Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1901: Hi MMA, I don't believe we've met before. Thanks for joining and good luck.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1901: Good luck too, I don't believe either, but it's been a while since my last finished game here.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1902: sorry, to keep you waiting, I started talking to someone on facebook, forgot about this.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1902: It's ok, I am doing homework myself, so won't always be fast with me responses
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1902: Question, was that a mis-order in Germany? I was expecting you to move to Ruhr to put two units on Munich in the fall.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1902: Doesn't really matter, I was just wondering
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1903: I missed the War-Sil move, i thought you had two options being Tyr-Boh and Tri-Tyr or backed up move into Munich, I wouldn't lose in either cases, but missed the third.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1903: ahh fair enough I've played about 100 1v1 games in the past, and around 40 of them being FvA (however none in the last year), so I think experience is helping me out, as you'll probably miss more then I will.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1903: Yes, I haven't played a lot of these. I realised in autumn 1 that Mar-Bur would probably have been better. Another fun game is France-Germany, played it twice in a random 1v1, was better balanced than expected
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1903: and before you ask, me supporting you into Burgundy was intentional, I was going to enter a hold order so I figured I might as well make the map look nicer with an extra support order, lol
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1903: Ah, I was wondering, you probably knew you coudn't disband your own unit., have done it myself when I was playing a big game and have like 25 units, I just used a random support so you know you checked the unit.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1903: "I realised in autumn 1 that Mar-Bur would probably have been better." Marseilles to Spain was a mistake, France has two options for the opening turn: Northern Opening: Paris-Picardy and Marseilles to Burgundy Southern Opening: Marseilles-Piedmont (pressure Venice/Tyrolia) and Paris-Burgundy. Its been over a year since I last played France so I actually can't remember what the fleet is suppose to do (Moving to Spain south coast is one option and is normally a good idea, but some players would rather use it to pick up London in the first year and I can't remember when, if at all, that would make sense.)
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1903: They both seem superior to mine, I think I'd prefer the northern one, because your army easily gets stranded in italy and can't pick up a build. In my other three encounters Austria always emerged victorious as do the numbers claim, but the matchup seems quite fair.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1904: damn, I guessed wrong on both main moves. I was hoping to bounce you in both Kiel and Venice. The Tyrolia-Munich was a just encase you tried to support yourself into Munich, but ultimately I was hoping to stay in Munich.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1904: The Venice move was calculated, and intended for you to leave rome, I don't think you got of worse with Kiel, though you have a 50% chance to lose one now, In Munich you would have controlled the situations better, I'll give you that.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Spring, 1904: Sorry for the rather large post, I enjoy talking strategy during 1v1s. "I think I'd prefer the northern one, because your army easily gets stranded in italy and can't pick up a build." The southern opening is more powerful then people think: It gives Austria a much harder time in taking Italy and when Austria doesn't expect it, it completely cripples Austria. It is however a high-risk strategy, if it works it all but guarantees victory for France, however if it fails it costs France a few builds in the early game which generally means they'll lack the units in the midgame to win. Based on my moves in Spring 1901, the move to Piedmont was your best bet: Both Trieste and Budapest moved away from Venice, meaning that if you moved to Piedmont I couldn't keep you out of both Munich and Venice in A1901. That means you'd still have gotten 2 builds, and it would have guaranteed you get Tunis by 1903 (granted you did anyway) and I wouldn't have been able to take Munich and maintain control of the Ionian (I couldn't have built a second fleet with you in Venice, as leaving Trieste unoccupied would allow you take it). So if you moved to Piedmont with Marseilles, you'd be in either Munich or Ionian right now, which either way would be very bad news for me. Now this is only based on my opening. Had I tried to take Venice in 1901, you would have only gotten 1 build in 1901 and the lack of units would make it near impossible to win. "In my other three encounters Austria always emerged victorious as do the numbers claim, but the matchup seems quite fair." Austria is far more noob friendly than France which is the main reason the stats are so tilted in Austria's favour. It is surprisingly balanced, but Austria does have a slight advantage. It is still the most balanced of the non-symmetrical 1v1s (and lets face it, the symmetrical maps look ugly and so people don't like them) and w I've had the idea for a while to create a couple of custom map 1v1s, and while I know the approximates of what I want the maps to look like (I have 3 ideas), I haven't had to will to actually drawn them out yet (map drawing takes time) or figure out the necessary coding required to upload a variant. "Another fun game is France-Germany, played it twice in a random 1v1, was better balanced than expected" It's more balanced then most people would think, but Germany has a large advantage. Of the possible classic 1v1s I'd say its