So a few thoughts/observations about the Variant itself from a strategy standpoint. With this being my first game, I learned a ton. I'm curious to see if other people look at it similarly, or if this particular game has filtered my view of things.
Map:
The map is huge, there are tons of spaces and SCs, lots of units, and a mix of land and naval spaces. In theory, it seems like this should make for a lot of flexibility and make maneuvering crucial. However, what I observed (in this game at least) was that there are a few key spaces that the entire game is centered around. Perhaps it's because I was an edge power, but from where I was sitting it felt like I was in a valley surrounded by impassible mountains with only a couple of "passes" that I could cross. I used to play RTS games back in High School and there were maps that had choke-points that players could "turtle" behind. "Turtling" in Colonial seems an effective strategy to me (certainly for the edge powers at least).
Before playing Colonial I read every strategy article I could find on the variant. I even hunted down copies of the old articles in the "General" magazine. A common theme was that Colonial's map was full of "Stalemate Lines." At the game's start, I was looking for "Stalemate Lines" like in Classic Diplomacy that basically allow a player to self support his own units in such a way that it becomes impossible for anyone to break through his defensive line. These lines definitely exist. I located 3 major ones. One would allow a "Western" power (probably Russia, Turkey, or possibly Britain) to defend the center of the map from KRA-TAS-KAR-GOA. This was the line that encouraged me to bid hard for Turkey as I figured it would be the easiest for me (or me and an ally) to control. Another was in the north east corner and allows an "Eastern" power (probably China or Japan, possibly France or even Russia) to create a semi-circle shaped line from IRK-MON-LAN-ECE-UP. The final one that I saw allows a "Southern" power (most likely Holland or France, possibly Britain) to control a huge line from MP-SCS-CAN-MAY-BUR-BOB-WIO-SWIO. It's the hardest one that I found to establish, but controls a whopping 21 SCs behind it. There are a few other small ones that I was able to find, but these three "large" ones were sort of the foundation of my strategy in this game. My goal was to have me and/or my allies control the "Western" line, while stopping anyone else from getting the "eastern" or "southern" lines. I attacked Russia when I did because I thought it would give Japan and/or France a chance to keep China from establishing the "Eastern" line, and I stabbed Morg to prevent him from establishing the "southern" line. We did manage to keep that southern line from being established but I was WAY off about the eastern one.

Early in the game because I was so focused on traditional "stalemate lines", I completely missed the importance of the spaces that acted like the "passes" I spoke of earlier. I think Pedros tried to talk to me about this concept pretty early on in the game and I just didn't get it at the time. A perfect example of this is India. The Indian peninsula is not behind any of the Stalemate lines that I have been able to identify. I assumed there would be fighting over it because it's full of SCs, but I missed it's true value. Whoever controls India controls passage between the east and the west, *and* between the southwest and southeast. The easiest to see is the west and south "pass". I realized very quickly that there is a huge bottleneck (or "mountain range" so to speak) around the West Indian Ocean. WIO can be supported by SIO and it's almost impossible for a "western" player to cut that support. In effect, it becomes a "mountain" that is almost impossible to maneuver around (as a side note, this is why I wanted a DMZ there which Morg wisely declined). The only way for a "western" power to break through is to control Madras. Madras becomes the "pass." As a "Western" power, the only way to control Madras is to control Bombay and Mysore (and probably also Hyderabad) so you can cut support, force Madras, and work your way around the WIO "mountain." This works the other way as well. The Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea are rediculously easy to defend. An "Eastern" player has to break through Madras, into Bombay, all the way to Rajputana and Karachi to break those defenses. Again, India is the "pass" that allows passage between the southeast and southwest sides of the map.
What I didn't see right away is that India (and Bengal) is also the key to breaking through in the center of the map. There are strong defensive lines on either side of Kashgar and Kashmir. Thanks to the literal mountain ranges separating Nepal and Tibet, the only way that a "Western" power can break through those lines to force control of Kashmir and Kashgar is to cut support in Tibet and attack from Punjab. The only way to cut support in Tibet and attack from Punjab is to control northern India (Dehli becomes important here) and Bengal. Once again, India acts as a "pass" of sorts to unlock portions of the map that are stalemated.
I never did get a solid feel for the eastern side of the map (when I play Colonial again I definitely want to bid hard for one of those eastern powers) but I suspect that the area around Canton/Nanchung/ECS/SCS/Formosa is probably a "pass" area (I'm not 100% sure which is the critical space, I think "Formosa" might be a "mountain" making Canton/Nanchung the "pass?"). These spaces are not technically behind a true stalemate line, so whoever controls those spaces controls entry into and out of that side of the board. I am sure there are other "passes" on the map as well.
