freeman3 wrote:Count me in.

Great! What is your email address?

Couple questions:

Are we keeping the A to E classifications, or going back to A to F classifications? If we keep the A to E, I believe it was mentioned after last game how some "D" powers start with 2 armies, whereas others start with an army and a wing, and how that's a huge difference for two powers of the same classification. I believe with the A to F classifications, the "wing and an army" powers were "E" powers whereas two armies were "D" powers. Seems more fair to me. Start with a better position, and you're a higher classification.

Also, was there any discussion on changing China's 7 nuke range? Given that that was in place to help China have more global reach before China received an African colony, is that still necessary?

I am sticking with the A to E. I think the A to F was done because of the pirate nations. I'm working on the map, and will take a look at those weird D nations starting with wings.

China's range has been reduced to 5. I'll provide an updated map soon. I'm not quite finished with it yet.

fbutland at aol.com

I recalled F powers being around for the last several games. There are some single unit powers that are very difficult to thrive in. They deserve the F.

sandiegosmith wrote:I recalled F powers being around for the last several games. There are some single unit powers that are very difficult to thrive in. They deserve the F.

All single-center nations should have the same designation. The only one that was at a huge disadvantage by comparison, imo, is North Korea. I have made some modifications to starting locations and units in the vicinity to help with that. Hopefully that will help make things a little more balanced in that regard.

I think Tunisia starts with a very tough position as well. I've never seen that country do well in any game I've played in, although it may stand a better chance if it began with a fleet rather than an army.

Sassenach wrote:I think Tunisia starts with a very tough position as well. I've never seen that country do well in any game I've played in, although it may stand a better chance if it began with a fleet rather than an army.

Tunisia is in a weird place. It's never really felt part of Africa, and it's not part of Europe. If we were to get enough people for this run, I have added a new country in northwest Africa (Morocco) that I think would actually help Tunisia by providing a more natural alliance. If we don't get enough people, then we might look at moving Mali up or even removing Mali in favor of Morocco. That would open things up for Nigeria as well, which is something to consider.

That might help, certainly. It also means that UK would find it harder to move into North Africa in the early running, which in turn gives Tunisia some form of leverage with the big boys that it doesn't otherwise have. I still think it needs to start life with a fleet though. The big problem is that an Italian opening to TYR is pretty much a no brainer in the current format. It leaves a guaranteed build from SIC anyway and opens up the possibility of permanently stunting Tunisian growth for the remainder of the game thereafter. With a fleet as the starting unit there'd be the potential for a bounce in TYR and then Tunisia is away. I guess the downside of this though might be that Italy becomes too tied up and doesn't have the option of moving eastwards in the first year.

Alternatively, could we not have Libya as an alternative to Tunisia ? An army beginning the game on Tri offers everything that Tunisia has while not having to face such a crushing disadvantage.

Might I suggest you take a peek back to the original before so many changes were made? Both Libya and Algeria were part of that game start. Changes likely need to be made but it's a good starting point for something that already is known to work (though Senegal always got throttled!)

use me for suggestions, I can help, I know the way things should be balanced. I seem to be locked out though, no questions no request for any assistance, I was told there was no room yet talk is made of "if we get more players". I'm fine to not play but c'mon guys, I think I know the map well enough to help you balance it out?

I don't think they plan to make any more changes Tom. I'm suggesting them anyway, but realistically I'd completely understand if I get ignored. We seem to change something every game and it does perhaps need a chance to bed down without too many new changes if we're going to form a proper picture of what works.

The game now is still the same game that you created btw, especially now that we've dropped all the terrorists and pirates and similar gubbins.

I am not complaining about anything at all as far as changes go! Change whatever you like, add pirates or space portals to mars if you wish, I love to see new ideas (even when they don't quite work). I may not agree with all of them and I speak up about the possible problems you may face if you add this, subtract that, etc. That's what discussion is about!

But if you need to alter the map to fit a smaller game (or a larger one) that sometimes happens. I am happy to help you adjust your "starting lineup" is all. I do have an eye for balance and an understanding few others have (and that is not me saying only I have this "eye"!). I am happy to help.

Yeah, I don't like China in Africa but you want it, I accept that and work around it to make it work best! I have no problems with any ideas you may have in mind.

In fact, all this discussion the other day got me thinking of doing a game in the future. I was looking at some of the problem powers and had a unique idea ...feel free to try it here or not, it's no problem either way.
The idea (not fully fleshed out yet) was to have certain centers with built in defense vs another particular power.
ex. Cuba is weak and very much in the sights of the American power, they seldom do well (not always but seldom) what if we added a built in extra defense of one point to Havana and maybe even a second or third city in Cuba? Even when empty it has one point vs the US only? It can be explained away by historical reasons (Bay of Pigs, extreme anti-USA feelings, etc) The US can still attack him elsewhere and can still take these centers with extra force ...heck maybe even give Miami that same extra vs Cuba? An uneasy detente of sorts?

That same idea could work around the globe
China/North Korea
China/Vietnam
Russia/Poland
Russia/Ukraine (Kiev but certainly not Odessa ...real world coming into the game?)
and others can be added of course (maybe some of the former British holdings vs Britain, French holdings vs France?), the early targets of the big boys are suddenly a BIT less attractive and the small guy now has a tiny bit more life in him?

Just thinking out loud for the moment...

I personally prefer not to have rules which are too convoluted. It's why I didn't really get on with all the pirates and terrorists and whatnot, it just overcomplicated things and added little to the game.

In my opinion there isn't a lot that's needed. Certain powers need a bit of adjustment to bring things back into balance now that we struggle to fill all of the nations (the last game really would have benefited from having a Chile, Thailand and New Zealand for example, and I can't remember whether we had a Ukraine either). On the whole I don't think we ought to be doing too much to make life easier for the smaller powers though. One of the charms of the game is its brutal attrition rate. Small powers just need to figure out the appropriate strategies and handle their dip correctly. In the last game two of our eventual winners came from 1 province African minors (and the other was Cuba btw), so it's obviously doable with the right player at the helm.

agreed to all!
Nothing should be complicated, simple rules the day.
But I also agree a few powers need "help" I have no problem with a small power being taken out early, it';s part of the games flavor and we can not make life easy on these guys, after all, if they survive, the vote process makes them very attractive and small powers have traditionally done well in this game. That said, these small powers do need a chance to survive and a few have been eliminated early in almost every game. This would be a very minor and very uncomplicated way to MAYBE help. Simply put a small plus sign in the city dot and a blurb to the side of the map that these FEW centers have this "extra", pretty darned simple and uncomplicated and easy to understand?

And the last few games had some HUGE map changes from the original that I am comparing to. The base game has 50 powers, I know these last few were quite a few short of that number making some of these examples not quite apples to apples.

I see what you're driving at, but in my opinion it would just have knock-on effects that would be worse than the problem you're trying to solve. Case in point: you make Cuba harder for USA to attack. Fine, in that case USA just diverts to Mexico or Canada instead, potentially creating further balancing issues for those nations (which are already pretty marginal to begin with). You also then potentially make life much more difficult for Venezuela, since a stronger Cuba makes for a potent threat to an already vulnerable minor power. Would this be any better than the current state of affairs ? Debatable, but probably not.

I think Sendric is on the right track with the balancing. Rather than artificially buffing NK he's just changing the starting positions of certain units belonging to China and Japan to buy a few extra turns before NK becomes horribly encircled, which will allow a skilled player to get slightly better early growth there without materially weakening the other nations which still have plenty of options anyway. This kind of approach is more suitable IMO because the basic setup is sound.