would the powers stay the same as in the original variant? In this one it looks like the powers are much larger and there are fewer

the powers are all the exactly the same as the original - this is probably a better map:
http://lab.vdiplomacy.com/edit.php?terrID=0&variantID=95&mode=none&mapsize=small&nocache=4265&draw

so is it based off the 6.2 where there is saudi arabia as one of the powers? Or is it based off the 6 which has no saudi arabia (The one you posted)

it's based off the one with no Saudi.

alright thanks for the clarification. Looks good!

I like

My vote would be to leave out the transform option.

YES : a transform option would be GREAT !

At this point, why not setting the Transform option as a NON-default option in the game creation page?

I voiced my opinion many times, I see NOTHING wrong with the seas as they are. Yes, a stalemate MIGHT form, they do on land as well and while you do not want to make stalemates easy, you simply can't do away with them completely either, it is part of the game defending yourself. Doing away with that is not in the best interests of the game. This also adds confusion to an already game that is hard enough to tell who moved where. Nope, not a fan in the least, horrible idea!

and why the need for transforming units? This idea is nothing but silly. If this were say a variant where the "fleets" were canoes or some sort of rafts, yeah, transforming makes sense but turning a large destroyer into a mechanized army? You are messing with something that works all because a few people don't want ANY stalemates? Seems to me you might want to change the standard game as well, any time you see two leap to a big lead, those games also often see stalemates...you better fix the standard game while at it!?

Tom. Yes I do want to change the standard game, hence making variants.

I'm constantly getting PMs from people asking me about how the sealanes variant is coming along, so I can confidently say that there is more than simply a few people wanting this variant to enter into the database.

First of all, I am using an older version of the map. I don't want to touch the most recent version of WWIV, as I think that this needs to stand alone as it is. Actually there was talk of another variant being based on this map as well - nuclear diplomacy - but this hasn't been developed yet. I think it's a sign of how much people like a map when other variants are being made/developed that are based on it.

As for the transform option. Personally I am undecided of having this included, pro-transform because there are several countries that begin as land-locked on the map who have little or no chance to expand overseas, and against because as a proof of concept variant it would be interesting to see if adding sealanes alone is enough to break the oceanic stalemates that form in the mid to late stages of the game, while allowing landlocked countries the opportunity to get into the seas.

So this variant is being developed right now (but will take some time). In my opinion it is absurd to think that one fleet can control such huge areas of a map, blocking access to other fleets passing through etc...

I guess I would like to elicit responses as to why/why not, the transform option should/should not, be included in sealanes. As I'm undecided as to this, it would be good to hear why people are for or against the option (as opposed to a simple yes or no). So far Tom is the only one who has given a reason why he objects, which seems to hinge on an argument that transforming units are unrealistic in the real world; an argument that doesn't really make much sense to me as this takes place in the future, and who knows what sort of amphibious warfare exists then? The other side of this objection is the assumption that stalemates are somehow good, but I'm not sure if this is an objection to sealanes in general or to the transform option in particular.

Additional opinions from people would be greatly appreciated.

Having played many, many games on the WWIV map, I can say that one big area of weakness in the map is up north around ZAP, MUR, and BAR. I have grown several times to that area from the south only to be easily shut down and stalemated by much smaller powers. ZAP needs to either be a coastal center or have the transform option you are proposing. It would probably open up some things. RUFFHAUS once talked about how that whole northern region is a deviation from the original intent and that's why it's kind of flawed currently.

To a lesser extent, the Middle East could probably benefit from the transform, but it's definitely workable without it.

With regard to the land-locked countries, I think the build-anywhere takes away the necessity for the transform. If you are Song, just build a fleet once you get to the coast.

What about Central Asia and Illinois? Song seems to get close to the coast if he survives the opening bloodbath, but Central Asia and Illinois seem to be stuck building armies well into the mid-game.

Illinois simply needs to get to New Orleans or take on the Eastern US or Texas and he's right there! Central Asia is farther away but his situation makes having an ocean presence less of a need since he has SOOO many centers available without heading to the seas, but even then, he too can grab a center soon enough if he decided to do so.

I think the option of including transform at game creation would be nice. I kinda want to try it both ways...

@ kaner406 :

1° Thank you VERY MUCH for your work for the WWIV Sealanes Variant ! I haven't sent you any PM telling that I am VERY interested but I am telling you now : I am VERY interested by your idea and thank you for your work !

2° You are absolutely right : the Sealanes should be tried first without the Transform option because if you add them both simultaneously, it might be difficult to see exactly the changes brought only by the Sealanes. However, I would love to see the Transform option being available as soon as you have your opinion about how exactly the Sealanes are changing the WWIV Variant. Then, we could see exactly how the Transform option changes the Sealanes Variant.

3° I agree with Mapu and with Tomahaha : thanks to the build-anywhere possibility, there is no such thing as a "land-locked country" in the WWIV Variant. For example, I have already seen a full-press WWIV game in which Russia managed to build 26 Fleets !

4° The reason why I would LOVE to see the Transform possibility (as an option of course !) in the WWIV Variant is that it would offer MANY more possibilities and would make the game even more dynamic ! More choices offer the possibility to make more mistakes or, on the contrary, to create more outstanding play ! The Transform option offers, for example, much more stabbing possibilities !

I think that the sea lanes concept is worth play testing. At first glance it looks like a work around the difficulties of coding Dave Cohen's 'Open Seas' concept. It does capture some of the ability to share the oceans, while placing a tactical command of the central/pivot position. I actually like that dynamic as I think about it more.

Tom, I hate to beat on you because your maps are cool, but you'r objections to this are simply not rooted in any basis of experience. You've never played this map as we are playing it there. You experience is based on your variant with coalition wins decided by voting and specifically in 8-10 years games. We are not playing that kind of game on the map at VDip, and that makes it something completely different than you are familar with. Your version 6.2 addressed some of these things , and some of them very well, but it also made a number of very arbitrary changes, many of them for the worse (Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde Islands, Winnepeg) and ignored some others (Galapagos, Atlantic Ocean spaces, and countless unnecessary border redraws). The reason that there is such an admant call for alternatives to the oceans is that your version was not designed to be played with a SC total victory condition, and the flaws in the map were never really discovered because the games always ended before they manifested themselves.

I don't hate the transform idea, but it irks me just because I think that it seems like a crutch removing all the skill that it takes to amass a balanced military force and adapt to an evolving game. Now the notion that Illinois can "simply" get to New Orleans is laughable. I don't think Illinois is at a disadvantage, but New Orleans is no easy take for him. Of course if Illinois reaches New Orleans or Miami, he's got a pretty good empire and can afford to start planning a navy with his other assets. The larger point in this is that the variant doesn't really need to transform option because it's a build anywhere map already. And the game of Diplomacy already has a transform feature built into it. You just arrange for an ally (or an enemy) to disband your useless units and rebuilt them in the position and as the type you wish. I think that adding a 901 Known World transform feature to this map isn't necessary.

nope, it's a bad idea plain and simple. You take a game we all know and understand, one with some very basic concepts and alter the basics and change land spaces and sea spaces so the balance is removed. This plan to end possible end game stalemates ignores the early and mid game mechanics ...bad idea!

These basic mechanics work for the original variant and most of the (smaller) others too, but not for the WWIV variant IMO

Well the reason the it's being looked at is because the map is flawed. That's not a criticism of you. You did not design the map to be played for supply center conquest, but that is how we are using it, and it doesn't work and can be easily exploited.

Maybe there's a way to redesign it without new rules. I don't know. Your revised map tooks steps towards this, but did not do the job completely, and instead took on many needless alterations that presented new problems. My preference is to explore David Cohen's concept of large ocean spaces that hold multiple fleets, but I am not a code writer and no idea what that would involve in trying to implement it to the WebDip adjudicator.

Maybe you're right about the sea lanes, Tom. I think the idea is to test it and find out. Maybe the idea is to go back to the original map and implement to fixes from 6.2 that worked, while removing the changes that did not. The original map was well balanced. It just needed some tinkering with the ratio of coastal spaces to ocean spaces. You were on the right path.

In the end Tom, this is only being discussed because it's a very popular variant based on your map. We're playing it' differently than you intended and that has brought to light the need for some changes to it. Ironically enough I think that you've got the mapping skills and experience to find the solution, but you're too offended that someone has suggested that there's a problem. Your voting based game is nothing at all like these games. I've played in enough of both of them to know. It's an apples and oranges discussion. It's like trying to play lacrosse with soccer goals. It's still fun, but the playing field produces drastically different results.

I understand what you are saying, I do! But the game WAS designed with center conquest in mind. That was never ignored and was always part of my thinking. The game ended in a vote for multiple reasons one of those reasons was to avoid this situation you speak of. In any game that gets LARGE powerS (plural) you see stalemates set up. In the standard game it's no different... if two powers jump to a lead, they often end up setting up such stalemate lines you do not like. It's simply part of the game and having several large powers emerge, they too will set up such lines and that was one of the reasons for the vote idea (other reasons being reducing apathy and NMR's, getting the game to end in a shorter time, being more life-like, and a bit more ease on the human judged GM).

My problem here is multi-faceted. You will have confusion over how this works, you will have land spaces and sea spaces being different, you have a situation where moving in and around sea spaces is just frankly stupid and the Oceania power is now completely ruined. This also is focusing ONLY on the late stages of the game, ignoring the early and mid game with the end game only in mind is short sightedness by definition.

as far as me being offended? Hardly!
I agree changes can and should be made, many have already been made that WILL work and tweaking of the map has been done after almost every game! That isn't something a stubborn person would do is it? Have you seen the original map? It's hardly even recognizable to the newest map. Your talk about apples and oranges? Changing a few spaces is playing on the same field, changing the way sea spaces are handled ...THAT is where the apples and oranges comes into play and that is what you are doing here with this idea, tossing a bunch of oranges into the barrel of apples! And then expecting the apple juice to still taste like apples, it's not going to taste anything like apples, this game will not play anywhere close to the same. WILD changes for some minor problems is NOT the answer.

COULD it work? I doubt it, but anything is possible I suppose.

From a variant design point of view, I tend to agree with Tomahaha that a transform option for units in times more modern than the ancient world is not at all realistic, for what that is worth in a game like Diplomacy. By the way, just to clear up any possible confusion, if people want to look at the relevant variant directly, the High Seas concept is used in my Conquest of the Americas variant, rather than my Known World 901 variant.

agreed, a real ancient variant would see small boats easily made/destroyed. I understand a fleet being able to off-load troops but turning troops into boats?
and the other thing you would absolutely ruin is convoys, suddenly there is no real need for a convoy and that destroys yet another part of the game!

and while this is set in the future, you can't tell me a large destroyer or battleship or any sort of ship could be turned into humans or even into tanks nor could such craft be built with ease transforming what was on hand into a fleet, the further you get from reality, the more obscure a game gets and you lose people more and more... it's et in a distant future with goofy new nations and some real stupid supply centers, this is already stretched pretty far