I like how some of the powers will be purely fleet based, and others only land.

Those look like some very interesting maps, I look forward to playing them.

Awesome. I really like the re-working of the Sth. East Asian region.

re: East Indies diplomacy, will you be adding river systems into the mix?

I decided to remove the river systems to keep the variant simple, thereby giving it the widest possible audience. I mention on the web page that the only rule change of note is Chaos builds, which is a very simple concept to deal with.

What I am looking for at this point is play-oriented stuff, stuff like "Gee, Power X is way too strong", "I wouldn't want to play Power Y", or "Maybe some of the provinces or Supply Centers should be rearanged".

I feel like there would be two seperate wars int the SE Asia combined variant. The Spice Islands don't have much reason to interact with the Indians and vice-versa

No complaints and I have trouble picking out any power that is doomed. That being said, while I didn't see any horrible positions, I couldn't help thinking the Java power looked to be a bit more attractive than the others. And lastly, hardly a "complaint" but I have always shied away from variants that are too fleet or too army heavy. Armies are really devalued here. I know it may not be possible and certainly not accurate, but if you had a few more non-coastal centers on the islands, that would encourage the use of more armies? The large sea zones seem to work well in that it makes convoys more likely while they do seem to have enough borders to make them not so easy to establish easy blockades.

sorry, I was not specific enough. I did not scroll all the way down and my comments were about the Spice Island game only! As far as the larger game, It looks ok but damn, the Indian Ocean just isn't the Mediterranean. It's just not a real interesting and strategic type ocean. and the result is exactly as another mentioned, two different games on the same map, I just don't see enough interaction with the spice island area, maybe if you added China??? maybe even a neutral center in Oz might help a tad?

Regarding the East Indies (the larger one) map, as to the lack of interaction between the eastern and western halves of the board, that is perhaps true to an extent, but they are not THAT far apart. There can certainly be conflict between eastern and western Powers over the Aceh and Arakan neutrals in the first year. After that, it is a matter of alliance structures. Some which would be difficult on each of the two smaller maps would be easier, simply because the Powers that would have been on the edge now can cross over to the other side of the board for purposes of expansion.

Interesting that you should think that Majapahit has a strong position. I have had a couple of comments about it being quite vulnerable. What makes you think it is positionally strong?

Yes, the Spice Islands variant is quite fleet oriented, but armies do have their purposes, bith on the mainland and on some of the larger islands. It is designed, however, to be fleet oriented.

no idea why I like that power, it seems to have plenty of options and straddles small islands as well as the larger Borneo Island. He seems to have choices that others may not have and as such calls shots while is an attractive to the others. But that is simply from a quick glance and no "studying" by any means so I could be way off base. Fleet oriented is not necessarily a bad thing but it just seems funky where some areas need armies and others do not, is it possible to move a center or two inland by redrawing/adding/swapping? Adding a center inland would be quite fun where everyone has and wants fleets but there you have a center that can't be touched without convoying an army. But the two different area "problem", I can't agree with you there, the interaction between areas is just too lacking. Not tearing anything apart here, just trying to offer constructive criticism (because it looks pretty good overall)

Regarding the suggested changes, I agree that it would be nice to have an inland dot, but I like to keep historically accurate, at least to some extent, and offshore, the action all seemed to have been on the coast, not inland. I'll take another look at things though.

I will take another look at the East Indies (combined) map, and see if there is some way to increase contact without going completely ahistorical, or disrupting play balance.

Are you aware of the Sea Lanes concept?
I've implemented it in the Mars! variant, but a good explanation can be found here:
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=892

Basically the sea territories will not longer function as 'easy' places to set up stalemate lines...

just a thought.

also here:
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=751&start=30
and:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=80

The Sea Lanes concept is interesting. Somewhat similar in purpose to the High Seas provinces in my Conquest of the Americas variant ( http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/id18.html ), though the mechanics are certainly different. That said, I do want to keep the variants as close to Standard as possible, to minimize the learning curve.

