Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
Dignitary
 
Posts: 4058
Joined: 24 Sep 2001, 11:57 am

Post 13 Jul 2015, 10:48 pm

Put your comments here. Before recommending a massive overhaul of the map itself though, think twice. Or even three times. The map is getting close to balanced. It will never be perfect, given the inherent imbalance in the game, but every power appears to at least have a shot. There are a few I'm still skeptical about but hey, thems the breaks.

Anyway, please ensure you include justifications for your point. Simply saying "Canada is too strong" isn't really enough. You'll need to explain why it's a good/bad thing!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 9:02 am

One thing I have been mulling over a little since my India experience is whether the balance for China is right. This is a very difficult question since China influences so many areas of the map and a small change in one area might have all kinds of adverse consequences elsewhere, but nevertheless I do think something is wrong with the current setup. The problem as I see it is that for the other mainland Asia countries, you only really have two possible strategies that have any realistic prospect of success. Either you ally with China and hope that he stays loyal or you join forces with as many of his neighbours as possible and try to take him down before he grows to be a behemoth.

Both are very problematic. To take the latter option first, it's practically impossible to assemble an early anti-China coalition. NK should be up for it but isn't really in any kind of position to help. Japan stands to gain from it but has other options in the early going and likely won't contribute unless Russia is firmly on board. Vietnam probably ought to get involved if he's thinking long term but will usually calculate that he can get away with staying out of it since he's likely to be some way down the target list. India has essentially nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting involved, likewise Pakistan. I didn't even bother trying when I played India, because it was obvious that nobody would be remotely interested and Russia had already made clear that it wasn't in his plans.

Even if you can form an anti-China coalition though, how exactly do you hurt him ? The configuration of Chinese centres (and more importantly available centres) is such that most of them are completely untouchable except by nukes, and there are a huge number of these safe centres within a tight little cluster. China can easily double in size for the first couple of turns, which is the time it will take for any coalition to get its act together, at which point he's waaay bigger than all of you combined and will already have a bunch of nukes in the bank to deter any action against him. To an extent this is how it should be of course, China is a major world power after all, but it's interesting to note that the same doesn't necessarily hold true for other B class powers. UK and France are both pretty vulnerable in the early going because their centres are spread out and they can potentially be pushed out of key regions by concerted action from a group of minor powers. Russia is not quite so vulnerable, but he can still be taken out early in the right circumstances (as happened 2 or 3 games ago) and none of his centres are quite so immune to attack. The configuration of China, with a huge number of available centres in the bank surrounded by a plethora of weak nations who can't meaningfully compete for them, means that it's virtually inconceivable that we'll ever see a Chinese player reduced to the sort of status that UK, France, Russia and USA have all been reduced to at least once during the last two games.

Personally I think this is problematic. Granted, China hasn't actually won any of those games, but at the same time the only nation from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, NK and Japan which has still been alive come the endgame was Pakistan in this game, and he benefited from the collapse of Russia at exactly the right time when he was on the verge of defeat. To me this suggests that China is unbalanced. Your only realistic option if you're playing one of the aforementioned is to ally with China and hope like hell that he doesn't turn on you later. For a game of this size and complexity that's hardly the sort of range of options that you'd ideally like to see.

A few things I'd like to at least see under discussion are:

Change the location of the Chinese colony. Sudan is too influential a position for me since it allows China to influence way too many theatres. It would be better to remove Zambia from the game and place China in there, where he'd have to face South Africa in the early going and where both UK and USA are close by to compete for the voting centres in that region.

Rejig the map for mainland China itself. I'm not so sure that some of the dots should necessarily be removed, but surely they can be repositioned to make them more competitive for more players. As it stands, India and Pakistan have nothing to gain by attacking China, which is silly. A Chinese player should have to negotiate with his neighbours a little more than he currently does in my opinion, and it should be possible, at least in theory, for a combination of the smaller guys to actually hurt him with an early stab.

Reduce the Chinese nuke range. China starts with a range of 7 where UK and France have only 5. No doubt this was brought about to balance things when China didn't have a colony, but now that it does there really doesn't seem to be much call for it anymore and it's a huge advantage.

I can see how people might see this as itself being unfair given how long it's been since China actually won a game, but I do think it would make the Asian region more interesting and therefore improve the game for more players.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 9:44 am

You make some good points regarding China. Having the colony probably does mean it no longer needs the 7 range.

One of the things that makes it hard to deal with China, in my opinion, is the near uselessness of Korea as anything other than a voting factory for nearby nations. The way the map starts, especially with regards to which units are placed where, makes it very easy for China, Russia, and Japan to collaborate and eliminate or contain North Korea. They don't even need to be on friendly terms to do this (as seen in Fire and Blood). To address this issue, I would propose the following:

1) Move Japan's starting fleet and SC from Kyoto to Osaka. This puts the fleet on the opposite side of Japan from Korea without significantly impacting Japan's ability to expand early.

2) Swap the Chinese units in BEI and CHE. Having an army in Bejing instead of a wing makes it more difficult for China to use his wing to hurt Korea.

In regards to moving the Chinese colony, I believe this has been brought up before but without any resolution. Replacing Zambia with the Chinese colony is interesting, but a simple swap would mean having to remove the voting center. Placing the unit in Lubumbashi or Luanda might work, but in either case it means restricting Congo more and giving more space to South Africa. Something to think about.

Sticking with Africa, I also feel as though Tunisia is too isolated, much like Australia was in the last game. It's almost more a part of Europe than Africa, but somehow it never really becomes part of that sphere. What I'd like to propose is adding the country of Morocco with a fleet in Casablanca. We would also add a supply center in WES (Western Africa?) to help with early growth options. I think this might make the North Atlantic more interesting as well.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 10:00 am

Oh, speaking of Africa. Someone else brought this up as well.

Egypt, Israel, and Iran are all D-class nations. All such nations start with two units that can take over supply centers except these three. This seems strange. Would it be outrageous to think one or all of these nations should have some combination of two armies/fleets?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 10:07 am

I agree with the Tunisia thing. It starts out next door to a lot of votes,but this is really a poisoned chalice since they're all strung out in a line and way too tempting for all the bigger nations. It's difficult to see Tunisia ever lasting past turn 5 as it currently stands, or not unless they come up with some truly epic dipping.

I'd also like to throw Brazil into the mix. Now that we don't play with a Chile anymore Brazil is at a serious disadvantage relative to Argentina. All the latter has to do is make a deal with UK (not especially difficult for a competent player) and it can guarantee doubling in size for the first two turns with a nice corner position to boot. This will always see them dominate the relationship with Brazil, which has less easy centres at its disposal and has to contend with them being more awkwardly situated. Since a long term alliance between Brazil and Argentina is very unlikely to form I think this is rather unfair. I'm not sure how it could be rectified but surely some small tweak could be done. I'd suggest maybe changing the wing in Recife to a fleet.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 10:24 am

Sassenach wrote:I agree with the Tunisia thing. It starts out next door to a lot of votes,but this is really a poisoned chalice since they're all strung out in a line and way too tempting for all the bigger nations. It's difficult to see Tunisia ever lasting past turn 5 as it currently stands, or not unless they come up with some truly epic dipping.

I'd also like to throw Brazil into the mix. Now that we don't play with a Chile anymore Brazil is at a serious disadvantage relative to Argentina. All the latter has to do is make a deal with UK (not especially difficult for a competent player) and it can guarantee doubling in size for the first two turns with a nice corner position to boot. This will always see them dominate the relationship with Brazil, which has less easy centres at its disposal and has to contend with them being more awkwardly situated. Since a long term alliance between Brazil and Argentina is very unlikely to form I think this is rather unfair. I'm not sure how it could be rectified but surely some small tweak could be done. I'd suggest maybe changing the wing in Recife to a fleet.


The intention had been to place Chile into the game this last turn. Unfortunately, we didn't get quite enough players, and it had to be dropped. The map for next time will hopefully include a Chile. That said, what do we do if we have to drop Chile again the next time? Changing the wing to a fleet is a possibility, but we'd have to consider changing one of the armies to a wing to balance it out with the other C nations.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 12:07 pm

Ok, well how about this ?

Move the Brazilian capital to Brazilia, which is where it ought to be by rights anyway, and place an army there. Get rid of both the wing and the SC on Recife and put in a new SC in Bahia. This wouldn't change all that much but it would make Brazilian expansion a little easier with the new configuration (the army from BRA could take it in year one and then have the option of moving north or south in year two). Remove the army from Sao Paulo and replace it with a wing.

I think this would be a marginal improvement. Quite apart from the satisfaction of having the Brazilian capital in the Brazilian capital, which I think is inherently worth it, I also think having the units in those positions would be a mild benefit to Brazil while not really hampering the others too greatly. Thoughts ?

Oh, and back on the Chinese colony thing:

In regards to moving the Chinese colony, I believe this has been brought up before but without any resolution. Replacing Zambia with the Chinese colony is interesting, but a simple swap would mean having to remove the voting center. Placing the unit in Lubumbashi or Luanda might work, but in either case it means restricting Congo more and giving more space to South Africa. Something to think about.


The voting centre is a non-issue IMO. If you count Madagascar there are 5 easily available stars in the southern Africa region, non of which are very gettable for Congo. Compare this with West Africa, which has only 3 in total (but also very hard for Congo to get). That's a clear imbalance anyway. I'dn suggest moving the star from Zambia to Gabon, making it a bone of contention for Congo and Nigeria and opening up more strategic option for Africa.

I also don't necessarily agree that putting China into Zambia would restrict Congo. It could easily be the reverse since the gains that China would be looking for are more in the south. If anything it's going to be bad for South Africa, but even he may benefit since it'll be easier to negotiate with UK and France if he's a potential counterweight to China than as it is atm, where he's just an inconvenience in an area rich with voting centres.
Dignitary
 
Posts: 4058
Joined: 24 Sep 2001, 11:57 am

Post 14 Jul 2015, 4:02 pm

I wouldn't change anything about Brazil. Brazil has won, has been a strong player, and has been ripped apart. All of this has depended on the player in the game. Missing Chile is huge, which is why it was one of the first countries I recommended be brought back in. Not having enough players is a bridge we can cross when we get there. We are picking up new players now each game now, so hopefully we'll crest back upwards of 45 next game.

On that note, I would recommend an early sign up list - this game takes a while to fill up and people get impatient. Having a list of 30 right off the bat, even if some decide to pull out, would be nice.


Anyway, on to China...

Rob, the entire basis for your argument here appears to be that it is difficult to attack China. That's kind of...well, not kind of, that's exactly the point. China has to be difficult to attack, they are a B power. It's loosely reflective of real life.

One important point to make is that we should never, ever compare China to the UK-France. They are incomparable, other than being B powers. UK and France gain their B status from all of their colonies and comparable nuke range, so they should be balanced between each other. China should be compared to Russia, as they are both continental powers. China gained their colony to balance the fact that Russia was mathematically stronger than China and, if they so chose, could always beat China.

Hence the birth of the Chinese colony, which I'll come back to a second. What matters is that I think the consensus amongst the map geeks is that the colony is a good thing. There are, however, a few buffs that our old GM kept giving to China which should be wound back. The range of 7 is one of them. Once you get to 7-8, you can hit almost anything you need to. Scroll that back to 5.

I would leave the insular nature of China almost alone. This is the same kind of nature that Russia has. It's very hard to invade either of them, which is the point. The UK and France have colonies; Russia and China have inner strength; and the USA has both qualities, hence their A status.

The only thing I would do to tinker in China is remove WUH as an SC. That brings China closer in line with Russia in terms of neutrals to gain. This is purely mathematical in terms of reasoning. I do not think China is too strong. I think it has been played by two very strong players, the most recent of which had the strongest results by far of any A/B power. That was the player, not the map.


On the colony itself, I would disagree with moving the colony for a few reasons. First of all, it's only been there for two games and the results couldn't have been more of a polar opposite. There are a half dozen different directions China can go with his colony in Sudan. Put him in southern Africa and his options are severely limited. The direction of votes is singular - south. In Sudan, he has multiple options and room to allow his neighbours to negotiate, at least.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 8:44 am

I wouldn't change anything about Brazil. Brazil has won, has been a strong player, and has been ripped apart. All of this has depended on the player in the game.


If you look at the changes I suggested you'll see that they don't fundamentally alter Brazil. It still has 2 armies and a wing with the same number of SCs in more or less the same positions. It just opens up a few more tactical options at game start and moves the capital to where it ought to be. I don't really see what there is to object to tbh. Just because something is more or less ok as is it doesn't mean it can't be successfully tinkered with.

As for China, I get that it's a B class power and should be strong enough to reflect that. My point is that the unassailability of China has huge knock-on effects for every single one of its neighbours and I think the balance isn't quite right. Russia is the rightful comparison,but I'd argue that Russia does start ouit with a more vulnerable position. It wasn't that long ago that we a saw a combination of Turkey, Sweden, Poland all gang up on Russia right off the bat and curtail his growth to the extent that he was effectively out of the game by about year 3. Obviously this kind of thing happens very rarely, but the point is that it CAN happen from time to time. I don't see any way the same could happen to China. China is unique among all of the great powers in the fact that it can only be properly defeated by nukes. Even the US is vulnerable to conventional units, as Russ found out in the game before last. Yes, it took nukes to properly defeat him,but it was the way his early growth was constrained by the conventional units of various minor powers which set him up for defeat. That could never happen to China.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 15 Sep 2001, 10:27 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 9:48 am

I'd agree with Superant.

I wouldn't tinker with China too much. The biggest problem for China as a B power is that every other A/B power has a global reach from day 1. France/UK have their colonies. Russia spans from East Asia to Europe and has unlimited nuke range, USA is, well, everywhere. China is locked in a bit - that is its weakness, the fact that it's difficult to attack needs to be its strength if you want it to be a B power, which it needs to be.

I'd also say leave the African colony. Play with the position of it if you like but I think where it is is fairly interesting. In theory you can be ganged up on and prevented a build and your auto-neutrals are voting centres that will inevitably make them attractive to others.

Korea is difficult. I'd like to see more options available for it but it's tough. You definitely want Korea there and I do think it is playable, but it would need a very tender hand at the helm. The last games player made a good start but was a little too eccentric in his ideas for growth to stick around. It could have happened though.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 11:00 am

Lingfish wrote:Korea is difficult. I'd like to see more options available for it but it's tough. You definitely want Korea there and I do think it is playable, but it would need a very tender hand at the helm. The last games player made a good start but was a little too eccentric in his ideas for growth to stick around. It could have happened though.


Yea, I just don't see why it needs to be as difficult as it is. I think a few minor changes to the nations around it would give Korea a little more breathing space at the start while not significantly impacting those nations negatively. It obviously would still require the player to play well to have success.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 15 Oct 2011, 5:20 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 11:11 am

I third that China needs little, if any, adjustment. Maybe in the nuke range, but I think the colony works and if there's going to be a colony, Sudan is the place.

Brazil shouldn't have any major tweaks either. I'll echo Dave S. in that we've had every possible outcome with Brazil over the years, which indicates it's in a good place.

Now for the India and China issue, I disagree completely that China can't be taken down. In this case China was able to get Russia to work with him, and that brought about great benefits. Had India been able convince Russia to work with them, things would have been different. I've played India. I worked with Russia, Vietnam, and others, and by the end there was no China. I think this is partly why China was buffed.

More specifically on India, I don't think that it's in a bad place. It had a rough showing last year due to multiple failings of the player in charge, and this game due to, in my opinion, ill-conceived stabs by other players (as I think has been noted by Rob and our GM). When I played India, I worked with Vietnam and Russia to go against China, opened with a year 1 stab against Pakistan (who I believe I sent against Iran), and it fell into place from there. Any tweaks since then can be dealt with (e.g. send Sri Lanka, a natural ally of India, against Indonesia, yielding safe borders for both Sri Lanka and India while they focus elsewhere).
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 12:01 pm

What you're saying is that if the right diplomatic circumstances occur then anything can happen. I get that, but it could apply to any nation. It doesn't automatically follow that the game is correctly balanced as a result. The problem between China and the rest of Asia is that the others are wholly reliant on Russia and China being at odds with each other to stand any chance. I don't think it should be quite so restrictive in terms of strategic options.

That said, perhaps a few tweaks to strengthen the Korean position and a slight reduction in China's nuke range may be enough, the former especially. If Korea is able to grow and become a viable force (or at least if it has the chance to do that if correctly handled, which it doesn't atm) then this alone might serve to bring Asia into balance. I'm not advocating wholesale changes to China, just a few tweaks to see if it improves things.

Why is nobody else upset about the incorrect Brazilian capital btw ? Literally every other country in the game has their capital in the correct place, and it's not like there are compelling gameplay reasons for the switch, or if there are nobody has said what they might be.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 15 Jul 2015, 12:17 pm

Sassenach wrote:Why is nobody else upset about the incorrect Brazilian capital btw ? Literally every other country in the game has their capital in the correct place, and it's not like there are compelling gameplay reasons for the switch, or if there are nobody has said what they might be.


I wouldn't say I'm necessarily upset about it, but I'm on board with the change. I'm editing the map a little and this is a change I'll be looking at. I haven't really examined it yet though.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 15 Jul 2015, 8:41 pm

For what it's worth, as the second Brazil player, I agree with Sassenach's comments. Brazil seems to me at a serious disadvantage compared to Argentina.

The biggest problem I think is how unconnected the SCs in the Brazil area are, especially if you compare to Argentina. This makes defense far more challenging for Brazil than it is for Argentina. Merging some of the areas might be in order.