Is Aincent med too naval?

Strategy discussions for the Ancient Med variant.
Forum rules
trategy
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. Members should not seek advice about an active game they are in.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
Posts which refer to a specific situation in an active game, or which link directly to an active game, are subject to editing or removal.

Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Kithchener » 11 Dec 2012, 22:49

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.
This account is dead RIP.
User avatar
Kithchener
 
Posts: 7736
Joined: 14 Apr 2012, 12:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1123)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Subotai45 » 11 Dec 2012, 23:03

Never played, but the game is named after an ocean, and in those times, navies were more important.
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12449
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Bob.Durf » 11 Dec 2012, 23:05

I disagree with Stalemate lines...if you're using the game you were in Kitchner that wasn't a real stalemate line.
Cheater-Hunter (Fired on account of incompetence according to top secret reports)

There's a saying amongst the moderators: "If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If it's not worth doing, give it to Bob." Promotion prospects: Comical
User avatar
Bob.Durf
 
Posts: 2443
Joined: 04 Jan 2009, 02:05
Location: South Carolina
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (970)
All-game rating: (969)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Kithchener » 11 Dec 2012, 23:14

I'm not only using the game I was in, I was talking about other games I've been in.
This account is dead RIP.
User avatar
Kithchener
 
Posts: 7736
Joined: 14 Apr 2012, 12:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1123)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Pedros » 11 Dec 2012, 23:33

Give game numbers kithchener, because until you do I don't believe it!
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Pedros » 11 Dec 2012, 23:37

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.
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Petunia » 11 Dec 2012, 23:38

Bob.Durf wrote: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.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Pedros » 12 Dec 2012, 00:29

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.
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby Petunia » 12 Dec 2012, 01:04

Which is the side that could break through?

Image

Is the argument that Rome or Carthage could upset the apple cart by attacking the other?
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Is Aincent med too naval?

Postby jaelis » 12 Dec 2012, 01:11

Petunia wrote: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!)
Last edited by jaelis on 12 Dec 2012, 01:29, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jaelis
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 17 Nov 2008, 22:08
Location: Virginia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1060)
All-game rating: (1212)
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to Ancient Mediterranean Strategy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest