http://i.imgur.com/wWCxcem.png

SeaLanes added:
Hudson Bay
EastCoast USA
Gulf of Mexico
Bay of Biscay
North Sea
Western Medd.
Central Medd.
Eastern Medd.
Caspian Sea
OKH
South China Sea
Java Trench
Timor Sea
Barrents Sea

SeaLanes altered:
Split Nth. ARA into 2 lanes, changed connection from GAD to SOB
Changed Nth.CIO to connect with JVT
Change Nth BOB to connect with Rangoon

Sea regions altered:
BOB (as noted above)
PEG moved to connect BLC not KAR

LandLanes added:
Far north
Rockies
Deep South
West Sahara
East Sahara
Alps
Baltic States
Arabia
Siberia
Karukum Desert
Himalayas
Steppe

Land Regions Altered:
Volga now has a canal

http://i.imgur.com/wWCxcem.png

-----------------------

I still have some suggestions made by people to include, however I wanted to share with the community what changes have been made so far. Also please comment and make suggestions!!!

yesssssssss the caspian sea!!!!


so excited to play. (not just because of the addition of the caspian sea)
more feedback to come

I have yet to see a game where use of such a Caspian Sea imaginary canal has worked well. I can get over the imaginary part, I can get over the impossible part (where warships could travel over such a canal over mountains) but adding a sea space so far removed from the rest of the sea spaces is not that great an idea, use of such a canal is incredibly limited and of such little value it doesn't really add anything important to the game? Yes, you can manage to get one more unit into an area to help break a stalemate, but getting a fleet to that area is so time consuming and that fleet is now going to take forever to get back to being of any value again, I just don't see it ever playing out.
I am not saying it can not be attempted! But why the need for such an imaginary situation unless it helped solve a direct dilemma?

I like the other suggestions and would only add possible reduction in sea lanes in those spaces that currently have 4 spaces dropped to three, those that have three dropped to two. This can help make up for those new additions.

Well, once again if you actually played Diplomacy instead of slapping yourself on the back as the best Dip designer of all time you might understand this. There are variants which use the Caspian Sea and some that also employ a Volga canal. The Volga canal is not an imaginary channel either. It exists in a network of rivers and canals. It is no more preposterous than the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal or the Bosporus (Constantinople) locations used in the WW4 game already. It's no more logistically imaginary than the use of a land bridge from Alaska to Siberia. Furthermore the addition of the Caspian Sea does address a specific need in the game, specifically this map. The Caspian Sea is a gigantic roadblock on this map, which limits the option of many nations in all phases of the game. You might have seen this a few times if you actually played. Variants that use the Caspian Sea are much more strategically enjoyable, and playable. The Imperial II Variant uses the Caspian Sea without a canal, but offers the ability to build fleets on it anyway. This adds an extremely interesting dynamic to the map. But you've always criticized that map because it's not yours. You've never actually played a gmae on it, but you know all about it, right? Looking back at WW4 all of the impassible spaces need to be removed or altered. They are absurdly conceived, and inconsistently applied.

Reducing sealanes is not the answer. The sealanes are largely a huge success. You have nothing to base the reduction from 4 to 3, or 3 to 2 upon. Nothing other than your personal preference, which isn't based on anything other than you wanting to stamp yourself on this even as you bitterly fought it at every step. If you were actually paying attention to the test game you would see very exciting action on the high seas, and oceans that cannot be dominated by stalemate lines, which is exactly what the sealanes concept sought to do. It's exactly what needed to be done. Diplomacy is not a game where the objective is to set up a stalemate line and force a draw as soon as possible.

Play the game before you complain about it. You have no basis of experience for making these complaints. Your criticisms are blind speculation, which would be bad enough if just lobbed from you Monday morning chair, but when they directly contrast suggestions from those with extensive playing experience, they are laughable.

Thanks for keeping things civil ...jerk
Why not at least TRYING to be civil for once? Suggestions have been requested and I gave my two cents. My two cents are no more valuable or no less valuable than any others. Where did I slap myself on the back? Where did I complain about it? Please stop being the asshole we know you to be! Try to actually contribute to the debate at hand, my experience is now being brought to question?????

The laughable jerk is you Randy, please get down from your high horse and contribute something rather than tear apart other constructive criticisms (that have been asked for)

and for the umpteenth time, Stalemates are part of the game. We should try to reduce their being too easy to set up and we likely do have several areas that could be tweaked no doubt. but too design them away completely is also not how the game was designed, I would have thought your superior position would understand stalemates are part of the basic game we seek to replicate? Fix them, make them a bit harder to draw up, but making them all but impossible is not the answer either!

Where's the micrometer? We got a dick measuring contest going on.

Both of you are misinterpreting what the other is saying, but only Tom has reverted to actual name calling.

Yep, I did after trying to be polite he insulted me over and over: I am tired of his antics.

"Well, once again if you actually played Diplomacy instead of slapping yourself on the back as the best Dip designer of all time you might understand this."
..insult

"You might have seen this a few times if you actually played."
...insult

"But you've always criticized that map because it's not yours. You've never actually played a gmae on it"
...insult

"which isn't based on anything other than you wanting to stamp yourself on this even as you bitterly fought it at every step. If you were actually paying attention to the test..."
...insult

"Play the game before you complain about it."
...insult (as I was not complaining)

" You have no basis of experience for making these complaints"
...insult

"Your criticisms are blind speculation, which would be bad enough if just lobbed from you Monday morning chair, but when they directly contrast suggestions from those with extensive playing experience, they are laughable."
...more insults

So yes, I called him the ass he is, he can insult me over and over and over and He's the good guy here?
I actually made some suggestions (that were asked for), suggestions he does not like, what suggestions has he made other than to criticize mine in his insulting way? Has he made ANY suggestions to date???

Everything I said was civil. Your suggestions are laughable. They are so because as usual there is no basis for them. You make whimsical observations with no basis of game experience. You made your arbitrary objections to the Caspian Sea and Volga Canal previously, and apparently your arguments were not convincing enough then. So you trotted them out again still absent any valid point or game experience, which is where the suggestions came from in the first place. My defense of the suggestions was not only civil, but rooted in fact and prior experience, something that you cannot offer with your emotionally charged nonsense.

Stalemate lines are not part of the game. The word does not exist in the rules. The original map may have lines that exist, but that does not imply that they are essential or even intentionally created. They are not a basic part of the game, but game strategies documented by players and fans of the game over the years. They need not necessarily involve geography or be static either. In fact skilled players can defend without resorting to scripted stalemate lines, and create impenetrable defenses as necessary. The best and most effective stalemate lines are those not found on the map, but those achieved through diplomacy and coordination with other players. Designing stalemate lines into the map discourages players from having to work together to organize defenses that will stop a solo. Creating games with intrinsic safety networks of specifically created stalemate lines does no one any good.

The WWV4 base map was overloaded with interior stalemate lines. It needed an extensive overhaul to correct them. The sealanes variant concept was an attempt to do just that, and so far it looks like it has. There is no evidence that it eliminated all stalemate opportunities or that the new suggestions will. There's no evidence that the changes that you just mentioned will provide or prevent stalemate lines. Your sealane reduction suggestion is absent any relevant rationale aside form your personal preference, something that is not based on game play. That's what the test games are for. There are two of them underway, and so far nothing suggests that there is a problem at all.

Your view is that a map should have inherent stalemate lines where players can hide out and stop playing the game. Your view of victory is everyone gets a trophy, and mediocrity trumps achievement. That's not Diplomacy.

I am not trying to be the good guy, Tom. However, I am not insulting you by pointing out that you have not played this game as a player, and do not understand the concepts being discussed because you have not experienced the issues that many of us here have. That is a fact, however unpleasant it may sound to you. It is also a fact that it is you lobbing words like ass, jerk, etc., all while criticizing me for not being civil. I have in fact made several suggestions during this process. You can keep saying that I have not, but that is an inaccurate statement. I made a log list of suggestions, and provided them to the variant designer.

Your contributions to this were nothing but attacks made on other's suggestions, for example the Caspian Sea and Volga Canal. Those were solid suggestions, and ideas rooted in game play from the WW4 and other Dip variants. You made multiple inaccurate attacks against the Volga Canal idea, calling it a fictional waterway, as if anything we are doing is realistic... You dismissed the need for the Caspian Sea as a playable space outright, but you have no game experience to back that up. The dynamic does exist on other Dip variants, and it does work well. Your other suggestions were to begin universally reducing sealanes across the map, but you can produce no valid reason why this needs to be done. Your only backup to this is that you say that stalemate lines are now impossible, something that we do not know yet, because no one has actually explored the tens of thousands of potential scenarios. We have seen one half of one test game, and four turns of a second test game. Your conclusions are rooted in opinion, not fact. And when you consider that your opinion from the start of this was that no changes needed to be made to the WW4 map and that seaslanes were stupid, it's going to take a truly convincing factual argument from you that what we have should be reduced. Maybe it should, but the only way to find out is to play several games if not dozens to determine that. Your immediate denouncement of the map was expected, but absent specific examples, your comments are worthless.

what a load!
Stalemates are not part of the basic game? Is that what you just said????
In tourney play the overwhelming MAJORITY of games ends in a stalemate. Nowhere did i ever state all should win, nowhere did I claim players should stop playing. What I said was stalemates are part of the game, I further stated we should try to make them somewhat difficult to establish. But yes, they should not be done away with as you seem to think is the way the game is supposed to be played. I try to design games that end similarly to how the basic game ends, your fantasy-become reality is that stalemates are to be eliminated at all costs.

You make nonsense up, position yourself as some sort of authority and then ridicule all who dare oppose your superiority. Please state some ideas to help the game, the rest of us have, please read and tell us your IDEAS, not simply your dismissal of any who dare oppose you. I had ideas, you have had NONE to date...

Keep spouting lies about my experience and my knowledge of the game. Because you say them often does not make them accurate. Maybe others will believe your flights of fancy as being truthful but let's talk facts for a moment.
How many games have you designed?
How many games have you run as a GM?
How many ideas regarding this game have you made? (real ideas and fixes not generic nonsense like "we need more sea spaces" as you HAVE said in the past)

Face it, you have done absolutely nothing here but dismiss my OPINIONS while attempting to put me down with your childish belittling. I am sick of it and want no part of any site you are part of. I am GONE

Google:
"diplomacy game" stalemate
7730 hits
...but it's not part of the game!? Does anyone believe ANYTHING this ass clown says? He spouts off imaginary information, poses it as fact and we are to buy it? Or maybe you can see what an imbecile he really is!

You want to listen to his false statements and believe him, here you go with an example of how very ignorant he really is.

I think tjat the game was designed for one player to achieve a solo win, which is hard with stalemate lines.

Regarding the Volga Don Canal...
Other dip variants I have seen using such a connection have not (of those I know of) use the canal where it is and instead link over the Caucus Mountains. Kaner here is using the correct location. However, the rivers and the canal itself are not going to accept war ships, making the idea a bit of a stretch to say the least. Yes, you could mount some machine guns on a barge, but that isn't a "fleet" now is it? Nor would it play out in any sea space. Your claims are (again) false!

If we do stretch our imaginations, at least this is placed in the right location. So what does this add to the game? Instead of simply putting others down, lets discuss what it adds (as I discussed)

The benefit is we can now add extra pressure to eliminate possible stalemates vs Iran and Volga itself. This is GOOD!
The negatives however,
Once any stalemate were gone, getting a fleet back to any action would take forever and a day. and such a canal space as is planned only adds extra confusion. You now have two coast lines in Volga? Or do you think of it as a Denmark-like space? (my assumption) Volga is now an uberpowerful space. My fear is it would not affect the game in an advantageous way and would more likely be disruptive to the region.

All that said, I never said "don't do it" I merely made a SUGGESTION! Good lord, Randy doesn't like it, or the reasons so he starts putting me down instead of the idea!?

Grow up randy, put on your big boy pants, take off your bib and use your words.

The basic game is designed for a solo win.
But you need to realize the basic game seldom ends that way and more often than not ends in a stalemate. Stalemates are indeed a part of the game and the "beauty" of such stalemates is they allow players to SOP a solo as we are supposed to do by design as well. To eliminate stalemates changes the base game. To eliminate stalemates and suggest they are inherently bad is to ignore the facts.

Again, reduce them, make them more difficult, all good!
Removal of them is a dis-service to the basic game and suggesting them as bad is ignorant of the facts.

Regarding the realism point: diplomacy will never be able to display "real" wars anyway...if you are arguing from this point of view, it also doesn't make sense that only one army per territory ist allowed.

No, but we don't have air forces either. Nor do we have teleportation devices (well in SOME fantasy variants we do). The game is designed as an accurate representation of the real world as possible. But real world accuracy is already lost in many areas. The Ocean supply centers in this game are a bit of a laugh! Not to mention the split powers and merged powers. These were done for better balance and if you think the canal will add balance then it is absolutely fair to allow!

I just don't see it helping what we are trying to "fix"
Iran would be at a disadvantage more than his neighbors and Iran in this variant seldom does well! It would almost certainly be worse for the game balance than it would help, but this is MY OPINION as they were asked for. My God, any who dare state their opinions that are counter to Randy's superior position is to be ridiculed!?

Instead of something like
"I have to disagree on your points Tom, adding this allows ...."

No, instead we have him launching into personal attacks while not contributing to the discussion by adding even one idea of his own!

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.

al the attacks were personal and they continue to be. You further continue to show your total ignorance and lack of understanding basic game "mechanics" if you don't think stalemates are part of the basic game (and this is what you said) then how can you offer any real input for this variant!? Oh that's right, you have not offered ONE suggestion to date, zero, NONE!

Yet read all your posts and that's what you will find, zero input and only attacks on others. Most of it fabricated nonsense, the rest made to try and paint yourself as some sort of Diplomacy genius whose own opinions only matter.

Input was asked for, I gave my input, I gave reasons and I suggested others ideas. What did YOU do randy? Please advise of your ideas, I have not seen one yet!

Further, another example of your ignorance.
Yes I have played a power in the region. And still further. You claim the Caspian sea area is congested. OK, now explain how this canal will reduce congestion. No, it will further weaken the Iranian power ONLY and the congestion will only get worse when you add a fleet with limited access and exit from that region, once it gets in, it's hard to get him out and that equals more congestion, not less. If you are to use this canal idea, then maybe it's a good idea to split the Caspian Sea? or to get really crazy, allow another canal access as well. That would be crazy but would lessen the negative effects of having only one?

Gee, randy, an IDEA!
That's how this works, not simply ripping others only as you have done here and all other forums. Now, go right ahead and discuss why not to allow such a second canal or split the sea, but do so in a constructive way if it's possible for you to do so?

***************
http://i.imgur.com/wWCxcem.png


Speaking of canals, I was thinking about adding one in the great lakes region. In a similar fashion to FoTAE ( http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=20 ). What do people think?

Tom you have suggested several times to reduce the number of SeaLanes. I'm not going to do this everywhere so what OZs in particular are the most in need of altering?


http://i.imgur.com/wWCxcem.png
***********************I

A couple things to cover, and these are my ideas only. God forbid I should speak my mind if it differs from Randy's opinions, only his seem to matter but since you asked...

The Great Lakes area was actually considered in the basic game
I decided they were too "straight line" and offered little extra to the game and instead drew to make them somewhat more strategic in what they keep from bordering. Again you would have a problem where once entered, it would take too long to get back out and strategic draws now mean less. For those reasons i am against such an adder. IF you do decide to do so, then I would suggest you lessen the negative effects by having a second access point (maybe connecting to the Mississippi river and allow river travel?) but again, now you are really changing a LOT more than even the sea lane concept.

As far as sea lane reductions
You are adding many more in various areas and that's needed, but now with so many spaces and areas of escape, my feeling is it is required to reign in some others, especially those Ocean spaces with 4 lanes, look at the current game in the Indian Ocean and it's just out of control, my suggestion is to change every 4 lane area to 3. Every one of them! I would also suggest changing many of the 3's to 2 as well, this brings the entire concept back in line with being somewhat more equal across the board. I have not given the exact specifics much attention as to this space and that space and simply stated it as a general rule to consider only. If you really feel a space (or three) needs to stay as it is, no problem there! This is generic application only.

"Speaking of canals, I was thinking about adding one in the great lakes region. In a similar fashion to FoTAE ( http://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=20 ). What do people think?"

I think that a Great Lakes zone would be a good idea, with a river/canal system along, exiting into GSL. It might require some slight adjustments of the adjacent spaces for playability issues between Quebec and USA, but this would create additional avenues of alliance, expansion, and conflict for the North American powers. I am ambivalent to a Mississippi River idea. I don't think it's all that necessary based on the reason given, and then you open the door to having to add rivers all over the world (Amazon, Nile, Rhine, Danube, Yangtzee, Moskva, etc.). It's not a horrible idea, but it's not as necessary with the build anywhere rules.

