I thought you were "GONE"?
Stalemate lines are not part of the basic game. Yes, that is what I just said. The use of stalemate lines is a tactic for losers, in other words those who cannot win. There may in fact be places on the board where losers can affect a stalemate, and that may or may not be a sound tactical and strategic style of play given the unique scenario, but the game is not designed to provide such lines all over the map, and should not run around continents like they do on the WW4 map. The game of Diplomacy, the very essence of the game is that all players try to win while preventing all other players from winning. Intentionally designing stalemate lines into the map is the worst thing that you can do to a Diplomacy variant. Players are supposed to interact with each other to affect the result of the game, not run to hide behind pre-designed lines. The game is designed to be won by one player. The beauty of stopping a solo is not in a quirk of map design that allows a weak player to avoid defeat, but in an alliance of weaker players that unite to stop the solo victory while at the same time preventing one of their allies from taking over as the board leader and new solo threat. The beauty of the game is 'diplomacy' not pre-engineered helping hands for mediocre players. Mediocre players will never get better if they always have a stalemate line to hide behind.
Citing the number of hits stalemate lines received in a google search is just about the weakest argument you could make. Please show me where the word stalemate exists in the rules, or the basic description of the game. The use of stalamate lines is a strategic style, just as alliance play, or stab and grab, or Russia+Turkey, Lepanto, or Western Triple are. It's not part of the basic game at all. It's an evolved style of play that players have to do google searches on to figure out how to play it.
I have stated my ideas many times. I have made dozens of them to you, and to others, in public, and in private. I have long advocated the convoy through the island chain rule, which was taken into account on the 36 player variant. I have advocated play in the arctic oceans with and without seasonal restrictions. I have push for the redesign of the ocean spaces, and noted numerous specifics of the areas of unplayable continental and ocean congestion. The sealanes concept is not my idea per se, but I did advocate it's exploration based on concepts designed by David Cohen (a well know variant designer, and Diplomacy enthusiast) and those employed by you and a player named Roadkill315 from another Dip site. In a discussion over a year ago here, the sealanes concept evolved, and kaner416 took it and developed the map under test play now. I am not claiming credit for his work, but my ideas, and those of many others here who have suffered under the cluttered map design of the WW4 map have driven the discussion in this direction. I don't need to claim credit for anything, but I did contribute ideas, specific ideas, and scores of them. Your challenge just falls so shy of the truth it's laughable (there's that word again). Furthermore I just presented a long list of ideas to kaner416 for the development of the sealanes variant and thoughts on the landlanes. As I can see from his latest map he didn't have any trouble understanding them. I will continue to do so, and I will continue to help him test these maps. Just because I (intentionally) did not run my ideas past you does not mean that I did not make suggestions. The world does not revolve around you.
I have not designed any variants. I have assisted numerous designers with commentary from a player's perspective, and helped to refine many variants for playability. These designers have come to me, soliciting my opinions based upon my playing experience. I never claimed to be a better designer, or a variant designer at all. That doesn't mean that I cannot consult with designers on rules.
I have GM'd more games than I can count for what that's worth, probably as many as you, but I do not have a log book of them. I have GM'd Diplomacy games on Cat23, Apolyton, Dip World, Redscape, VDip, and a few other gaming sites that are no longer active. Now, most games here (and specifically the sealanes variant) are not GM'd, so that angle of really has nothing to do with the conversation.
I have played more games than you can conceive of, more than I can conceive of. I used to play 25-30 at a time. I have played these WW4 games extensively both under your original rules, and under the rules implemented for play here at VDip. I have over 20 games on these maps in my playing resume, quite possibly more than any player in the hobby. That doesn't mean I am right about everything, but it does mean that I know more about this than you do. And that claim is backed up by the fact that you do not play here under the SC total victory conditions format that the game has evolved into. That entitles me to offer opinions that deserve more than your typical 'if Tommy did not design it, it's shite' response.
Your criticism of the number of existing sealanes is baseless. You have yet to offer a single reason for reducing them. The only reason you cite is a personal preference based on a completely unfounded and unproven feeling held exclusively by you that the game has been ruined by them. All evidence from the test games so far confirms that they have provided for numerous options and exciting action previously unthinkable on the cluttered map. Your criticism of the Volga Canal, which you started walking back after you initial comments were shown to be the typical bombastic nonsense that you spew, is likewise unfounded. A canal system does exist now. This variant is set approximately 85 years in the future. To sit here and debate realistic accuracy in a game that calls the Inca Empire, Illinois and 'Catholica' as world powers is pretty damn silly. The suggestion for the Capsaina Sea/Volga Canal is for game playability. There is no reason to treat a Volga Canal set 85 years in the future any different than the Panama or Suez Canals. You have no valid objection to the idea, so you're going to try to ratchet on up based upon realism? The game isn't meant to convey realism. It's a Diplomacy variant on a world map. It's fictional, Tom. Nothing about this damn game is real. Why the outrageous objection to this idea? Oh yeah, it wasn't yours? Have you actually played a nation in this region before? No, you have not have you. So you really understand nothing about the dynamics of the Caspian Sea, and how congested the lack of playability of this space affect the choices players make.
Iran does poorly here because Iran has largely been played poorly, even by good players. People said that Egypt was a cursed power for two year until a few players came along and played Egypt competently. People said Song was cursed, until Song nearly soloed a few times. The statistic sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions. If you think Iran would be weakened, then cite the specific reason why. I think Iran would have many more alliance options and expansion opportunities. But maybe there's a weakness I am missing. To really see how it would be affected would need several play tests, and feedback from Iranian and neighboring nations. But you're against more play tests. You want to make arbitrary and whimsical changes immediately based on your opinions alone. I don't want my way. I want play testing to find the right way. Yours is always the loudest voiced shouting that down.
So it's good that you're "GONE". Now we can set about improving this, and perhaps have some actual conversation about the specific merits/detractions of proposed changes.
Finally I made no personal attacks. I pointed out that you do not have the experience with this map that you claim to, and that your criticisms cannot cite specific reasons to back them up. That much is plainly obvious.