I'm curious if others noticed anything similar and if so, if they would be willing to share what they found. If this concept is true, for all of its size, Colonial becomes a game of ensuring you and/or your allies control the passes. It makes the game somewhat straightforward from a tactical standpoint, opening up the doors for Diplomacy to be the determining factor in who is successful, which is definitely the style of game that I prefer.
Special Rules:First of all, I *love* the TSR. I don't think I would be willing to play any Colonial variant that didn't use those rules. It creates a *much* needed dynamic element to the game map and allows for Russia to have some rapid movement of their armies, similar to what other powers can do with fleets. I'm not 100% sure I like the restriction that only Russia can use the TSR though. If China or I could have used it, I think the game would have been a lot more fluid in the middle of the board. As it currently stands, it definitely gives an advantage to Russia. I purposefully kept Pedros alive simply because he could use the TSR and I could not. If he had managed to not mis-order the TSR towards the end of the mid/game early end/game, I think we could have had a *very* different outcome. I like the TSR rules a LOT.
I don't think the Suez Canal rules add much. I guess if Britain and I had ended up working together against Russia, it might have given me some security if I controlled Suez as Turkey to keep Britain out of my home SCs, but besides this I don't really see how it changes things very much. Maybe it makes Turkey less attractive of an early target for Britan to prevent the early B/R vs. T from happening in every game? I don't mind having it, I don't think I'd get rid of it, I just don't think it had much impact on this particular game at least.
Land bridge from VLA - SAK. Because of my position on the board, I'm probably the *least* qualified to speak about this change, but from where I was sitting at least I liked it. IMHO it does two important things. First, it makes it more difficult for the "Eastern" semi-circle stalemate position that I spoke about earlier to be created because you can put even more pressure on VLA. Second, I think it interacts nicely with the TSR because it gives those Russian armies another place to go. That being said, I never played with the old rules so I don't have a good reference point. I'd love to get feedback on this from the Eastern theater guys. It certainly seemed to get some play in the early game at least!
Balance:I think my view on balance is influenced strongly by my theory about stalemate positions and control of "passes" as I spoke about earlier. From the start, I think that you can divide players into those powers that can easily establish one of the 3 major stalemate positions and those who have a more difficult go at it. I think Russia, China, Japan, and Holland are clear front-runners and have the advantage in establishing these positions. Turkey is every bit as powerful if he can get started, but *BOY* is it hard to get units from one side of the map to the other (particularly the south east of the map). My guess is that Holland and Japan might suffer from this same challenge as well. I still rank them over Turkey though because Turkey suffers from a very high risk of an early B/R vs. T which I do not think he could recover from. This leaves France and Britain as the "weak" powers. What's interesting to me is that if my theory about "passes" is true (and if I correctly identified some of them), both Britain and France are in the best position to control the "passes." Thus, while they may not have an easy time establishing a stalemate position, they are critical (in the early and mid-game at least) to dictating which powers are able to move where. Translating this to success in the end-game seems challenging though. My feeling is that it would take a very strong Diplomat to solo as either of these powers. I think they both need allies to "prop them up" in order for them to be successful. The plus side for the "corner" powers is that because neither of these powers have an easy time getting to one of the 3 stalemate positions, they can be useful allies if you want to keep a solo option on the table. I feel that if too many of the "edge" powers ally, a draw is an inevitable outcome (and probably why so many Colonial games seem to end this way).
Feel:I mentioned this in my earlier post, but at least in this game I felt like the Colonial variant is most similar to the puzzle game "Traffic" where you have to maneuver your puzzle pieces in just the right place to make any sort of forward progress. The difference is that the blocks are all controlled by other players so you have to negotiate with everyone! This gives the variant a very puzzle like feel to me. The number of units to keep up with was a bit exhausting (there are SO many options!) but I think that with time, if my theory about "passes" is true, it might get a bit easier to erase some of the "noise" and focus on the truly important spaces.
I enjoyed the challenge and think it's a good variant, it's just not for everyone. It takes a LOT of time and energy (again, this might change with more experience) and can be very frustrating at times. It's probably best suited for players that enjoy the tactical side of Diplomacy a bit more than I do (I don't think that's my strong suit) and definitely needs a player who is comfortable with a methodical style of play. Don't expect large sweeping maneuvers or even a ton of surprises. Because of the size of the board it's pretty hard to disguise your intentions once you get past the early game. This gives players time to react, so expect lots of shifting alliances and slow (creeping?) growth. It's going to be a long game. Be prepared for the length and be committed to stick with it to the end.
I think that's about it for me. I'd love to hear from the other players (even those that have experience from other games!) about their thoughts on the variant itself to try and identify what of the above is true globally, and how much was the result of my own individual experience in this particular game.