Napoleonic: Empires and Coalitions

9-player variant in which formal coalitions can be formed between powers. Designed and GMd by VaeVictus. Solo win: JonathanSwaim (Prussia); 4-way draw shared between Austria (Stanislaw), Britain (Xildur) and France (haroonriaz)

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby VaeVictis » 13 Sep 2013, 05:15

Borogrove wrote:What about first supply centre captured? Rather than one captured in the first year. It is not too likely but still fairly probable for no centre to be captured by a minor power. It could be interesting though to keep that rule as it is... it may result in some kind of incentive to neuter a minor power early on.


I like your suggestion. Minor powers are already at a disadvantage and I think first supply center captured is better than only those supply centers captured in the first year.

Borogrove wrote:As the map goes... it is not too feasible but I think it may not be a bad idea to add an extra sea space connected to St Petersburg south coast and Bot perhaps as it would make Scandinavia much much more powerful in taking it... I don't know, it would look pretty bad I think but would make St Peters much harder to defend...
I'm not sure what it is exactly about the Scandinavian section of the map but something about it seems quite off to me. If it is a tried and tested variant I'll shut up I guess. I don't know what it is exactly that I don't like about that section of the map but it doesn't seem "right" to me.
I think if Scandinavia started with an Army in Lap too it might be better? It would open up a lot of options.
I think the map looks great overall though.

I'll be keen on playing too though. I am kind of getting back into Diplomacy after a year long hiatus.


My only concern here is that St. Pete is easy enough to take in Classic Dip, if the conditions are right. Except, in the case of this variant, it is not distant England that threatens the Russian Imperial capitol but Sweden, lying just across the Baltic.

I think the best course of action now is to make a test run of this. Normally I would adjust the map here before taking it over to the testbed, but there have not been any concrete concerns on map balance given. However, I do agree with you concerning Scandinavia in general. It feels off balance, but I cannot place exactly what ails that region of the board aside from the fact that Scandinavia is simply an awkward peninsula jutting out of the north of Europe.
VaeVictis
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: 30 Dec 2012, 01:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1248)
All-game rating: (1251)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby Borogrove » 13 Sep 2013, 06:41

VaeVictus wrote:
Borogrove wrote:As the map goes... it is not too feasible but I think it may not be a bad idea to add an extra sea space connected to St Petersburg south coast and Bot perhaps as it would make Scandinavia much much more powerful in taking it... I don't know, it would look pretty bad I think but would make St Peters much harder to defend...
I'm not sure what it is exactly about the Scandinavian section of the map but something about it seems quite off to me. If it is a tried and tested variant I'll shut up I guess. I don't know what it is exactly that I don't like about that section of the map but it doesn't seem "right" to me.
I think if Scandinavia started with an Army in Lap too it might be better? It would open up a lot of options.
I think the map looks great overall though.

I'll be keen on playing too though. I am kind of getting back into Diplomacy after a year long hiatus.


My only concern here is that St. Pete is easy enough to take in Classic Dip, if the conditions are right. Except, in the case of this variant, it is not distant England that threatens the Russian Imperial capitol but Sweden, lying just across the Baltic.

I think the best course of action now is to make a test run of this. Normally I would adjust the map here before taking it over to the testbed, but there have not been any concrete concerns on map balance given. However, I do agree with you concerning Scandinavia in general. It feels off balance, but I cannot place exactly what ails that region of the board aside from the fact that Scandinavia is simply an awkward peninsula jutting out of the north of Europe.



I think it is a matter of increasing starting options I suppose.
The way I see it St Petersburg spring start will often be.
F St peters move to BOT

There is absolutely no disadvantage for Russia in doing this as it is still guaranteed Finland in the Fall and it means the Swedish fleet and the Scandinavian position at the start is very weak.

The only thing that could save Sweden is if Russia offered its support into a prussian centre but that is not in Russia's interests unless they want to deal with a strong Scandinavia.

The fleet in Sweden I suspect will rarely be of use in the first year and may have to return to Sweden in fall.

Of course the fleet of St Peters could instead support an army to Belorussia or move the fleet there itself and get help or get help from the Scandinavian fleet into Prussia or support a Scandinavian fleet there however the incentive isn't there for Russia necessarily as a kiev/moscow army can take it themselves.

Maybe I am reading it all wrong... idk.

The reasoning behind giving Sweden an extra army in LAP was essentially it opens up a lot more moves with that army able to go to Finland, Norway or be convoyed into Prussia. It also makes Scandinavia much more defensive and St Petersburg falling in the first year is highly unlikely as the opening St Peters move can be to Finland bouncing the LAP army.
I think it would equalize the area a bit and require more diplomacy. It would allow many more options for Scandinavia. It might be too overpowered though I suppose but I think it is needed to an extent to nerf Russia in that region...
Borogrove
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 09:06
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1546)
All-game rating: (1551)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby VaeVictis » 13 Sep 2013, 10:02

Borogrove wrote:I think it is a matter of increasing starting options I suppose.
The way I see it St Petersburg spring start will often be.
F St peters move to BOT

There is absolutely no disadvantage for Russia in doing this as it is still guaranteed Finland in the Fall and it means the Swedish fleet and the Scandinavian position at the start is very weak.

The only thing that could save Sweden is if Russia offered its support into a prussian centre but that is not in Russia's interests unless they want to deal with a strong Scandinavia.

The fleet in Sweden I suspect will rarely be of use in the first year and may have to return to Sweden in fall.

Of course the fleet of St Peters could instead support an army to Belorussia or move the fleet there itself and get help or get help from the Scandinavian fleet into Prussia or support a Scandinavian fleet there however the incentive isn't there for Russia necessarily as a kiev/moscow army can take it themselves.

Maybe I am reading it all wrong... idk.

The reasoning behind giving Sweden an extra army in LAP was essentially it opens up a lot more moves with that army able to go to Finland, Norway or be convoyed into Prussia. It also makes Scandinavia much more defensive and St Petersburg falling in the first year is highly unlikely as the opening St Peters move can be to Finland bouncing the LAP army.
I think it would equalize the area a bit and require more diplomacy. It would allow many more options for Scandinavia. It might be too overpowered though I suppose but I think it is needed to an extent to nerf Russia in that region...


Excellent analysis and very helpful. It seems as though Sweden and Russia are too close in proximity for any serious diplomacy to take place without it leading to premature war. Therefore, I have done away with Sweden, reshuffled some borders and sea spaces, and added Denmark-Norway. Doubtless this will please jayahr since it will facilitate the possibility of his Battle of Copenhagen (April 2, 1801) scenario. I am pleased with the addition of Denmark myself, but am curious to hear the opinions of others.
VaeVictis
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: 30 Dec 2012, 01:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1248)
All-game rating: (1251)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby Borogrove » 13 Sep 2013, 16:36

VaeVictus wrote:
Borogrove wrote:I think it is a matter of increasing starting options I suppose.
The way I see it St Petersburg spring start will often be.
F St peters move to BOT

There is absolutely no disadvantage for Russia in doing this as it is still guaranteed Finland in the Fall and it means the Swedish fleet and the Scandinavian position at the start is very weak.

The only thing that could save Sweden is if Russia offered its support into a prussian centre but that is not in Russia's interests unless they want to deal with a strong Scandinavia.

The fleet in Sweden I suspect will rarely be of use in the first year and may have to return to Sweden in fall.

Of course the fleet of St Peters could instead support an army to Belorussia or move the fleet there itself and get help or get help from the Scandinavian fleet into Prussia or support a Scandinavian fleet there however the incentive isn't there for Russia necessarily as a kiev/moscow army can take it themselves.

Maybe I am reading it all wrong... idk.

The reasoning behind giving Sweden an extra army in LAP was essentially it opens up a lot more moves with that army able to go to Finland, Norway or be convoyed into Prussia. It also makes Scandinavia much more defensive and St Petersburg falling in the first year is highly unlikely as the opening St Peters move can be to Finland bouncing the LAP army.
I think it would equalize the area a bit and require more diplomacy. It would allow many more options for Scandinavia. It might be too overpowered though I suppose but I think it is needed to an extent to nerf Russia in that region...


Excellent analysis and very helpful. It seems as though Sweden and Russia are too close in proximity for any serious diplomacy to take place without it leading to premature war. Therefore, I have done away with Sweden, reshuffled some borders and sea spaces, and added Denmark-Norway. Doubtless this will please jayahr since it will facilitate the possibility of his Battle of Copenhagen (April 2, 1801) scenario. I am pleased with the addition of Denmark myself, but am curious to hear the opinions of others.


Wow that was quick. It still doesn't save Scandinavia though from Russia ultimately and I think Prussia may suffer a great deal from this. With the way the empire rules were before Sweden could have held out and become a vassal...
One interesting thing to note here though is that if Norway moves to Sweden and holds it is guaranteed a build.

I would be interested to play as Scandinavia though. Keep the minor powers weak though I suppose the difficulty is keeping them equal with other minor powers.

If I was going to power rank the countries so far.