either 3rd or 4th most balanced: AvF is most, followed by GvI. I haven't played GvF enough to know whether it is more or less balanced then EvT, but those are 3rd and 4th on my list. "The Venice move was calculated, and intended for you to leave rome, I don't think you got of worse with Kiel, though you have a 50% chance to lose one now, In Munich you would have controlled the situations better, I'll give you that." The way I was thinking was you had too options with Piedmont, you'd either make a move for Venice, or you would tap Tyrolia hoping to cut off a potential support hold. I figured given that you are behind by 3 scs, you'd try for Venice hoping to catch up. I almost held in Rome thinking that you might tap Rome, I also considered moving to Naples figuring you might try for Naples (as that would give you both a supply center and maintain pressure on Ionian). I decided that in the end Venice was the safest move, as the worst possible outcome of the turn in regards to Italy would be you taking Venice. My moves in Germany were also based on safest move: It was the only way to guarantee you were kept out of both Kiel and Munich. So both cases were just me being cautious, there were other moves that had higher rewards, but they had higher risks. Since I am winning at the moment, I decided the safest moves were best.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1904: Right you are. About the F-G, the original is G-R which I find not really balanced, and is won 3-1 by Russia E*-T seems unbalanced but it goes quite well seeming the stats. The other two are fine to me, I've always wondered what would be the most unfair match? A symmetrical map is indeed no fun, two different positions adds a better dimension, though I like chess, but I hardly open symmetrical there. How do you actually test the balance of a map? I mean, playing against yourself seems a little stupid, and too predictable, but someone else might just like one position more and win always with that one.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1904: EvT is incredibly unbalanced. If the England player knows what he is doing it should be impossible for Turkey to win. gameID=14881 is a game where I was announcing all my moves the turn before they were to happen so that my Turkish opponent could play the 'perfect game' (since he would know what my moves where before they happened, he could easily counter any move I made). Now Turkey did win this game, but I'd argue that the only reason I lost was because of my mistake in Spring 1904. Had I moved to Spain instead of West Med, that would have kept him out of Marseilles which would have made it impossible for him to take Munich the next year (only reason he took it was cause I couldn't use Burgundy to support hold it). Had that been the case, then I would have had 17 guaranteed centers (all 3 neutrals where on my side of the board, it would just be a matter of getting them.) The battle of Tunis in 1905 would have ended differently since my fleet movements would have been different in 1904. If I won the battle of Tunis, I would have ended the game in a solo, if I lost it, the game would have ended in a draw. Now obviously in this game Turkey made moves that he never would have done in an actually game, since knowing my moves in advanced allowed him to think a head in a way that would otherwise be impossible. However the point was to demonstrate that an England player who knows what he's doing can't lose, no matter how skilled his opponent, and even though England lost, I still think this game demonstrates that. "A symmetrical map is indeed no fun, two different positions adds a better dimension, though I like chess, but I hardly open symmetrical there." Chess technically isn't completely symmetrical. White moves first, so there will never be a point in which the board is symmetrical from Blacks perspective. "How do you actually test the balance of a map?" You take a few things into account: Access to centers (eg. You'll almost never see a game where France takes Rumania cause Austria has far easier access to it): There are 16 centers that Austria has the easier access to, while 15 where France has easier access to. The remaining 3 (Munich, Berlin and Tunis) are how most games are decided. Very rarely will a country win a game without controlling two of those three centers. Now Austria has the advantage that it only needs two of them to win, while France needs all 3. Stalemate lines: in AvF, both sides have access to multiple stalemate lines to hold an enemy too. Access to early supply centers: In GvI, the largest reason Germany has an advantage on Italy, is that Italy is more limited in early expansion. It's impossible for Italy to capture 3 nuetral supply centers in the opening year if Germany moves to Tyrolia. Often-times Germany will get 1 build more then Italy in the first year, and while 1 unit may not sound like much, the disadvantage multiplies as the game moves on: If Germany has 5 centers and Italy has 4. Germany can use 2 units to harass Italy (aka tie up a couple of their units). Meaning Germany will likely get 3 builds in 1902 to Italy's 2 (meaning it would then be 8 to 6). You have been having this problem in this game: In 1902 I got 3 builds and you only got 1. My 'extra units' have been able to have the single responsibility of taking centers to guarantee me builds, and despite losing Rome I was still able to get 3 builds last year. There are probably a few other things to consider, I've never actually tried to create a map before.
26 Sep 14 UTC	Autumn, 1904: And I guessed wrong again. Debated between hitting Rome or support holding Piedmont. lol
29 Sep 14 UTC	Well played, you will win next turn, indeed the bad second year was too much a drawback to me. maybe if I had played my first year better I could've won, even if I got into petersburg you would have won when you take Naples. EvT, would it be balanced if England started in normal starting position? Those are pretty good points in balancing, with more players that gets a lot harder to accomplish, when countries get natural enemies. Take 1066 for instance, everyone attacks England there..