Is Aincent med too naval?

[Pedros]

On the small map and under the arrows I saw the army in Byzantium as orange! Obviously, I should have taken notice of the background colour.

So at one level we have a stalemate line defined at last, provided that the east has managed to get a fleet into Reed Sea early enough - it would require testing in a real game to know whether that attempt weakened the defence elsewhere.

On the other hand, if the defence had managed to get a fleet into Dacia earlier, it would break the line. But that really would be a tough job.

[jaelis]

On the other hand, if the defence had managed to get a fleet into Dacia earlier, it would break the line.

True. But an iron-clad line can be formed if, in addition to moving one of extra units to Reed Sea, the other spare is moved to F Black Sea. Then it doesn't matter whether the enemy unit in Dacia is a fleet or an army. Alternatively, A Galatia or A Sinope could be replaced by F Black Sea. But in practice, it seems like A Dacia and empty Black Sea would be a lot more likely.

I spent a while trying to either contract or expand this line, and couldn't find any nearby variations. Certainly, stalemate lines are a lot harder to find on this map than the standard one. (Technically, C/R do have a line of their own here, but traditionally lines holding more than 17 centers don't count.)

[Pedros]

jaelis - you're on top of this one. Do you want to write it up for a separate thread in this forum, "Ancient Med stalemate line"?

[jaelis]

Sure, I'll write something up. I think I found another line too.

[Kithchener]

Meh, perhaps you guys are right regarding stalemate lines. I feel that there is too much congestion at the Sinai/ Egypt border, I once took 11 years of grit just to crack it, by which time Carthage soloed (I was Persia)

Still too naval though. Have fun with it?

[Pedros]

Perhaps you should have changed your strategy!

[Kithchener]

Perhaps you should have changed your strategy!

I probably should have .