam, and I feel Hawaii should be heavily fortified

Some research needs to go into Africa so that units can be placed throughout it so that Brazil and others just can't send two or three units over that way to continually feed of off centers. And of course we can't just leave Africa without any supply centers.


Maybe India and Australia could be encouraged to have a look? And what if the EU's overseas territories created more hassle in the South

Thought also needs to be put into making triangles so that a country like Russia doesn't have the prospect of having to fight Japan, China, Turkey and the EU all at once. Especially if they only have six units.


If Russia was given no leverage in the Black Sea the Turkish Issue could be resolved, and if the USA was a major Pacfic power, Russia would want to work with Japan, and also the EU.

Sea tiles are also a main issue. How far apart do we want the landmasses? Do the powers need to focus more intently on settling their continent before setting sail or will there be a balance?


That will come later

This looks to be even bigger than World Diplomacy so if this map is going to get anywhere we are going to need loads of input. We have pages and pages of discussions about World Dip and this will require even more so I encourage others to get in here and help out. Basically we are creating our own map. Would be cool if there was a map made by "The Playdiplomacy Community," don't you think?


Quote agree!
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby sroca » 22 Jun 2009, 20:57

Waterice man wrote:Perhaps if the USA didn't get Alaska, but it became a neutral SC, and maybe we could place the US SCs towards the Atlantic coast, reducing the zone of conflict. Units could also be placed abroad, such as in Bahrain and Guam, and I feel Hawaii should be heavily fortified

Probably both. Even with an easy grab of Alaska the US still has 28 units! EU possessions in the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico area could be encouraged to create a small conflict between the US and EU. Also given that these two powers are so big their territories should be somewhat intertwined to encourage conflict just like Britain and France are in the 1900 variant otherwise they will ally easily and take over everything.

Waterice man wrote:Maybe India and Australia could be encouraged to have a look? And what if the EU's overseas territories created more hassle in the South

If I recall right, in Colonial there is a impassable area above Nepal. If we put that in and make Bengal, the area between China and India, easy to bottleneck that would encourage India to look West. You could also reduce the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that Saudi Arabia looks into the Africa question as well. The EU will be involved as well if it has units in Spain, Italy and its other Southern territories. Turkey could potentially get involved too but that being a included factor should depend on the fact of being at peace with the EU and Iraq.

Waterice man wrote:If Russia was given no leverage in the Black Sea the Turkish Issue could be resolved, and if the USA was a major Pacfic power, Russia would want to work with Japan, and also the EU.

Just a general distancing of those two will make it so that they focus more on other important issues. You still face a three on one but you do in a normal diplomacy game as well. It will depend on unit placement whether Russia is still gimped or not.

Waterice man wrote:
sroca wrote:Sea tiles are also a main issue. How far apart do we want the landmasses? Do the powers need to focus more intently on settling their continent before setting sail or will there be a balance?


That will come later

Missed seeing that in your first post before I commented. Sorry.

Waterice man wrote:
sroca wrote:This looks to be even bigger than World Diplomacy so if this map is going to get anywhere we are going to need loads of input. We have pages and pages of discussions about World Dip and this will require even more so I encourage others to get in here and help out. Basically we are creating our own map. Would be cool if there was a map made by "The Playdiplomacy Community," don't you think?


Quote agree!

A "World War III Variant" in the making it seems to me. I'll leave the name to be debated after we finish though since this thing, sadly, could die anywhere along the way.
Hebrews 3:7-8a (ESV)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...'"

Please donate funds to the site for its extended operation. Here is the link: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/premium.php
User avatar
sroca
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:30
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1100
All-game rating: 1151
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 22 Jun 2009, 23:02

I'm considering having Iraq taken out, because I can't see a way to prevent him being squished by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

I also agree with what you say about placing EU units in the Caribbean - there are lots of British and French Territories out there that can be used
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby sroca » 22 Jun 2009, 23:08

Waterice man wrote:I'm considering having Iraq taken out, because I can't see a way to prevent him being squished by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Evening out the triangle where Iraq has an easier time to grown and dedicating two or three of both Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's units to the Balkans and Africa respectively could work as well. But yes if it gets too difficult to work out the best option is to just cut it.

Putting some US units near Iraq and Iran is an option as well although in this situation they should be more inclined to work together.
Hebrews 3:7-8a (ESV)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...'"

Please donate funds to the site for its extended operation. Here is the link: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/premium.php
User avatar
sroca
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:30
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1100
All-game rating: 1151
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 23 Jun 2009, 17:47

I'm also worried about the possibility of Iraq's Naval strength not being up to much. He can obviously only have one coastal centre, and fleets will be vital in this version

It'd be good to see more people sharing what they think
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby sroca » 24 Jun 2009, 00:51

True. Unless you could find an island or somewhere you could add another center for Iraq.

Agreed on the second point as well.
Hebrews 3:7-8a (ESV)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...'"

Please donate funds to the site for its extended operation. Here is the link: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/premium.php
User avatar
sroca
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:30
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1100
All-game rating: 1151
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby thegame » 24 Jun 2009, 02:34

Waterice man wrote:I'm also worried about the possibility of Iraq's Naval strength not being up to much. He can obviously only have one coastal centre, and fleets will be vital in this version

It'd be good to see more people sharing what they think


The rules can be made like Imperial were if you capture a home SC, you can use it as a building location. That way, Iraq would have to capture coastal home SC to strengthen their navy.
...true power, the divine right to rule, is something you're born with.
thegame
 
Posts: 183
Joined: 28 Feb 2009, 02:57
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Modern World

Postby sroca » 24 Jun 2009, 02:40

thegame wrote:The rules can be made like Imperial were if you capture a home SC, you can use it as a building location. That way, Iraq would have to capture coastal home SC to strengthen their navy.

Do you mean capture a home center of another power such as Saudi Arabia or India?
Hebrews 3:7-8a (ESV)
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...'"

Please donate funds to the site for its extended operation. Here is the link: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/premium.php
User avatar
sroca
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:30
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1100
All-game rating: 1151
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to Test Game 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests