2107 is now ending.

you have to think more closely about retreats. I have also noticed that the seas are permeable as expected, but will come into play more and more as the smaller players get eliminated.
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Pros:
Adds to offensive capabilities, fun twists, more things to think about, lot's of fluid play.

Cons:
Defense is near impossible, unfairly benefits naval powers, too easy to slip behind enemy lines, Land vs Sea spaces are too dramatically different and centers sitting inland are harder to take (not fair at all)

Overall, I like the idea but the near elimination of defense is just too drastic. I like to give offense a slight advantage but this has eliminated defense on the high seas too dramatically.

ok, that didn't post as I had hoped.
(I "copy and pasted the link into my post"???)
But I did not reveal my nation so no harm, no foul.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

With that being said, would this ever lead to a "land lanes"?

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

If the point is to completely remove the possibility of stalemate lines, then it certainly has done so in the ocean spaces. However, land-based stalemate lines remain, notably in Asia. If this concept is going to work, something needs to be done about that. Otherwise, I like the changes, though maybe we could scale back some of the sea lanes just a bit.

Total offense skews the game too much, stalemates are not always a bad thing, the basic game almost always ends in a stalemate. Solo's are not common, is that bad? Why is a sea stalemate bad while land stalemates are fine? Why is defense a bad thing at all?

Your own posts don't show as anon to you, Tom. That post prior to your "copy/paste" is anon.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

My point has nothing to do with whether stalemates are good or bad. That's a completely separate topic. My point is that if the sealanes were put in place to remove stalemates, then there needs to be some consideration for removing the land-based ones as well. Do it 100% or don't do it at all, in my opinion.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

agreed
and if that were done, all defense would be lost. Maybe that could be a fun game in itself? But it starts to feel a lot different than "Diplomacy" and like something really different. Better or worse is up to each to decide but (in my opinion) defense is a big part of the game we know and love.

Either way, if you go with this offensive gimmick, then you really do need to do so everywhere?

Land lanes!

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Tomahaha, stop undermining the perfectly legitimate attempts to recruit players for this game. If you do not like the idea, then do not sign up. But stop attacking the idea. 15 people on this site do want to play, and are using this thread to gather more players, not to have a debate with a jilted grumpy old fart like you. Your opinions on the sealanes are well documented. You hate them. We get it. Now shut up, and let people decide for themselves.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tomahaha, stop undermining the perfectly legitimate attempts to recruit players for this game. If you do not like the idea, then do not sign up. But stop attacking the idea. 15 people on this site do want to play, and are using this thread to gather more players, not to have a debate with a jilted grumpy old fart like you. Your opinions on the sealanes are well documented. You hate them. We get it. Now shut up, and let people decide for themselves.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


^^^ this thread is for thoughts and comments about the game that is going on right now. Tom is using this thread correctly

this is the thread you thought we were on
http://vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?viewthread=58115#58115










http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Tom, feel free to ignore the rant two posts above this. I want to hear your views and this is the *correct* thread for that.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Make that three post above that thread. Morons who don't know what thread they are in shouldn't post to them at all. :)

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

the two post following the rant were in reply to the ranter, not the rantee
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

How can anyone make any conclusive observations about the sealanes after only 7 years of game play? The game is nowhere near complete, and players are still experimenting and coming to grips with the changes. There's no definitive evidence that the sealanes are having any effect at all on stalemate lines. They probably will, but the suggestion that they already have is silly. This game is by no means heading for a solo.

Where is defense near impossible? This is simply not an accurate statement. The expanded movement options are intriguing and challenging, and if any thin have made players looking to attack across the oceans even more reluctant to do so because the retreat options offered make mounting offensive actions more complex and dangerous. This makes the game more exciting, and necessitate increased Diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, DMZs, and so on. It also boosts paranoia and speculation. The sealanes have opened up the seas, but they in no way have made defense impossible.

It is a fair point to suggest that some land spaces might benefit from similar concept, and certain coastal spaces might be included as sealanes or included into existing sea zones as a sealane themselves. The interior land based stalemate lines that previously existed are still there, although most of those are fine as is. There is one section of the map that could use some redesign to offer additional movement options, but adding land lanes isn't necessarily needed for this. One interesting thought would be to offer each continent a land zone that operates as a land-lane area. That might shake up the regular arrangements, but creating that would seriously upset the very balanced nature of the 35 nations from the start. It would probably require a very comprehensive redraw.

The oceans are different. This map design has been an excellent exploration at opening up new avenues of movement across the map from continent to continent. However, this particular game has gotten off the starting block in very conventional fashion with regional continental alliances.

It's only seven years into the first test. My suggestion would be to play several more games, preferably at a faster pace, so that players could experience a variety of stating positions and assess the changes from varied perspectives. The change have present exciting opportunities, but it's far too early to evaluate them as good or bad on this game, which is less than 25% played out now.


http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Nobody "undermined" anything. I asked a simple question, a very valid one at that. Please show how my question "undermined" anything. The sea lane idea is being experimented with in another game, nobody yet knows if they are a good idea or bad, we DO know they are not perfected and work will need to be done. Yet you insist we need to play another game to decide? No you don't! You certainly CAN all I asked is how wise is it to jump into a game that has not been fully tested and THAT is a valid concern!

I agree, conclusions can definitely be made at this point. it is early, and no stalemate lines have been established in the sealanes yet. so this is a preliminary review. im sure things will change in the future.
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

I agree with some of the statements made, not with others.
"Some" conclusions can certainly be made with what we have learned so far but we can make no conclusive statements just yet so (my opinion) this is being discussed too early. But since it has been asked and plenty of opinions are already being given let's address them:

Sea lanes will absolutely have a profound impact on stalemate lines, while we have not yet reached that point, it has already been noted how defense is indeed crippled in a serious way. Suggesting this is not the case simply ignores the facts and examples already learned.

Suggesting the land spaces are somehow okay regarding stalemates is ignoring the obvious and in every single area we have stalemates develop on land. The standard game almost always sets up stalemate lines (they may not always be the same, if you have an area that always develops a certain way, that is a big problem that needs fixing but every game will see stalemate lines form as they should see. Defense and blocking others is an important part of the game that can not simply be ignored. Sure, those who are marching to victory don't like them, but that is how we stop those powers, solos are to be stopped! This claim that only sea spaces face this dilemma is simply ignorant of the facts. Again, stalemates that always seem to form in the same spaces, those should indeed be tweaked and maybe some of these sea spaces do have that problem but to simply try to do away with them is not doing the game any favors.

This idea has some fun twists, I am not attempting to be negative only, we can take this idea and tweak it I'm sure. But defending these spaces is frankly near impossible, defense is generally for those who are not growing as rapidly (if at all) as those trying to break through that defense, to cover all the holes requires more units than anyone in defensive mode will have available while the attacker will generally have more units to throw to the action, the result is obvious, defense is gone!

This said, I think the sea lanes as they are have not been applied equally to all areas.
Look at the coasts of Europe, China and Eastern North America (not to mention the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico) then compare them to the rest of the world. Centers in some areas are safe and easy to protect as always before while the others face the problem of sea lanes. When the final reviews come in, you will have all these wild different observations. The player in the USA will have a completely different view than would the player in Brazil. At the very least we know it was not applied evenly across the map. Let all see how insane it is to defend against sea lanes, in my own limited experience I have seen them work for me, I have seen them work against me but in both situations, they both heavily favored the offense in very unbalanced ways!

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Let us look at a few areas that have now used sea lanes
We have a whole slew of fleets from South America out in the Middle Northern Atlantic area. 3 units in what used to be one space. He will very likely be able to power his way to the US coast but once there, he faces a tough task in trying to take any supply centers. Compare this to the bay of Bengal off India. There we have multiple sea zones that will allow easier numbers to be had vs the coastal centers of India. Already we saw a lot of action on the island of Sumatra using these sea lanes.

Possessing and holding a sea lane can have a profound effect on convoys and island nations on the edges of a sea zone with a sea lane. What used to require two fleets to convoy and surrounding the island now only requires one fleet in the convoy and one supporting the attack from the sea zone.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

In some regions it would make total sense having land lanes. For instance in regions of steppe and in desert zones like the sahara... places were it is entirely illogical to be able to realistically 'control' these regions.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Excellent comment about the desert/steppe areas, and implementation of this concept in certain areas might help change up the dull nature of sections of the map. For example if the Tibet area were redesigned into a "land-lane" type space named Himalayas that included Tibet, Nepal, etc., it would help the mind-numbingly dull Asian land war issue, and give some added challenges to the way relationships form in the area. Switzerland could become a broader zone called The Alps which includes additions surrounding spaces. Perhaps a Sahara zone as the above poster suggested, and an Amazon jungle zone, an Andes mountain region, or Rocky Mountains. It's absolutely a lot of work, but adding this would really give the map additional options of both defense an attack, to say nothing of changing up the standard alliance structures that we see repeated game after game. No criticism is meant to the player in the active game and specifics are purposely withheld, but here are emerging trends in alliances, and added movement opts around the map would help shake that up.

Count me in the group that says it's a little bit early to start making conclusions about the pros an cons. The game is just getting going. My suggestion would be to keep notes to yourself in the NOTES tab of the game if you're a player, and then analyze them after the game is over.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

Out of interest and more from a design point to view - are the amount of sea-lanes per overseer zone best made with 4 sealanes, 3 sealanes or 2 sealanes? or are the amount of SLs depended on location?

It depends on location a lot, but i think from seeing what can be done with the lanes, 4 is generally a bit (too) high.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

One thing to consider about number of sealanes is that for island OZ, two or three sealanes could allow (depending on how they are drawn) a convoy with a single fleet, while division into four means at least two fleets have to be dedicated to convoy through the OZ.

Variance by location might be in order, but so far it looks like 4 works best in the oceans. Maybe some coastal spaces should be less than 4, but it really remains to be seen how the lanes will affect things. If war heats up on the oceans in this game, it may be very exciting to see how the four space zones work.

I do not understand the repeated comment above about the convoy. Either it's not being described correctly, or the author does not understand the rules.

http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=20562

The more lanes, the more difficult to defend. The statement regarding land zones earlier makes some sense but where he suggests it could help defense, not in the least! These zones are offensive in nature and before getting too overlay excited by them, try to imagine defending against them. It's nearly impossible! Offense is good but we need to allow for defense as well, already the current game is being adversely affected in a few areas by the added offense. Some may think it a good thing but the game requires the ability to defend, do not lose sight of this in making observations look at both sides of the situation.