Good points. I'd like to zoom in on point (3). I don't mind that the triangle design of the Calhamer map is broken; in fact, the thing I like about playing on multiple boards is that you can have direct contact with more different nations than you would have if you played on just one board. However, I completely agree that it isn't replaced with something interesting. Every power just having two neighbours, and England and Turkey even having just one neighbour, doesn't make the map interesting in my eyes.

Regarding issue #4: Are you thinking about reducing the number of SCs or increasing the number of spaces?
Regarding issue #5: I agree that I'd Like to see something more interesting, But what? I thought it'd be interesting if the corners of the boxes bordered, which would add some additional Flexibility, but it sounds like you are looking for something different.

All told, I like the map as it is. I like that the Home SCs are immediately under fire (after the first build phase). If you made enemies in the first year (everyone does), those enemies have a new front to attack you on. I also enjoy the purity of the map, reminiscent of Pure, Chromatic, or Who controls America where each player starts off with nearly identical topography (the fact the England and Turkey border an edge is anathema to this concept, but could be fixed with a wrap around).

Also, the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win the game, which makes it a bit like researching your way to victory in Age of Empires, not best win condition, but effective nonetheless.

I would reduce the number of SCs on the economic map, mostly because I wouldn't want to completely re-do the existing shrunken Calhamer map (and it would probably also become illegible if I made it even smaller to accomodate a larger economic board).

I'm not a huge fan of Chromatic and similar symmetric maps, for the reasons detailed here: https://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/chromatic-diplomacy/
Asymmetrical maps make for meaningful choices, and triangles make for good negotiations as everyone can act with or against everyone. In Economic you could as well flip a coin whether to go left or right, and once the left and the right neighbour of X have decided to fleece X together, there is nothing X can offer to change the minds of the attackers as both can only gain from it and there is no way for one to stab the other as long as power X still stands between them.

@Mercy -

In reality, only Germany actually has 2 neighbors in the Economic map, as France/Italy and Austria/Russia are separated by the impassable barriers to start. Coupled with the design of the Economic board and point #2 above, and it makes the Economic map very dull. If a player like England takes France's starting position in Barley, then England has just basically made it impossible for France to win the game. With a 24 SC victory condition, being locked out on the Economic map has reduced you to a "has-been" virtually immediately, as capturing 24 SCs on the regular map when you have little way of getting additional builds on the economic map would be close to impossible, especially considering your rivals would be gaining builds from the economic map still.

@Caerus -

While the Econ map technically has enough SCs to win, the layout of the map, and the easy ability to blockade people makes that nearly impossible. I mean, taking all but the far right or far left column? With the way the walls are positioned, it's quite simple to stalemate someone somehow.

I think part of the problem I see is that it seems like building in the Economic map in the first build season is a necessity. If you don't, it's quite likely you'll lose your only build center, or at the very least, will be at a severe disadvantage, and will see your ability to win greatly diminished.

@Drano
I agree that winning by those means is not a realistic possibility with the current rules. It is simply a technical possibility that I find interesting. I should never have called it effective, that was a poor word choice. I agree there are a number of decision that are taken from you, (i.e. building in Econ on 1st build) which is why i'd like to see some improvement. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.

@Skyrock
I don't disagree with your preference toward asymmetrical maps. What I found interesting with this map is the juxtaposition between the classic asymmetrical map and the symmetrical Econ Map. I agree the Econ map could use a bit of work (something to make it more dynamic), but if it is instead replaced by another asymmetrical map (especially if troops can travel between them), you are really just extending size of the classic map (something that First Crusade and many others already do to great effect). I am not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, and If you were to make an Econ2.0 map that had 2 asymmetrical connected maps, you can bet I'd play it. I was merely stating the parts of the original design that I like and would prefer to survive the adjustment.

Is it possible to make part of a map Build-anywhere and the other not? Would it be possible to set up the variant such that you could build in any SC in the Econ map, and still only the home centers of the Classic map?

@Caerus:
I don't mind to hear opposing preferences and opinions - that is why I reach out first, rather than to put a lot of effort into a modified Economic variant only to miss the mark.

It would be technically possible to declare every SC on the econ map as a home center for everyone, effectively turning it into partial chaos map. I generally prefer non-chaos variants, but it would only take minutes to also create a partial chaos version if there is popular demand for it.

@Sky: How would that work, exactly?

I was suggesting it as an option to avoid the instant "has-been" status that Drano was talking about. being able to build from any of the Econ centers would allow you some comeback potential if your starting SC was taken. I don't personally like the idea either, but I had it, so I thought I would throw it out here to see how feasible it was.

oh... that was to Skyrock. My apologies.

@Sky Hopper:

How would what work? If you mean turning the econ map into a chaos map, Webdiplomacy (and by extension Vdiplomacy) allows to flag initially owned centers and home centers separately, and the same SC can be assigned as a home center to multiple powers. South American Supremacy ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=24 ) would be a mild example of this, where Maranho (among others) is flagged as a home center for Brazil, but not as an initially owned SC. Classic - Build anywhere ( http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=5 ) would be an extreme example as every SC is flagged as a home SC for everyone, but the powers still only initially hold the standard provinces.

@Sky: Oh. I thought you meant having everyone possess every single center on the econ board at the beginning of the game.

I have done some more doodling and pondering, and have decided that the Economic map should turn the Triangle design of the Calhamer map by 90° by faciliating the Northern Triangle (E, G, R) and the Southern Triangle (A, I, T) - both of which are usually secondary theatres to the main action in the Eastern (A, R, T) and Western (E, F, G) triangles.

The northern triangle would get a moderate amount of neutrals to divide among them, and the southern triangle a greater amount (as they are among the weaker powers on the Calhamer board, either at risk of early elimination (A), suffering from lack of options (T) or being outside of the decisive Eastern and Western triangles and often reduced to sitting duck kingmakers after securing Tunis (I)). - This might possibly unduly strengthen the Eastern triangle (as 2/3 of the Easterners are also in the Southern triangle) and weaken Russia too much, but it seems to me like a risk trying out. I might have to fine-tune a v2 if it warps the power dynamics too much, but only actual play can tell.

France would take the role of Italy, as an in-between between the two major triangles with only one guaranteed build (similar to Tunis for I on Calhamer). France is generally the strongest power with both the best victory and the best survival record, so I think they can live being a second stringer on the secondary map, especially as they still get to be powerful on the main map, and can translate this power into units transferred to the Economic map if they desire so. - On the other hand, Italy could use its stronger position on the Economic map to transfer units from there to the Calhamer board, and have a stronger hand in the outcomes there if it desires so.

I am undecided yet on if I should leave every power at 1 starting SC+unit, or if I should up it to 2 SCs+units.
Another interesting option could be to leave all powers at 1 starting SC on the economic map, but give them extra units in the first year for additional early movement options in the first year. (I have seen something similar done in a Diplomacy variant about the invasion of Germanic tribes into falling Rome a few years ago, but am unable to locate that variant.)

>Diplomacy variant about the invasion of Germanic tribes into falling Rome<

Is it Imperium? https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=13

I found a couple of variants in the same setting (Migration Period) over at the PlayDip forums, I think I still have the screens.

Yes, that was the one!