1. Russia
2. Austria
3.France
4.England
5.Sicily
6.5 Prussia
6.5 Norway
7. Turkey
8. Spain

I was just basing this on the initial centres available and by looking at their best possible moves and worst possible moves as well as the likely Strengths of their immediate neighbors.
Spain actually is quite good if it is in an alliance. Norway is now an ultimate England killer.
Austria is incredibly powerful and should expect at least 2 builds in the first year, the only reason why it is not at the top is because it is not a corner power and can't build a fleet in the north.

Turkey starts off in the strange situation of bouncing Italy in Tripoli so that doesn't become a home centre for Italy potentially also. If he isn't friendly with the Russians he could be in for a tough time.
When Norway takes Iceland it should start a slow expanse to becoming a major power.
What's interesting about Russia in this too is that once it commits to target it is very hard for it to shift and will be open for a stab.
Borogrove
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 09:06
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1546)
All-game rating: (1551)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby Stanislaw » 14 Sep 2013, 18:17

Nothing jumps out at me as very unbalanced so I think you should try a test game.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby VaeVictis » 14 Sep 2013, 22:11

Borogrove wrote:
Wow that was quick. It still doesn't save Scandinavia though from Russia ultimately and I think Prussia may suffer a great deal from this. With the way the empire rules were before Sweden could have held out and become a vassal...
One interesting thing to note here though is that if Norway moves to Sweden and holds it is guaranteed a build.

I would be interested to play as Scandinavia though. Keep the minor powers weak though I suppose the difficulty is keeping them equal with other minor powers.

If I was going to power rank the countries so far.

1. Russia
2. Austria
3.France
4.England
5.Sicily
6.5 Prussia
6.5 Norway
7. Turkey
8. Spain

I was just basing this on the initial centres available and by looking at their best possible moves and worst possible moves as well as the likely Strengths of their immediate neighbors.
Spain actually is quite good if it is in an alliance. Norway is now an ultimate England killer.
Austria is incredibly powerful and should expect at least 2 builds in the first year, the only reason why it is not at the top is because it is not a corner power and can't build a fleet in the north.

Turkey starts off in the strange situation of bouncing Italy in Tripoli so that doesn't become a home centre for Italy potentially also. If he isn't friendly with the Russians he could be in for a tough time.
When Norway takes Iceland it should start a slow expanse to becoming a major power.
What's interesting about Russia in this too is that once it commits to target it is very hard for it to shift and will be open for a stab.


I disagree that Denmark will automatically succumb to Russia, or that Prussia will suffer; I believe quite the contrary. The point of Denmark is to use Sweden and Finland as a buffer. The guaranteed build in Sweden was purposeful so that Denmark can have one extra center at the very least. In addition, Prussia is actually safer now that Sweden is gone. Denmark is closer to Britain and still is threatened by Russia to the east making a Danish-Prussian alliance very likely. Sweden was farther from Britain and more likely to run rampant in the Baltic.

Austria is in a better position than what she boasts in Classic, but is not the only one to secure two builds. I apologize if I am missing your point about Austria, but I think that region of the board is fine for now.

Once again, please excuse me if I am missing your meaning, but how is Norway (do you mean F Norway or Denmark-Norway as a country?) "an ultimate England killer"? If you will note, Edinburgh can reach Iceland first year and prevent a Danish capture. This could actually lead to some intriguing diplomacy as each vie for control of the North Atlantic.

How is Turkey's position in relation to Sicily or Russia strange? Both require a Turkish player to be clever and adept as a diplomat. Again, minor powers have the option to form coalitions with whomever they please, making their chances of survival much higher.

With regard to Russia, you will note that her configuration is very similar to Classic Dip, including her orientation towards Prussia and Austria. As in Classic Dip, Russia is powerful, but will fall if forced to fight on multiple fronts.

I think I addressed everything, but am always willing to answer more questions. Please excuse me in advance if I seem confrontational, it is not you or your suggestions. On the contrary, your comments have been quite helpful for development. I am merely defensive over my own work at times, so please do not take my comments the wrong way.
VaeVictis
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: 30 Dec 2012, 01:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1248)
All-game rating: (1251)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby VaeVictis » 14 Sep 2013, 22:20

Stanislaw wrote:Nothing jumps out at me as very unbalanced so I think you should try a test game.


Agreed. I will start signups for the test game in the Forum Games Looking for Players thread. Anyone who participates in the test game will receive priority status for regular signups.
VaeVictis
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: 30 Dec 2012, 01:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1248)
All-game rating: (1251)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby Borogrove » 15 Sep 2013, 02:37

VaeVictus wrote:I disagree that Denmark will automatically succumb to Russia, or that Prussia will suffer; I believe quite the contrary. The point of Denmark is to use Sweden and Finland as a buffer. The guaranteed build in Sweden was purposeful so that Denmark can have one extra center at the very least. In addition, Prussia is actually safer now that Sweden is gone. Denmark is closer to Britain and still is threatened by Russia to the east making a Danish-Prussian alliance very likely. Sweden was farther from Britain and more likely to run rampant in the Baltic.

