gameID=717
My turn!

Interesting concept, but if someone is knocked out of the economic table aren't they virtually eliminated from soloing? I would never move out of my 'home' economic SC then.

Why, I would move around. However the economic map gives Turkey and England an advantage

Because if you move out of your initial Economic SC (say Rice for Turkey) to Spices and Russia takes Rice, even if down the road you get a 2nd Economic SC you wouldnt be able to build another unit without taking Rice back. (At least thats how I read the rules, correct me if I'm wrong).

When I think of a nation's economic resources I associate with its territory and/or trade routes. If I were to add an economic element to the game then I would create another type of marker for some of the territories on the original map (for instance putting 'Wine' in Burgundy). Maybe these ESCs could be worth 1/2 or less (meaning you'd need to hold on to 2 to get another build). Or if you really wanted to you could add a way to destroy the ESC (like Russia's scorched earth policy). I have absolutely no idea how this could be done code-wise, just throwing out ideas.

That was a variant me and some friends once played. When you take a sc, you can choose to turn it into a regular territory.

Kinda interesting

It has always been an observation of mine with the standard game that 1/2 of Germany's economic output flowed through the Ruhr in the early 1920s and yet it is not a SC. One of the major aspects of German thinking during the period hinged on the fact that their economically important infrastructure was so disproportionately close to the border with France. I read awhile back that France nearly lost the war in the opening months and were to a degree saved by the German flanking maneuver. Their battering ram approach in Alsace was just a bloodbath, but that it made some sense in that the war would have been over pretty quickly, if France advanced 100 miles into Germany.

But no, I have no idea how to incorporate things like that into a Diplomacy game.

Bump!

thanks for your feedback!!

@raapers2: yes, it's true that if you move out of your center and your neighbour is nasty you'll lose forever a spot in the economic panel until someone allows you back. on the other hand, if you remain in your first economic center you'll never get more economic centers, and that is almost as bad as losing your home economic center. I think the scenarios are very interestinf, let's see.. I tried to balance the total stabby mess by putting the blockades to certain movements. so for example if you're Russia you only have to find an agreement with and trust of Turkey, and you can safely ignore the others.
@fasces349: I wouldn't say England and Turkey have advantages, I'd say they have good and bad points as in standard Diplomacy. I tried to reflect in the economic map the situation in the political one. England and Turkey are in the corner; they are better positioned for defense, but have less chances to expand. France and Russia are close neighbors of E and T, and the two powers of each couple can to a certain degree influence each other. Germany is completely at the center of everything.. this means he's never safe, but also he's more opportunities for growing. I think that after a few years a number of stalemate lines will form in the economic map.. and the only powers which can circle them will be the three central ones (G I A), and in particular Germany.
@raapers2 again: you're absolutely right about the terrotorial positioning of the economic centers, and we had the same idea about linking the political and economic centers.. I have an idea about developing it, but there are a few projects waiting before that'll happen. but if you're interested we can start to develop the idea together.. let me know and PM me if you're ready to go!
enjoy

@Tadar: Yes, as in the classic game Russia and Turkey need to work together to grow on the economic table, but how often do you see a juggernaut formed in the very first year? It is significantly more likely that one or the other goes for the quick stab to eliminate their first major threat. I think a really easy fix would just be to make the economic table 'build anywhere'. Or rearrange the initial ESCs so they arent immediate neighbors but have 1 neutral separating them that they have to fight over.

Yeah I really have no idea what it takes to develop these maps/games. I'm open to throwing out ideas/criticisms, but I doubt I would be of much help beyond that.

@raapers2: I thought a lot about the economic table... it's true I'm not completely satisfied, for the reasons you pointed out. we'll see...
about the map, I'll let you know once I've got a more concrete idea, ok?

@gopher: I'd think simply giving Germany a fourth HSC in Ruhr would suffice. I actually don't even think it would imbalance the game and might even rebalance it to some extent; current metagame* trends show Italy often moves east and Russia focuses south, leaving basically no recourse for Germany if EF gang up on him. (Meanwhile, if Germany allies with either of EF against the other, there is always recourse -- Germany has so many neighbors that inviting *someone* to jump him isn't too difficult!) This has led to Germany being one of the least successful powers according to more recent statistics available, 6th in wins and 6th in draws (ahead of only the aforementioned Italy). A fourth center would not only be historically accurate given the importance of the Ruhr, but would also be accurate in that it would allow Germany to wage war on two fronts effectively, as it did in reality... and it might even make the game *more* balanced, despite introducing what would seem to be an imbalancing factor.

Only question is where to add a 38th center!

Why not add the 38th in Ireland? That would at least guarantee England a build and I have to agree with Eden on Germany needing a 4th center I mean historically Germany was way more powerful than Turkey or Italy or Austria

Oh, God no. Not on the same side of the major stalemate line. It would have to be in the eastern sphere. Maybe North Africa? Albania?