"Tom you have suggested several times to reduce the number of SeaLanes. I'm not going to do this everywhere so what OZs in particular are the most in need of altering?"

I have yet to see a reason why the sealanes should be reduced. The action in the test game in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans is fantastic. Why exactly is there a problem? This type of action is exactly what the WW4 map needed. The oceans were previously much too easy to control, and now they are not. The present map configuration increases the need to develop fleets and to find a balance between fleets and armies of nations as the game evolves, and alliances from and fall. So far the game underway has shown that players cannot simply hide along the continental stalemate lines because the ocean spaces no longer allow this. That's a good thing. Which spaces specifically should be changed, and why? Just saying things are out of control isn't really an example. Yes, it's crazy, and it's unpredictable. This encourages more diplomacy and player interaction. That's a good thing.

Tom, you have not provided a single reason for sealane reduction. Your criticism is simply that it's crazy, and needs to be more even. These are completely esoteric comments with no specific examples or reasons.

It's not a matter of differing opinion. It's about providing a reason for the reductions you are screaming for. You have not played on the map to see the described continental stalemate scenarios, and as such you really do not understand the reason for the sealanes concept. In all prior discussions you claimed that no such issue was present. That perspective has been resoundingly debunked by those of us who have played the map dozens of times. The present map has seen minimal play testing (not even one full game) and yet you have reached the definitive conclusion already that it's intrinsically flawed. Your opinions would carry much more weight if they were based in fact and specific examples, simply because an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary is what called for these changes. Still, you may be right. The map might benefit from reduced sealanes, but we will not have a good idea about that until several test games are completed. Why are you so bitterly opposed to seeing this tested under a larger sampling? My objective in commenting is to make improvements to the map for it's enjoyment by all. I don't claim to know all the answers. I'm advocating testing to gauge the merits of the redesigned map. One half of a game is not a proper sampling.

In my opinion the four space sealane zones provide both attacker and defender opportunities and liabilities simultaneously. You have to be worried about lines of retreat, and you cannot simply bum rush someone because you have three fleets to his one. The argument cannot be made that the map is too offensively oriented. Regardless of the outcome of the present game underway, crossing the oceans is still a significant based on a study of the action, but it present the chance that the continents can be breached, whereas before they could be held with a very minimal number of units.

Moving on to the landlanes shown on the http://i.imgur.com/wWCxcem.png map, I would suggest that some consideration be given to reducing the scope of these, and some study be done to determine how they affect the coastlines. For example , looking at the Siberia landlane zone, it completely undoes the correction that the Barents Sea sealane offered in opening up the logjam at ZAP. ZAP would now have an addition land space advantage over a sea based attack. Adding the BAR two space sealane offered at least slightly improved chance of breaking this point. Overall my thinking is that there are too many of them, and that supply centers should not appear inside a landlane (or sealane for that matter). I would recommend scaling back to a handful of them for play testing, and at making them smaller in overall size (perimeter). My choices base upon past experiences of landlocked areas would be Alps, Himlayas, Central Sahara, and a single Rocky Mountains zone.

Alps - I initially suggested alps, but the coastal adjacencies are alarming. I recommend removing Venice out of the landlane area entirely, and reducing Alps to two lanes (East and West). Is there a way to get Burgundy back into the map?
Himalayas - This one is actually pretty good, but I would reinsert the ASM space and remove the coastal adjacency of the landlane.
Central Sahara - Here I would look at shrinking and combining the two Sahara zones, removing the supply centers from the lane spaces, and trying to reduce the coastal adjacencies that the landlane holds. I would look to making this a region that somehow resides between Egypt, Nigeria, Congo, and Kenya to shake up the typical encounters between these nations
Rocky Mountains - Again here I would look to rshringk and combine these two zones, while inserting them between the various powers, California, Canada, Illnois, and Texas. To keep the SCs out of the land lane this might be difficult, but it cold just involve some redrawing of the borders. Denver for example need not necessarily be drawn as present day Colorado.

Finally Looking at the TIM and JVT sealanes, I would suggest looking at adding one, but not both. Maybe add the JVT zone, but it seems to me that Australia is already very much exposed to sealane vulnerability as it is, and making Timor Sea into a sealane just make this to difficult to defend. I don't have a great suggestion to offer, but based on what we have seen so far Australia's coastal adjacencies were already sufficiently addressed in the first edition sealanes map.

wow some real ideas! ...nice!

My reasons for reducing sea lanes in some areas have indeed been spelled out, playing in an area with a lot of them I can tell you it's a nightmare. I understand the reasons for adding these lanes and the increased action can certainly be exciting. But (in my opinion) they have gone too far and we have too many places to guard. If what Randy says above is true, then why not add more? Why stop at 4 spaces and instead add another 4? Obviously we will run into a situation where we have too many. I have to say four is already just past that point, Randy thinks we need more, maybe it's just right? But again, I have been messing with the zones and it's a bit of a mess. That being said, it's not all bad! But it IS a bit messy and the ability to plot and plan with your allies is greatly diminished making this game more and more a single power game. Having to work with others is maybe the single best thing about Diplomacy. You simply can not win if you do not negotiate and deal with others, while you absolutely still need to do so regardless of how many sea lanes you add, it really is lessened when powers are in these areas with so may options and can not be defended. Defense in the game has taken a big hit, this is already uber offense on the high seas, I suggest reigning it in a bit and allow at least SOME defense. This is something not spoken of much here, the lanes add a lot to offense (that's not all bad mind you) but defense takes it's hit and the game loses much of it's appeal when you do away with so much defense. The lanes can work, but have we not possibly gone TOO far?

I call it the Tom and Randy Drinking game, every time one of them mentions the other in a post, You take a shot of your favorite alcoholic beverage. Happy New Year!

I tried it once, was completely drunk after a half hour.

it took a half hour!?
...I would have guessed ten minutes

As usual, a completely lack of reading comprehension from Tom (that's a Fireball shot for all you needing a kickstart on your new year's celebration). I never advocated increasing the number of sealanes from four to eight. Never. This is simply a flat out lie and hyperbolic distortion from someone losing the argument so badly that he contradicts his own opinions in the very same thread. The other day Tom (drink a Bavarian Lager, not some girly fruit beer) advocated reducing the typical sealane cluster from four lanes to three, but today four is just right? If four lanes is just right as everyone other than Tom (if you're not tipsy yet, try an Irish Car Bomb: 1/2 shot of Jamisons, topped by 1/2 shot of Baileys, dropped into a half pint of Guiness and chugged) thinks, then why is this (part of the) conversation even taking place? Schitzo, much?

I have not asked for more lanes. What I have advocated is more sea spaces being converted to sealanes spaces. My comments were crystal clear on this subject, and could only be misinterpreted by a raging lunatic with an agenda to rebut comment made before actually reading them. I have openly said many times that I do not know if four lanes is the right number, but it looked like a good starting point, and so far it still does. Would a larger or smaller number of lanes be the perfect solution? Possibly, but until we attempt numerous tests we will not know this. Half way through the first test, four lanes is working just about right, and there is no basis for reduction.

The one game going on now isn't a nightmare at all. It looks like pretty epic battles on the high seas with both offense and defensive innovations unfolding from the involved players.

Yes Tom (If you're not by drunk now, just go directly to open bottle guzzling of the straight liquor of choice, or white zinfandel if you are Tom) defense took a big hit in this Sealanes Variant. That was the entire point, specifically on the seas and the coastal regions. This was an experiment al solution to an absolutely necessary change, and so far it has been a success. The suggestion that the oceans are "uber offensive" is completely inaccurate. The oceans are no longer an automatic logjam, and the defense of continents requires a great deal of effort, particularly if you resort to a tactical-only approach. Defense took a big hit in Sealanes because WW4 needed to take a bit hit.

I was initially a fan of another manner of handling the oceans (Deep Sea spaces rather than Sealanes), but that method involved coding challenges that have not be written, and may not be able to be written for the Web Dip interface. Kaner416's attempt to address the specific needs has been hugely successful as it stands, and no nations have been significantly imbalanced from the WW4 starting points. Defense is not impossible on this map, it merely requires skill and, wait for it..... diplomacy, rather than mediocre play defaulting to map crutches.