P.S. Regarding adding China, the Middle Kingdom was inward looking, and so much more powerful at this point than any of its southern and western neighbors that they wouldn't dream of attacking it. Note the size of ther blacked out area on the combined map. It is not an exageration.

I'd like to see some of the global games incorporate the high seas concepts discussed above. While it would take some effort to redraw the map, and possibly some play testing to iron out some unforeseen consequences, I have played on maps using this idea, and the board dynamics are through way open. Because of various attributes of such sea spaces such as multiple adjacencies, unit stacking, and a neutral zone effort, there are endless possibilities, and as a result far tactical fewer stalemate lines at sea. This allows the games to be played to diplomatic stalemates rather than those exploited by quirks in the map, which in turn makes those geographical quirks so much more valuable where they do exist. The high seas are and should be given due respect as untamed.

while you ignore those same situations on land and while ignoring the way a game was designed, throwing it into an unbalanced state?

stalemates are often part of the game, to make them non-existent is not usually wise.

I'm with Ruffhaus. Easy and predictable stalemates along the same lines makes for less dynamic and more predictable play. While my personal preference is simply more sea spaces (smaller sea spaces) I am fascinated by the sea lanes concept and am aching to play a game with those rules.

Try designing a game and part of the goal of the game is for some semblance of balance. You get the balance and someone says "hey, lets throw in some more sea zones" now all of a sudden you have powers several more spaces away and the interaction between those powers goes away. But you have no stalemate line! Is that a success? And you want to ignore stalemate lines on land, those are ok? Part of every game is working on the possible stalemate line for your protection, you most certainly do not want it to be easily done or predictable but they must be a possibility or you simply don't understand game mechanics and balance, short sightedness by those who do not design games!
In Davids example here you could point out that a stalemate may develop in one of the sea spaces between Indochina and Borneo, I think the spaces g=have plenty of borders to help prevent that but later in the game I can see two powers on each side effectively blocking the area up, is this a bad design? No, not at all. But is this possible? Absolutely! Your answer is to simply throw more sea spaces in there???? Whoa, not so fast, that would make interaction between powers difficult and would make for a pathetic game (with no stalemates). Please try to understand balance of powers as well as early/mid game dynamics before worrying about possible late game stalemates. You want to make certain each sea space has several spaces around it both land and sea. If you are familiar with aberration, that game has a lot of obvious stalemates in the Med that should be redrawn (too few borders) but here and in the game you are thinking of, adding sea zones is an absolutely horrible idea!

Hey Tom, with all due respect try playing a game... Your perspective is jilted from the standpoint of the creator, and you get bent out of shape every time someone makes a suggestion. You don't actually ever play these games, so you don't really comprehend the viewpoints of those who have, or experience their frustrations. Please try to understand that your map, while very enjoyable to play on, is not perfect, and the suggestions (as in SUGGESTIONS) for improvement are being made with the intent to playtest them. These suggestions come from the frustration of the fact that it's far too easy to insulate a continent and stop playing the game. I'm not sure where you get the idea that stalemates lines are part of the game, because that's simply not the case. The reality is that the Diplomacy map was designed specifically to have very few instances of this, and that achieving one was to be a diplomatic and tactical challenge. Your maps set out to establish numerous opportunities for individuals to build stalemate lines, which is contrary to the concept of actually winning the game. You seem fixated on assuring that the contest is ended in the midgame, which appears to be a philosophical choice. This is a recurring theme with you and your otherwise excellent Diplomacy variants.

It's also important to note that the WW4 game played here is very different than your WW4 and does not encompass the voting component at all. The game being played here is played with a traditional victory condition based on capturing a number of supply centers. The fact is that your objection to the sea lanes concept is based on you design with voting based endings. That game is not being played here, and the one that is suggests that adding sea spaces, lanes, types, special rules might actually make the game enjoyable for the players.

