Is Aincent med too naval?

[Kithchener]

Sorry if I jumped the gun on creating threads

but I thought I'd get going

I've found whilst playing Aincent med that

1. The game is too naval, you could be a very large power with only a couple of armies and I don't think it hinders your game

and also stalemate lines are WAY too easy

Intrested in opinions and other discussion though.

[Subotai45]

Never played, but the game is named after an ocean, and in those times, navies were more important.

[Bob.Durf]

I disagree with Stalemate lines...if you're using the game you were in Kitchner that wasn't a real stalemate line.

[Kithchener]

I'm not only using the game I was in, I was talking about other games I've been in.

[Pedros]

Give game numbers kithchener, because until you do I don't believe it!

[Pedros]

Is Regular too army-based? Because Austria could get a solo with only a couple of fleets. And in a decent game I doubt anyone could get a solo with only two armies (and just for clarity, by "decent" I mean 1. very few NMRs and 2. players of reasonable quality who know what they're doing.

Again, give game numbers.

[Petunia]

I disagree with Stalemate lines...if you're using the game you were in Kitchner that wasn't a real stalemate line.

I continue to disagree with the claim that any otherwise-recognized stalemate line cannot be termed a stalemate line if there is more than one power on either side.

Take a scenario where one player has 17 centers. Two powers together hold the other 17. The 17-center power is on one side of a commonly accepted Diplomacy stalemate line. Faced with coordinated opposition, this player cannot advance. If either of the other players breaks their alliance with the other, the 17-center power will win. Your contention is that this is not a drawn game or a stalemate line because one of the two smaller powers could cause the line to be broken with bad play?

I've yet to see an argument supporting (what I understand to be) your position on this question that I find at all convincing.

[Pedros]

Every one is entitled to define terms like "stalemate line" as they choose. But Dip players almost from the beginning have used it in its strict sense to mean one specific thing (sorry, I've already quoted this once today somewhere else!)

In the Diplomatic Pouch's The Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy: Stalemates Rod Walker defines it as-

A stalemate is a position on the board which prevents any further advance by the enemy. A stalemate line is a line of units, none of which can be dislodged by any combination of opposing attacks and supports.

That can be more than one power on either or each side of the line if they are in alliance. The point is that there is no set of moves which can force a way through the line if defended properly. There may be such lines in Ancient Med but I've never heard of one nor seen one. The one you discussed earlier in relation to one recent game Petunia wasn't a stalemate line - sorry, I don't have the link. But in that game as in many others claimed as "stalemates", the side which could break through chose not to.

I'd really like to see an example if there is one.

[Petunia]

Which is the side that could break through?



Is the argument that Rome or Carthage could upset the apple cart by attacking the other?

[jaelis]

Which is the side that could break through?

It looks to me like Carthage can break through in the south. The fleet in Egyptian Sea must support Crete, so Sinai and Pelusium must support Alexandria. (Support from Thebes could be cut.) But that leaves Thebes with no support.

(I trust that this is not a current game!)