Page 2 of 3

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 22 Feb 2013, 16:56
by ViscountSlim
please read the gamers guide to 1900. Objective number one was to make a more balanced game than vanilla


Then as I said above, EPIC FAIL!

Also, we should get married. I'll call up the rabbi


Ya know it's a thought, though here in Tennessee (and jkid can back me up on this) we prefer to marry close relatives - maybe we could do a double ceremony with Pezgod and dcaibal. But, will your mother not mind that I am goyim? I am circumcised and many (if not most) of my heroes just happen to be Jewish: Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Norman Finkelstein, Rosa Luxemburg, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Sigmund Freud, Mel Brooks, Groucho Marx, John Stewart, and Kyle Broflovski, just to name a few (yes, I am a little to the left of Karl Marx and Bertolt Brecht). And I have threatened to violently assault her little bubby. Let's start with dinner first, then we'll see... :lol:

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 22 Feb 2013, 20:24
by The O
ViscountSlim wrote:
joelsdaman1 wrote:GASP! Blasphemy! You, sir, have no idea. 1900 is by far the best variant I have ever played, and the most balanced. I will never play vanilla Diplomacy again without a gaping hole in my heart. You see, the actual numbers break down so:.



I hardly think it blasphemy to say that a game is slightly unbalanced, and "vanilla" or Classic Diplomacy is quite biased in favor of Russia in my opinion, which is precisely why Russia is my favorite country to play in Classic. I have a theory (which someday I shall try to test against real data) that the reasons Russia often does poorly in Classic games on this site, especially in comparison with Turkey, which starts out from a much weaker position, are primarily psychological (specifically, residual Cold War presumption on the part of younger players, especially Americans, and genuinely intractable Cold War prejudice on the part of older players, both American and English).

A little off topic... but I've long had a theory about Russia and this site. My thought is that because Russia's territories are so large (physically), then they do worse. Players see Russia taking up half the map with only 7 or 8 SCs and then they get ganged up on a lot quicker than most other powers will. I long ago suggested that the map actually cut off in the east lessening the size of territories like Mosc, St.Pete, and Sev. I think it's a psychological thing that people see the largest country and pick on them even if they are not in the lead.
This is just a theory and I have zero evidence to support that.

Sorry to hijack.

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 22 Feb 2013, 21:41
by ViscountSlim
The O wrote:[ A little off topic... but I've long had a theory about Russia and this site. My thought is that because Russia's territories are so large (physically), then they do worse. Players see Russia taking up half the map with only 7 or 8 SCs and then they get ganged up on a lot quicker than most other powers will. I long ago suggested that the map actually cut off in the east lessening the size of territories like Mosc, St.Pete, and Sev. I think it's a psychological thing that people see the largest country and pick on them even if they are not in the lead.
This is just a theory and I have zero evidence to support that.

Sorry to hijack.


Not off topic at all in my opinion - and I think your theory perhaps even more plausible than my own. I also think it works the other way around sometimes for people playing Russia. I tend to be a pretty unrealistically optimistic player most of the time - no challenge too great, etc. (perhaps that's from being an American) - but when I'm Russia I'm practically delusional; I simply cannot see danger or the prospect of failure until the gates of the Kremlin are being battered down, and I think it's directly related to the quantity of purple pixels on my screen. If there are any psychologists here on site I think this could make a very interesting experiment.

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 01:28
by sock
joelsdaman1 wrote:Is there any way we could actually set up a 1900 game with professionally good players? As in people who would bring a fair test of balance to the game? Is anyone interested?


A lot of former "high rankers" are battling it out right now....in living color...

http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play.php?game_id=55221

Professional grade? Perhaps...

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 01:33
by joelsdaman1
sock wrote:
joelsdaman1 wrote:Is there any way we could actually set up a 1900 game with professionally good players? As in people who would bring a fair test of balance to the game? Is anyone interested?


A lot of former "high rankers" are battling it out right now....in living color...

http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play.php?game_id=55221

Professional grade? Perhaps...

This game clearly shows that France is not "the new Italy" and Germany isn't overpowered.

Although you are playing very well!

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 02:41
by Petunia
The O wrote:My thought is that because Russia's territories are so large (physically), then they do worse. Players see Russia taking up half the map with only 7 or 8 SCs and then they get ganged up on a lot quicker than most other powers will. I long ago suggested that the map actually cut off in the east lessening the size of territories like Mosc, St.Pete, and Sev. I think it's a psychological thing that people see the largest country and pick on them even if they are not in the lead.

I believe this theory entirely. I consider it factual. It's one reason why I play Russia very, very helpfully.

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 05:24
by joelsdaman1
I kinda want to get back to this discussion! I honestly think that 1900 is the most balanced map offered on the site. Already people have adapted - I'm noticing far more anti-German early maneuvers, and interesting dilemmas about the awkward France/Britain relationship.

Would anyone be interested in a high-skilled 1900 game? I really want to test this thing out with good players (and me :lol: )

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 06:38
by ViscountSlim
Despite the fact that you think I "sucked" in Gunboat 1900, I would be happy to play against you in a non-Gunboat 1900 game. As for being a "good" player, I am now only a few points below the legendary RobinsBass. Also, Slim is an excellent game promoter - no one's games fill faster.

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 15:26
by joelsdaman1
ViscountSlim wrote:Despite the fact that you think I "sucked" in Gunboat 1900, I would be happy to play against you in a non-Gunboat 1900 game. As for being a "good" player, I am now only a few points below the legendary RobinsBass. Also, Slim is an excellent game promoter - no one's games fill faster.

Still hold a grudge, eh? Well this game will determine who's who and what's what.

56938. VIP Only - 1900
I'll PM you the password.
Also, advertise this a lot.

Re: 1900 - More Unbalanced than the Classic Map?

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 17:03
by ViscountSlim
joelsdaman1 wrote:Also, advertise this a lot.


Doin' it! http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36014