^not to mention the WWIV is several versions out of date.

I HAVE played many games thanks for your concern. Part of the problem COULD be as noted above you have been using a very old map that was replaced many years ago. Maybe if this website were to credit the correct designer (I asked for it to be corrected many times in the post yet it is still credited to another) then someone could have contacted me with their concerns because I most certainly do listen to concerns and have made changes based on those concerns as well as my own experiences playing the game myself. The person who mentioned adding sea spaces was also so far off the mark, it was obviously made without concern to any other part of the game. Simply adding additional spaces would make crossing from continent to continent incredibly difficult, same with Davids map here, adding sea spaces would reduce stalemates in the end game but would absolutely ruin the early and midgame, it was a statement made without any understanding of game mechanics. The same can be said of stalemates not being part of the standard map...what a bunch of baloney that is, Stalemates are made all the time, we of course want to try and keep them to a minimum and make them more difficult to achieve but to simply create spaces that make them nearly impossible is simply not in accordance with the rest of the land spaces and is not as strategic as you seem to think, the ability to set up a stalemate line should be possible (yet DIFFICULT) to do.
Here's an idea, try designing a map that is balanced and posting it here.
Another idea, ask David (who started this thread about HIS game) to take your side (he most certainly will not)
Another idea, try playing the most current game with the corrections made based on input you claim I have ignored. (the "ignorant" person would appear to be the one looking back at you in the mirror)
Hey, yet another idea, try to be nice when making a suggestion, when you accuse others of being "jilted", "Fixated" and "uncomprehending", you see, people tend to not take you seriously when you say these things in this way.

The fact is, your suggestion, while well intended (and poorly phrased) is considered as all suggestions are HOWEVER, not all suggestions are taken to heart because some suggestions make little sense and are ill-conceived, not thought out. To simply add sea spaces and make interaction between continents less likely is one of those ideas easily dismissed! That suggestion is simply flat out a poor one to make, I tried to be nice about it, not so now.

Personally I believe that stalemate lines on an ocean is not only fanciful but blatantly unchronological.

agreed in most cases! But they happen often on land spaces as well, not as obvious but they are there as well. ALL "probable" stalemate lines are to avoided by a matter of designing them out, but they will happen and to try and make it simply "impossible" is not playing Diplomacy, we want to avoid them but not alter the early / mid game balance to avoid one late game "possibility". Honestly, try to develop a game where you have different land masses and come up with a solution that 1. Does not affect the early/mid game and 2. does not alter basic game understanding/simplicity and 3. makes such possible stalemates impossible in the later stages.
...Then explain why it's ok in the land spaces but not in sea spaces.

If I may interject, Tomahaha, it seems you don't understand the sea lanes. "Simply adding additional spaces would make crossing from continent to continent incredibly difficult" True, but, from my understanding at least, you could cross an ocean with the same number of movements through the 'central' sea lanes as before.
Maybe I am the one who misunderstands.

Really Tom? When was the last time you played a game? When was the last time you played a game on this map? Please do tell us! Because there are dozens of us here who have experienced the cluttered sea spaces and the overabundance of stalemate lines that can be easily built in the oceans. The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about because you have not played on the map for years, and you have never played on it as we are using it here at VDip. The fact that your vision of the WW4 game is prematurely ended for your convenience as a game master and designer rather than for 35 players enjoyment is telling about your perspective and incapacity to understand what is being suggested and why it is necessary. Maybe if you actually PLAYED a game or two on the map you'd last long enough to understand the frustration that we're discussing.

I didn't bring the map to these folks, so stop blaming me for the fact that you're not credited for it's design. I'm not a moderator here, and I have no say on what they do about that. They found it somewhere and adapted it, and now it's something that's evolved here. What you wanted it to be now is really irrelevant.

Your understanding of stalemate lines beyond ignorant, and not even worth responding to. I understand why you love them though because it dovetail nicely with all your other attempts to make winning the game impossible. Everyone gets a trophy with you. That's great. You'd actually love some of the folks here. They think just like this.

However, the vast majority of people here think that some exploration into changing the oceans spaces of the maps is necessary, and they are 100% correct. You can be part of the discussion or not, but sitting there and whining about someone touching your baby isn't productive. If you want ownership of your maps, then copyright them and don't disseminate them on the internet. Your understanding of what is playable is severely hamstrung by the fact that you do not actually play on these maps.

@Tomahaha, Re: caliburdeath (I just want to make sure this gets heard)
Have you looked into the Sea Lanes concept? It changes none of the original borders; it just adds new ones. Does that make sense? For example, Quebec can still reach Iceland in two moves; those SubZones just add for another facet of play. It changes no balance; if anything it makes the naval warfare more fair, more strategic, and more intense. Check out the Mars variant description (http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=80) before you continue bashing it. After you understand what it is we are trying to do, then feel free to attack it. I just think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.

If I may moderate a little, I think Tomahaha was not bashing the Sea Lanes (kaner406) concept but the indiscriminate addition of sea territories (as put forth by ScubaSteve).

when was the last time you played a revised map that corrected many of the errors you speak of? You know, the complaints I don't listen to. When was that? No, you want to make ignorant claims based on ....? And you are playing a game designed to be played a different way partly because a game of this tremendous size would naturally lead to stalemates, the larger nations get the easier these set up. Look at ALL games that go on a long time, stalemates develop, the bigger the game, the larger the powers, the more likely it will happen but to simply add spaces, that's just a dumb dumb thing to say!

My claim that simply adding sea lanes is foolish, the idea about sea lanes may actually work, my statement was against adding spaces for the simple sake of eliminating stalemates and that I stand by 100% anyone who claims adding spaces is simply ignorant of the rest of the game. I did appreciate the idea behind the suggestion but it doesn't play well. Here's the thing about designing a game, you know it better than any other but there most certainly are other ideas and many of them are great ideas you may never had thought of, even some of the "bad" ideas will often lead you to thinking about things differently and even that bad idea helped you in a wildly different way. I credit many changes to flat out bad ideas! But others, especially those who have not designed any games and don't understand simple mechanics will often make wild accusations and dumb statements posed as fact. When you see these type of comments, it gets under your skin. The sea LANES, they might work, please notice my comments were not about that idea but about adding spaces. Back to the subject here, David's new game...
Again, adding spaces is not an option here (ok, you could possibly find a space needed here or there but not to the effect that was suggested to eliminate stalemate lines) David is looking for constructive criticism and for example I mentioned maybe placing a center or two more inland. I think it's a cool idea that could help but he doesn't dig that idea too much and that's wonderful! Really it is, he knows the game better than I, he get's it more than I do, more than any others do. He listed to my idea and dismissed it! Am I wounded by that? Absolutely not! Maybe my idea would help at one stage but it has to make sense the entire game. I am not sold on the balance of the bigger game and think as others have said that areas are too far removed from one another, but again, that's cool as well!

I don't know if others noticed David's smaller game balance, take note how so many neutral centers are equidistant to multiple nations, notice most nations have options to head one way or another but can't head in both directions while another may slip into that area that was passed on, this is great map design that might have flown over many heads? It's at least a real sweet start, no doubt about that. How will it play out in the later stages is what is more up in the air and I think that too will play out well. But please, simply stating more sea zones are required to prevent a possible late game stalemate is not a good idea because it would kill the earlier parts of the game and that wonderful balance already built in quite well!

An interesting discussion here. A few thoughts.

I am not a fan of stalemates, and generally work to minimize them in my variants--I work to encourage games to end in solos.

Tomahaha last paragraph does hit on one of my preferences in variant design.

I am working on some changes to the map to increase intractions in the middle of the board, that is , where the two maps have been joined together.