Battle Isle : a serious map variant - Sign-ups

[Netr0]

My mistake, needed to look at the map again.

[Zack L1ghtman]

Are there only 2 entrances to each end of bridges? Aren't Seagard, Drowned Lands, and Karhold also entrances to bridges? They are land territories that touch bridges.

He covers that in Rule 4

4. Bridges are accessed from the spaces at the end of the bridges - eg for Bridge of Fading Hope at its western end from Northern and Southern Twins but NOT from Seagard.

Only the END of the bridges are access points.
Imagine real bridges, you don't access a bridge by climbing over the side walls/rails/ropes, you access it from the ends, so only territories connected with the ends of the bridges are access points.

So no Seagard, Drowned Lands, and Karhold are not entrances to bridges, as they touch the sidewalls of the bridges, not the open ends of the bridges.

[Zack L1ghtman]

Hello peeps, Retard.In.Denial here, now under the name of JD CoolPenguin, but you can call me Penguin

I originally proposed the map, and my friend Waterice Man (who appears to no longer be active here) GM'd it.

I must say this list makes me stop and think. The players in the first game here who raved about it - comments like "The best variant I've ever played" - were good players, who've been round the block a few times. If, despite these apparent flaws, they were so positive about it then perhaps we should let it lie there and see how it goes.

Thoughts?

I just want to comment on this.

First of all, there was no big discussion about the map before it was played, and as far as I can remember, no one pointed out any flaws before the game began, so we had the advantage of the flaws only being aware to the players who noticed them. Now I can't 100% remember the game, it was 4 years ago, but to my knowledge none of us used the 2 units supporting each other.

Here's why I think it worked:
Whilst you can have 2 units sit there and support each other and be invincible, it IS NOT a good position. You cannot grow out from there.
Taking control of those 2 centers and supporting yourself to sit pretty the whole game is not a good tactic. It uses up 2 of your valuable units, and doesn't make it any easier to capture any other SC's.

The only time this would become a problem is if someone only had 2 units, and used those 2 units to sit there and support each other, then someone proposes a draw, and the guy with 2 units left does not accept, or if you're playing DIAS and the guy with 2 units supporting himself there does not deserve to be included in the win.

2 units sitting there supporting each other is not a 'tactic', it's a 'last resort', and quite a bitchy last resort at that. It's not a tactic because it doesn't benefit you in a way that helps you win the game.

I should also point out that this a starting conflict zone, and it was great (if I remember correctly). Being in the middle of 2 home countries, this area proved to be a diplomatic goldmine. The whole trick of it was to work out how to not end up in a stale mate, or to form a strong alliance where the stalemate made for a solid alliance.

I can't remember but I'm pretty certain it didn't turn into 3 obvious 2-way alliances due to this fact... there was a lot stabbing attempts, and I remember never really knowing wether I was allied with my neighbour.

Conclusion
So, you could fix the map, or you could just make a rule that people using their 2 units making them undestroyable in those couple of places do not get a vote in the draw and are not included in a DIAS.

Maybe, now the errors have been pointed out, play it again and see if they come into play at all, like a trial run. If they don't really come in to play, that's 2 games where it hasn't really effected the gameplay and we can keep it the way it is.

Penguin.

EDIT:
Additionally...

Reply from Frank Bacher, but it doesn solve all the problems I'm afraid.

1. Map They aren't worried about the impregnable bits - "Up to the players to stop it happening." But they're OK if we want to change it - and clearly we will. Now I have that I'll begin looking seriously at it all, taking into account the comments made here.

I don't know if this is what he means, but: It is not easy to get control of those 2 centers... they are equidistant from 2 home countries, and it would require some good diplomacy in order to capture both of those centers... so, it's not like some countries have the advantage of just running there and sitting tight, they would have to work, and work hard, for it.

Penguin.

[SaltySailor]

Thanks Penguin, I have the concept of the bridge entrances straight now. I'll just explain to my boys that they are not allowed to hop the sides of bridges, nor fire over them.

As for the map, I agree with you. It's probably best to go as is and see how it works. If it's like the last game, it sounds like fun. In this unranked trial game, we'll reserve the right to call anyone holed up with 2 units in a zone like that a "wuss" for years to come.

[Zack L1ghtman]

Thanks Penguin, I have the concept of the bridge entrances straight now. I'll just explain to my boys that they are not allowed to hop the sides of bridges, nor fire over them.

As for the map, I agree with you. It's probably best to go as is and see how it works. If it's like the last game, it sounds like fun. In this unranked trial game, we'll reserve the right to call anyone holed up with 2 units in a zone like that a "wuss" for years to come.

Haha, good plan!

I've had the chance to look at some of the maps from our original game. I can confirm that 2 players were IN the strongholds, 1 of them doesn't appear to of used the support-support though, the other one may well of used it... I would have to look at the orders from the game to confirm.
Both of these players went on to do very well. (I'm guessing they were me and deanchuk).

It appears to me though, they were already winning when they took those positions.

I've passed the maps on to Pedros for his review.

However, I would still suggest running another game as a trial run and see if it's just part of the game or wether it does give some sort of unfair advantage or whatever.

Penguin.

[Pedros]

I've been short of time the last few days, so I've put this on the back burner. I now have some slack, so I'm going to work on it.

First off, I'd like some more thoughts - especially from those who've expressed interest in playing - on Penguin's suggestion about running the map as is. If we did that, though, I would introduce a rule like that in Seven Islands - "If a player is reduced to holding no SCs apart from {list of the impregnable enclaves} then he loses those centres and is out of the game" (I've played with Seven Islands rules, and the situation is a nightmare.)

And I'm going to work through the orders of the first game. There certainly were some of the players who made a rush for the enclaves; I want to see what happened (Pengu9in said it might have been the two winners, but I'm not sure - looking at the first year, the other players went rushing for the bridges, which could have been more successful.)

If anybody wants to look through that game the maps from the build phases are still at http://jdcreative.me.uk/playdip/battleisle1/ and the previous game orders and discussions are at viewforum.php?f=53 . I've started a thread there for any comments about the way that game went - I'll copy Penguin's earlier comments across there later this morning.

[Zack L1ghtman]

I've been short of time the last few days, so I've put this on the back burner. I now have some slack, so I'm going to work on it.

First off, I'd like some more thoughts - especially from those who've expressed interest in playing - on Penguin's suggestion about running the map as is. If we did that, though, I would introduce a rule like that in Seven Islands - "If a player is reduced to holding no SCs apart from {list of the impregnable enclaves} then he loses those centres and is out of the game" (I've played with Seven Islands rules, and the situation is a nightmare.)

And I'm going to work through the orders of the first game. There certainly were some of the players who made a rush for the enclaves; I want to see what happened (Pengu9in said it might have been the two winners, but I'm not sure - looking at the first year, the other players went rushing for the bridges, which could have been more successful.)

If anybody wants to look through that game the maps from the build phases are still at http://jdcreative.me.uk/playdip/battleisle1/ and the previous game orders and discussions are at viewforum.php?f=53 . I've started a thread there for any comments about the way that game went - I'll copy Penguin's earlier comments across there later this morning.

You're just so organised! I love it!

[Pedros]

I've had a look at the early years of that previous game (brief notes in the thread linked above) and it's clear that the tactical and diplomatic challenges presented by those areas are very interesting in those early stages. I should also say that I have still to catch up on the recent discussion in this thread, which could modify my views.

I'm thinking therefore of following Penguin's advice and keeping the map as it is. I will be including the "No spoilsports" rule though which I outlined previously. My draft rule, for the moment, is

Any power which, after any Fall season, is reduced to controlling only groups of Supply Centres in impregnable enclaves will lose those supply centres and be eliminated from the game.

The impregnable enclaves are Northern Wilderness and West Rang Shada; Valley of Arryn and Northern Valley of Arryn; Fal Dara and Fal Moran; and the central area of battle Island itself including the three connecting centres.

I have not included Southaven because, if only Southaven is controlled then they will be unable to hold it against units in Northern and Southern Mountains of Death. Battle island is a major strategic objective and seems to me more like sea control of either the Mediterranean or the northern sea area in Regular; impregnable, but a valid building block to victory.

Comments welcome!

[Pedros]

Picking up some of the points made about rules - which are, I think, all about fleets and bridges.

Firstly, fleets moving onto bridges/supporting armies on bridges/convoying to bridges. I don't think anybody has really suggested that we let the fleets onto the bridges, and it's a basic rule of Dip that support can only be given, and convoying can only be made to, spaces to which the fleet can move. Granted that we could easily alter that rule, but for me this game is a map variant not a rule variant, and I want to play it that way. (And would you be wanting to allow fleets to stage Dunkirk-style evacuations and convoy armies OFF the bridges?) I don't actually understand the relevance of Gibraltar - Gibraltar is a particular kind of space - a land/sea space a bit like Baleares in AMed (though, granted, a bit different as well!)

Secondly there was the issue - a map one really - about whether bridges should divide sea spaces. Obviously this could go either way, but my feeling about this (Penguin may have a view) is that because of the grey areas of coast fleets are much less significant in this game than in Regular. So allowing them fast movement around the seas to some extent compensates for that.

Thirdly, the red herring about the need to allow fleets to support onto bridges because otherwise they're almost impregnable. The data was wrong. All the major bridges have at least 4 entrances (2 at each end).

Tomorrow I will post updated rules and move this thread to "Looking for Players" and go back to taking sign-ups. Everybody who has expressed an interest here will be considered. And I'm exercising GM's privilege and reserving a slot for Penguin if he wants it as the sole surviving representative of game 1!

[VGhost]

I'd like to modify your proposed rule re. the potentially impregnable positions.

Instead of eliminating the player immediately - which seems absurd, since the player still has SCs and units left - why not just say that a player in that position may not veto any draw proposals?