I love 1 vs 1. The best maps based on my limited experience are Classic France vs Austria, followed by Frankland versus Juggernaut; that France and Germany combined as one power vs Russia and Turkey combined as one power.

I think it best whichever you play to play your opponent twice, with each taking turn at the powers.So even though Germany vs Italy is unbalanced you can each take a turn playing Germany (and while it is unbalanced there is still plenty of room, even between solid players for Italy to win).

1 vs 1 is a great way to play for sharpening your tactics and strategy. It's also a great way to play for the time poor.

GvI is a great variant. Common thought is that Germany has an advantage, but I don't see it.

I don't like EvT because it is mostly a race. I guess it's fairly balanced, but I've only played it a few times. My thought is that it's balanced because its a race, and there is not much conflict until much of the game has passed.

I don't know about FG vs RT.

FvA is also a great variant, and very balanced. Except, it has the potential of ending in a draw easily.

I've just found the 1v1 games.
EvT was the most balanced statistically, so I chose to play a bunch of games of that. I've found that England has a much better shot at winning than Turkey. The game is basically a race to the stalemate line, as Devonian said. However, it's much easier for England to get over than Turkey. England has a much easier time getting to Pete, Tunis or Warsaw for 18, and can easily block Turkey from Spain, Pete and Mun. Unless England makes some serious errors, the best outcome for Turkey is setting up the 17/17 draw.

Duo is a good variant, except I wish they had programmed the self supporting neutrals like variant calls for. The game can go on endlessly once the neutrals are gone. It also gets very mind numbing with the symmetrical design and made up names.

I have only played GvI once. I played Italy. I won, but I found it a challenge. The stats are Germany's favour by some margin, but maybe the sample size is too small.

I know winning as italy is hard, but with two games you can compare the total of your score as italy and as germany, and compare directly to their score are italy + germany...

FvA was the first map (which Oliver made) that i'm aware of. And i still think it is one of the best.

EvT is entirely a race, though i think where you race is also important, can't remember, but crossing various stalemate lines is pretty big, right?

FG vs RT has two central countries with 6 centers, vs a central country with 4, and an edge country with 3.

I would have assume that Russia's extra home SC would give a big advantage, but i think it is balanced out by how slow Turkish units are to get out - and 6 home SCs for FG mean they aren't that limited...

The stats are in Frankland's favour. But in my experience it feels pretty even. I think Frankland vs Juggernaut is fairly unforgiving though. You really need to try not to make a mistake early on.

The best part about 1 vs 1 is that game usually end with a victor. Much as I love classic 7 player diplomacy, so many games end in draws. Too many.

Cold war is unique and a fun one to play because you have 2 fronts to consider. It seems balanced.

orathaci, why do you refer to Frankland vs Juggernaut as "your stuff up". It's a brilliant variant. I didn't realize you made it. Respect :)

oops I see you actually said "your *mess up"... why do you think it is a mess?

"Frankland vs Juggernaut as "your stuff up". " that was me messing around, looking for another workable 1vs1;

i don't think there are any other combinations of classic countries that work. (at least that i could think of at the time) infact i'm surprised the GvI works aswell as it does.

Glad it works, i wonder if wintergreen (R-I) Vs would work... probably against F-E or F-G...

(**Oh, and yes, i did at least some of the work there. Except, 'work' isn't really a fair description. Oliver did the first (and i still assume best) FvA which required some actual original thought. And compared to other variants, there is very little new coding, same map, same connections, same supply centers... so very minimal amount of work. Infact i could easily produce a few more.)

Could you produce one where the neutral countries have units that disband when dislodged?

GvI is interesting. By all appearances, Germany should have a massive advantage, being able to develop their forces much more easily than Italy can. But if Italy can secure Tyrolia (and they usually should) then the constant threat to Munich means that Germany can't actually capitalise on their excess of builds.

Rather limited field of games on that map for me, but the statistical favouring of Germany seems to stem from that - if they can safely build in Mun, it's very hard for them to lose. But if Italy knows what they're doing, they can make it very difficult for Germany to be able to use more than 2 builds a year, which really starts to add up by the 4th of 5th year.

E*vT is another I find quite interesting, because it's mostly about the race (and thus can be planned out) rather than the out-thinking, which I've always been average at.

I agree it's hard to balance - with the deployed start, England can reliably hit Tunis and St.P before Turkey does, but without it England falls massively behind on builds. Has a version with the London fleet remaining in London been attempted? Would make the race to Tunis slightly more even, I'd think.

Cold War is great, I've been able to win as both the USSR and NATO. Stats also say it's balanced, though slightly in favor of the USSR.

@ Mouse
I think starting England in London would cause more problems than it would fix. Yes, England get can to Tunis quickly, but if Turkey starts with Ank-Con, he can bounce England from Tunis in 02. In doing that, though Turkey's down a build in 01, by bouncing England in 02, he can deprive England of 3 builds in 02, thus putting them back on equal footing.
After a EvT game, I was discussing with my opponent how to balance the game more. We came up with starting England in the Norwegian Sea, rather than North, and Turkey in Black. That gives Turkey a little jump start if he wants, without limiting his other options. To England, it moves him slightly further away from the lowlands, and so slows him down just a tad.

It's not Ank->Con that means Turkey doesn't get a build, it's the Con->Aeg (rather than Con->Bul(sc)) that follows it to facilitate bouncing Tun that causes the issue. I'd go so far as to argue that Turkey should pretty much always open Ank->Con. They really need that fleet out being useful, and similarly need an army up contesting Russia.

And how does being able to bounce Tun deny England a build? Surely they're picking up something like Bre, Hol/Bel, Nwy/St.P for three regardless?
Starting with the fleet one move back means they both have to skip a build to get to Tun in Fall 02, and thus it becomes an actual question about going for it, or playing it safe to get the build. Though probably slightly favouring Turkey in that, since their second fleet can be right there after, while the English one will be trailing and picking up the skipped centres.

F Nwg could be OK, but I'd want the ability to choose A Edi or A Lon. Otherwise you're just locking the Channel fleet into a convoy (and effectively starting it in Lon) /and/ completely denying a northern army opening.

@"Devonian (1761 D)
Could you produce one where the neutral countries have units that disband when dislodged?
"

Yes, show me a variant where this has already been done and i can copy and paste the copy. FvA +neutrals might he interesting.

But i do think the advantage of these 1vs1 variants is the speed. No need to invest too much time, and lots of the same tactical decisions as diplomacy; so more fun per unit time. That said, i think it would take very little effort.

Looking at E*vT, i had forgotten both english fleet are at sea. I'd be tempted to put the turkish fleet in Aeg (oh my, i used to know the map off by heart... Having to look it up for terr names sucks so much...)

Aeg would allow a convoy to greece, and taking tunis, and sligthly hurt options for going north in '02 (could still build a fleet in ank, and use it to convoy an army to sev in '02 and onward)

Meanwhile norwegian sea is strictly weaker, you could also try moving english channel to irish sea. Though that limits english options, if heading for tunis is optimal it actually strengthens england... (Odd how removing things can make you stronger...)

I think i will leave it alone for now.

Aeg would probably be /too/ strong for Turkey - can hit Tunis in 01 uncontested, then start the bouncing over W.Med.

A Con A Ank F Smy, maybe? Would mean they could pick up Greece on the way to bouncing Tunis, same as England picks up Spain, or they've the option on passing that up to get to Tunis in spring 02 (again, mirrored by England). And it's no loss on the army side - A Ank is effectively identical to A Smy.

Leaving it alone also works.

I used to play on another site that had as a variant one player control England, France and Russia while the other controlled Germany, Austria and Turkey. Italy was neutral but I think still had armies/fleets present so you needed support to go through. I thought it was cool because it was pretty much Central Powers vs Allies.

I think the allies were a bit stronger but not overly so. The scs needed to win was higher, maybe 21?

Orthaic, Duo and 1066 have neutrals that need to be dislodged.

I was thinking that any of the 1v1 variants that are unbalanced could be balanced by placing a neutral or several neutrals strategically that balance them.

For example, in GvR, what if Rumania and Sweden had neutral units, or all of Turkey had neutral units? It might give Germany a chance.

gwad - I seem to recall that's actually the default Diplomacy 2-player rules. Might be fun to try :)

I would also love to see the "official" 3-6 player variants also:

6 player: Italy are neutrals that must be dislodged.
5 player: Italy and Germany are neutrals that must be dislodged.
4 Player: E vs AF vs GT vs RI
3 Player: EFA vs RI vs FT

Cold war has three fronts I feel. You have the European theater, the Asian theater and the American theater. I really enjoy the three locations for fighting. NATO controls the American theater and USSR controls to Asian theater. Both are strong in Europe. It is fun, but there are many matches where I believe guessing more correctly wins the day. I play this with a coworker where we can see each others faces. It makes it way more interesting and poker like.

@Devonian, you may get that wish.

I am making a todo list :) we'll see how much progress there is. But mainly, it is gery easy to make these maps...

Sounds good.
I got the 3 player one wrong, its EGA vs RI vs FT

I was just wondering, the Pick you Country variant is quite good, but is it possible to have a version so that if you put into the title for example RI/AG then it would set up a 2 player game with one player controlling Russia and Italy and the other controlling Austria and Germany. Either that or some other mechanism to allow one player to control multiple countries?

Possible, but not necessarily easy...
Selecting your own two countries might be an interesting alternative start...

Or indeed selecting three SC to be your home SC; like in variants where you start with one unit and your home SCs become set after a year or two. But that would require more work than i'm willing to put in right now.