Austria is in a better position than what she boasts in Classic, but is not the only one to secure two builds. I apologize if I am missing your point about Austria, but I think that region of the board is fine for now.

Once again, please excuse me if I am missing your meaning, but how is Norway (do you mean F Norway or Denmark-Norway as a country?) "an ultimate England killer"? If you will note, Edinburgh can reach Iceland first year and prevent a Danish capture. This could actually lead to some intriguing diplomacy as each vie for control of the North Atlantic.

How is Turkey's position in relation to Sicily or Russia strange? Both require a Turkish player to be clever and adept as a diplomat. Again, minor powers have the option to form coalitions with whomever they please, making their chances of survival much higher.

With regard to Russia, you will note that her configuration is very similar to Classic Dip, including her orientation towards Prussia and Austria. As in Classic Dip, Russia is powerful, but will fall if forced to fight on multiple fronts.

I think I addressed everything, but am always willing to answer more questions. Please excuse me in advance if I seem confrontational, it is not you or your suggestions. On the contrary, your comments have been quite helpful for development. I am merely defensive over my own work at times, so please do not take my comments the wrong way.


Well I'd be interested in seeing it play out.
My points at the bottom weren't meant to be criticisms at all, just observations. I was interested in seeing your views though.
Borogrove
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 09:06
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1546)
All-game rating: (1551)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby jayahr » 16 Sep 2013, 03:13

VaeVictus wrote:Excellent analysis and very helpful. It seems as though Sweden and Russia are too close in proximity for any serious diplomacy to take place without it leading to premature war. Therefore, I have done away with Sweden, reshuffled some borders and sea spaces, and added Denmark-Norway. Doubtless this will please jayahr since it will facilitate the possibility of his Battle of Copenhagen (April 2, 1801) scenario. I am pleased with the addition of Denmark myself, but am curious to hear the opinions of others.

I am smiling... see? :D
But Napoleon will have to find another spot to place Bernadotte! No matter.

I have not looked closely enough to state an opinion, but I noticed that Borogrove put Spain at the bottom of his list, indicating that he feels it is the least powerful. Could some changes be made in that area to improve the balance, and perhaps make the region more reflective of the complexity of the Peninsular War? As you can tell, I'm very keen on as much historical verisimilitude as possible!
... I'm all outa gum.
User avatar
jayahr
 
Posts: 708
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 08:37
Location: Denman Island BC Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1052)
All-game rating: (1608)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: 1800: Empires and Coalitions

Postby Borogrove » 16 Sep 2013, 03:58

jayahr wrote:
VaeVictus wrote:Excellent analysis and very helpful. It seems as though Sweden and Russia are too close in proximity for any serious diplomacy to take place without it leading to premature war. Therefore, I have done away with Sweden, reshuffled some borders and sea spaces, and added Denmark-Norway. Doubtless this will please jayahr since it will facilitate the possibility of his Battle of Copenhagen (April 2, 1801) scenario. I am pleased with the addition of Denmark myself, but am curious to hear the opinions of others.

I am smiling... see? :D
But Napoleon will have to find another spot to place Bernadotte! No matter.

I have not looked closely enough to state an opinion, but I noticed that Borogrove put Spain at the bottom of his list, indicating that he feels it is the least powerful. Could some changes be made in that area to improve the balance, and perhaps make the region more reflective of the complexity of the Peninsular War? As you can tell, I'm very keen on as much historical verisimilitude as possible!


Though I placed Spain at the bottom I think it is fairly well balanced regardless. Spain can do well as a naval power and it is in quite a defensive corener position, with an alliance with England or France it could do well. It's very hard to take Spain in a way and France won't try for quite some time.

I'm really reconsidering having placed it at the bottom, it is very defensive and if France is held back on the its eastern front it could grow quickly eating it from behind. The more I look at it the more it seems like a better and better nation choice. I placed it last largely because it seemed like it would stagnate initially but it is really quite powerful.

I think placing it last was quite a silly of me, it's probably a better choice than Prussia or Turkey now that I think of it... We'll see when the play testing starts I guess.
Borogrove
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 09:06
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1546)
All-game rating: (1551)
Timezone: GMT+10

PreviousNext

Return to Napoleonic: Empires & Coalitions {All Maps Visible}

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest