The UN rule can be found by following the link to the variant homepage:
http://www.freewebs.com/tomahaha/ww4.htm

There are major land territorial changes in the Middle-East, Africa, as well as some changes in Asia & North America. Sth America remains unchanged.

There are also new sea territories & islands.

All in all it should be quite enough to offer new and interesting possibilities for those used to the earlier WWIV version.

Great timing,
The UN rule was part of how the game was designed. When coming up with such a huge game I had several issues I had to deal with. In no order of importance I had to find answers to several "problems" (oh, and the game here is credited to someone who helped me run a past game or two, someone who helped me with a few design changes many years ago but he did not design the game and I really wish someone here would correct that error!)

In standard Dip you would have 1 player out of 7 win, or about a 14% chance of winning
adding what 35 powers (the number has varied over time) 1 in 35 is a horrible less than 3% chance of winning!

Dropouts harm any game of course and the larger a game got, the longer it would run making dropouts an even more serious problem here.

I had run the game by hand (no program to adjudicate with) I needed some relief when the game got so big. You guys have it programed here so that is not so much an issue any longer and was probably the least of my worries when designing (especially since running a vote used up the time saved!)

Lastly, I wanted to attempt to replicate the real world and the way it really works. In the real world we have alliances and a somewhat powerless UN.

All these issues were "solved" using the voting procedure. Now the game would be won by 3 of 35 or 8.5% (still lower odds than a standard game!). Alliances would be more like the real world and only having an alliance of 3 would make stabbing allies quite possible and keep powers jockying back and forth playing a political game all while playing a military game. The UN vote helped keep the smaller powers interested in the game, they still had a chance to win (rewarded for being a valuable ally?) and while the military aspect for these powers was reduced, they still had a viable political game to play still. The game also ended in a more sane amount of time while interest was still somewhat high for all.

The UN procedure is absolutely not for all! Some view this game as a pure game of military might. I disagree, the way we need to write to others and negotiate, this only adds to that aspect. But that's my opinion and others who think otherwise are not "wrong" either. I would suggest people at least TRY the vote before making any judgement call but no, it is certainly not for all and some (maybe many) would find it not to their liking! It IS however, "different" almost a variant unto itself and that alone is worth giving a shot?

The game you guys have been playing here is a rather old rev, several years old and has been changed several times since then, each time attempting to fix trouble areas. Is this perfect? probably not, but it most certainly is "better". We have had past discussions about stalemates forming in the late game stages. Again, we have many differences of opinion but the bigger powers get, the more likely a stalemate forms. Look at the standard game and when you wind up with two players nearing say 14 centers each, that game will be chocked full of stalemates itself...part of the game! Something that is difficult to do away with the way the game is designed. Large powers set up defensive walls from one another, making this impossible to do might be impossible in itself but may also be foolish when fixes to this late game stage might very well ruin the early and mid game phases? Yes, others will argue endlessly on this aspect as well, we had such "arguments" in the past and I do not want to get into that again, just understand we have many views and many opinions. The new map at the very least should (we hope) fix at least some of several problems.

Oh, I started with "good timing" I say this because a game that uses such a vote will be starting soon. It's a different game and the vote is also different but it IS a huge whole world game (about twice as large) and has somewhat similar voting as part of that games end game procedure. If interested, you can check the basic game here
http://www.freewebs.com/tomahaha/nwosimplified.htm

I am not running the game and I know the games GM has a few new ideas he wants to try, but those ideas are still unknown even to myself, these are the basic rules however. It's a game of haves and have nots, one with nukes and one where the small will die early in big numbers. but it balances itself out in the end by way of that vote that was discussed here. If you are small and survive, you will be attractive to larger powers looking for partners to end the game with.

oh, if interested in that game forming. It is starting "soon" is all I know. Send me a PM and I will give you his email, or add your email to the PM and I will forward that info to him!

Tom, I see that you made some attempts to address (some of) the ocean clogging situations, which is progress of sorts. And while allowing certain island chains to accept convoy orders was a welcome change, it's interesting that you chose to make thing more complex, rather than simply redrawing the boundaries of the islands chains. It was the size of the zones given these island space combined with their coastal adjacencies of spaces like GLP that map the map a mess. Now you've made the situation more cluttered with CPV and ZAN. Allowing convoys through them is helpful, but it only addresses a fraction of the problems, and the new design adds even more clutter and ocean chaos.

I'm confused as to why you chose to significantly weaken North Africa (Egypt), Nigeria, and Quebec. Egypt on the previous map was a statistically poor performer, although the sample size was too small to suggest that it was unfairly positioned. Howerver, by inserting Arabia in as a 36th power,and removing the adjacency to Chad, the new North Africa position truly is doomed. What on earth led you to so drastically weaken this nation? Likewise with Nigeria, who was already hamstrung with a port in Lagos that is enclosed completely by the useless Gulf of Guinea space, but you removed Ghana's adjacency to ESA while all other nations have direct ocean access. Nigeria also loses a shot at CPV in the first year, while Brazil gains a path to it? Nigeria also loses any ability to bring fleets around the coast to support any claim they might make on Morocco or the North Atlantic ocean with the new CPV redraw that also eliminates the ENA/ESA adjacency. In North America Quebec now has no shot at WIN, further limiting the expansion options of that nation. You've also eliminated the very challenging dynamic of the Ontario space where Quebec, Iliinois, and Canada have to arrange a three way Mexican stand off.

There are dozen of other redraws across the map that do not seem to be based in any study of the many previous play experiences of the map. The main issues with the map were clogged oceans that insulate the continents, and the size of the island chain spaces. You took a very playable map that needed minor tinkering and made it much more confusing and now imbalanced for several nations.

This new version of the map would have been much better suited by adding a the polar oceans and shrinking the size of various island chains. And as a designer I would think that you might solicit specif opinion from players who have played on it. It would probably help you even more if YOU played on it, so that you could see these things first hand.

North Africa has lots of SCs that they might be able to get after on the Arabian peninsula. It seems that that would potentially make Egypt (North Africa) stronger.

Unsurprisingly that makes no sense at all. North Africa does not have lots of centers to get after in Arabia. Arabia has the drop on those now, whereas Iran and Egypt used to have to discuss them. The previous version had Mecca as an uncontested pick up for Egypt (something that you have proven your cluelessness on already). The new version not only does not have that, it has a new power on the Arabian peninsula that North Africa has to worry about as a potential first year enemy. The position is further weakened by the lack of adjacency between Khartoum and Chad, and even more so by distancing Kenya from the mix.

Ruff, in the new version Nigeria has 4 (or 5 depending on the skill of the player) uncontested SCs, that doesn't seem like a weak position to me. I do agree though about North Africa being weakened. I think Israel and Beiruit were added to counteract that.

Cool, as you will come to learn one day, counting supply centers, specifically ones that you have access to in the first year of the game does not equate to success, strength, or opportunity. Nigeria had access to several centers before as well. The point is that Nigeria now lacks any credible opportunity to become a factor in the Atlantic Ocean, while Brazil and Amazon now have engraved invitations to set up shop in West Afrcia.

I was not a subscriber to the theory that Egypt was the poor man of the previous WW4 map, but this new map puts a big red target on North Afrcia's back. Israel and Beruit provide possible gains, but also great new risk.

The maps has been issued, and further play tests will either confirm or refute these matters. My larger point was that the game was actually very well balanced prior to this revision. The changes that needed to be made were minimal, and would not have disrupted the balance of the nation's starting positions. So much for the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

already working on many changes! This version was done so loooong ago, I don't even recall if I ever finished or it just got stuck in mid-stream of being completed? I have so many changes done from play to play always trying to improve things. I already made about 20 alterations and working on more.

Nigeria is indeed a strong early contender and that is one of the tweaks made, but as Ruffhaus points out, she has trouble accessing the Atlantic, while that is something i don't usually like, it's done on purpose here. No way can you say Nigeria has no chance in the Atlantic, not with his starting situation! But yes, reduced access is done on PURPOSE and cross continental attacks is freaking wanted! Note how close most really are in terms of number of turns required to cross. No, these assaults will not happen right away but the map is designed to encourage this of course, otherwise we have multiple continental games all having little to do with the others.

North Africa did indeed get a bit screwed...certainly not impossible but not a real good position that has also been addressed. Fixes are all over the place!

As far as aint broke, don't fix it...we could have said that many times now but each time it gets slightly better and better, yes it is a work in progress.
If anyone is interested in either the fixes I am working on or maybe even looking at the very FIRST map (quite a bit different!) drop me a PM with your email and I will email either or both to you.

And hit me up with some suggestions, I certainly do NOT use every suggestion but i do listen to all. I sent the changes to a few already and Kaner came back with some ideas, His ideas lead me to believe he thinks like me but few were actually used. It's no slight to anyone if I disagree but please I do appreciate input and do listen taking everything to heart! Yeah, you can try to be nice about criticism but go ahead and point out bad stuff, if it's bad it needs to be pointed out!

"The main issues with the map were clogged oceans that insulate the continents"

..we will never agree on this will we?
If you add more sea spaces you make each continent even MORE insulated. You force the whole cross continental attacks into obscurity.
What is more likely to happen?
it takes two turns to cross an Ocean
or it takes 5 turns to cross?
...if you claim the more turns leads to more interaction, you simply don't understand things at all. Maybe late game stalemates are reduced, but you have early and mid game messes that do away with any sort of balance. More spaces is not the answer! Better placement,,,can't argue with that, but simply saying we need more, not gonna work, not at all!

Actually this new product made the map worse. The previous map was very well balanced as afar as nation positions were designed. You did a masterful job to begin with where creating the map. The chief problems were clogged seas. You fixed a few issues in some spaces, and it would have been set to go after adding the helpful but needlessly complex island convoy rule. What on earth led you to go tinkering with things that were working fine. That last time you did this degree of tinkering with a map, you created a severely unplayable product. While this is certainly still playable, the prior claims to balance and equivalent starting positions is noticeably gone and may present dozens of additional flaws that only a sampling of scores of games will truly bear out.

I'm not sure if we'll ever agree or not, Tom. You don't actually read the comments I make in the first place. I have on numerous occasions suggested that the fix to this map and the congested ocean travel is to implement deep sea ocean spaces. I have never suggested that adding more ocean spaces is the answer. The reason for continental congestion is that there have not been enough coastal territories, and that it is extremely easy to ring the perimeter of certain continents with units.

That was the main issue with the map. You made *some* corrections to that. Thepolar sea spaces help a good deal, and some to the coastline changes opened up the game a little bit more. That and a redraw of the GLP situation should have been enough to work with.

There was no need to make wholesale changes like adding a 16th power, weakening Egypt (now suddenly North Africa), isolating Nigeria from the Atlantic Ocean so that Amazon has a better shot at DAK than any power in Africa now, eliminating the supply center of Winnipeg, the newly created mess in the vicinity of the North/South China Seas, and so on.

Previously the game could have been called more or less balanced, and there were no specific weaknesses or gratuitous advantages. We have not progress further than three years into any of the new games, and you've already noticed several flaws? Why the hell would you release a new version of the map without doing quality control and play testing?