 |
|  |
 |
|
the_orange1
|
 |
Scotland
Feb 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
I'm definitely up for GMing the follow-up if there's enough interest. On that note, any suggestions you have for improving the variant would be greatly appreciated.
Already had a couple of good ideas from Victor which I might implement. A few notes on my thoughts when I designed the variant:
I wanted it to be quite a tight map, with fairly limited room for maneouvre in order to force close attention to diplomacy (as was the case between the clans - they managed to defeat the English when they united, but as soon as they started arguing betwen themselves, they got shafted).
I also wanted to make the English starting position one of the best (again for historical reasons), but not too strong as to unbalance the game. I would be interested to hear from Defiant about how it worked out in practice (interestingly, all but one of the players put England down as their first choice).
As with many dip games (esp at ADC as alluded to by Ruff), the centre powers often get gang-raped, but I hoped they would still be in a position to act as key controllers of the "choke points" of the board, a bit like Germany on the standard map (and played well, Germany can be unstoppable).
Naval maneouvres are by necessity a little limited by geography, but this fitted into the tight nature of the game as I saw it. Victor suggested the following:
An army/fleet in Wic and a F in North Sea Buchan could have completely negated
all of MacLeod's fleets (he instead took Wic with F North Sea Buchan, preventing
this). What I'm saying is: two units should not be able to stop a power commming
from the West from accessing the seas in the east. This actually seems to be a
more general issue. A very small amount of fleets can entirely negate enemy
fleets at several bottlenecks.
I agree with this to a certain extent. I would be interested what others thought of this - should this be changed for the next time? Originally I conceived it as similar to the naval chokepoints on the standard map (MAO, which can be defended indefinitely from either side, and ION) - I think these are great on the standard map because they make control of certain areas strategically crucial, even though they may not involve taking SCs. Is this too much of a stalemate line though, or perhaps too easy a stalemate (ie, being able to hold a naval chokepoint indefinitely with 2 units)?
The other thing I am considering changing is the "can only build in home SCs" rule - what are your opinions? Should this be extended to all SCs that have been held for an Autumn turn (as per Sengoku dip)?
That's it for now, I appreciate your comments...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|