I only suggest Ireland because I was thinking of 7 islands and thats the first that came to mind, although putting one in north africa would help italy

plus i still say we need a map where Switzerland is at least passable

i would swap france and italy on the economic board...
france + eng is an often alliance, but hard to go with this constellation on the economic board?

Personally, I'd like to see the left and right sides of the map connected. This would let England directly influence Turkey's economic growth, which makes sense in a geopolitical sense.

Actually, the economic map is a PERFECT way to rebalance the percieved weaknesses of the original map: Germany was an industrial powerhouse at the time, and thus should be able to quickly expand on the economic map.

Personally, I think Germany and/or Austria should be moved to the "edges" of the map, while France and Russia put in the center...Make strangers into neighbors and you'll really mix up the politics =]

this is interesting.. my idea was exactly the opposite..
can you bring arguments in favor of your idea?

Well, a major problem with the way the map is set up right now are the barriers on Rye and Barley. With the bottlenecks there and the ones surrounding Coal, it sets up a stalemate line with nearly no upkeep and no way of overcoming it.

With only units on Vodka, Krystal, and Gunpowder, any Turkey or Russia can hold a whopping 10 centers completely uncontested, even if they give no orders to those units. The same occurs on the other side of the map, with England or France on Cheese, Glass, or Sulphur. This is a MASSIVE imbalance when it comes to design, and enforces the traditional power inequalities rather than solve them.

This could be easily solved by making England and Turkey neighbors, by allowing one "corner power" to beat up his opposite. The economic map is a totally abstract and should allow any power to effect powers it wouldn't normally have contact with, at least not towards the end of the game.

We already have a severe example of a stalemate in gameID=717, where Turkey refuses to stab Austria, and is too far away to effectively strike either Italy or England. Likewise, Italy has a serious advantage on the economic map over Turkey but cannot effectively strike at his bloated army.

If the left side of the map was connected with the right side, England's two unit stalemate would be undone which could be enough to break his massive stalemate on the main map. Or maybe Italy could sweep through Turkey's stranglehold on the right side of the map and make a mad dash for the win.

Except that if Turkey and Italy took my 2 Economic centers, I would still have my entire Main map remaining, and you would be stuck fighting on the Economic panel. I like the Economic map the way it is honestly. I think there would be a few minor tweeks, but nothing major.

@butterhead, that's the POINT! The economic panel is a way to indirectly overcome a stalemate line or to jab at players that are otherwise out of reach. Do you think Turkey would have so many unsupported armies on the main map if he wasn't completely safe on the economic panel?

In fact, maybe even the top and bottom of the economic map should be connected as well! It'd make defense of one's circle of influence all the easier...

Alright, so let's think: What are the observed weaknesses in the original map?

--Turkey and England have relatively uninteresting opening play and are diplomatically isolated.

--Germany and Austria are completely surrounded by enemies, and both will fall quickly without some kind of support or ally.

--Italy is isolated diplomatically as well, and usually the most ambitious it gets is an alliance with Russia. Almost always attempts a Lepanto opening.

The "geography" of the economic map is perfect for countering these disadvantages without having to reflect the actual geography of the map. Right now the economic map tends to favor the central powers only because they are used to cooperating, and because it removes the immediate influence of the corner powers. But the central powers are still "central" and the corner powers remain in the corners.

If the left and right sides of the map are not connected, then at least move Germany, Italy, and Austria to the corners, while Russia, England, Turkey, and France are moved to the center. Try to put players next to others they wouldn't normally interact with! Here's a new proposal for the order of the powers:

G-T-E-I-R-F-A

May not be perfect, but it does fairly well at conveying a rough political sketch of the period, as well as encouraging more unorthodox alliances. Tell me what you think!

Hmm... Another interesting change to the rules might to only have units on the economic map for the first year, and then build in the HSC's that first winter. Economy mandates policy, after all =]

Ooh, I like the thought Triskelli has put into this. Has some good points, that one does!

Especially a fan of making the economic board wrap around top to bottom and left to right. Or at least one of them. And also rearranging that map.

One other thing: Has anyone played the NoNeutrals variant yet? I played a game or two on the old server and it was really fun: The slightly smaller armies encourage maneuver even more than usual. I actually was able to pull off a 3-way draw as a dominant Austria against a tiny Germany and England. Granted, I would have collapsed if the game went on much longer, as I didn't have enough units to really hold the line (Victory was 12 units, I made it to 11).

It would definitely add another layer to the game if the economic map was THE main source of income for the powers, and sported armies far larger than the political map could actually support. Let's see:

Removing the neutrals: 34-12 = 22
Adding the Economic : 22+28 = 40
Which would make the normal victory condition 21. Since we're supporting fast-growing powers (And because the economic map is prone to stalemates), let's drop that down to 18 needed for victory.

To put that in more physical terms, that means that in order to win, a player would need to control 6 countries if they've lost the economic map, control 4 "spheres" of economic influence if they've lost on the political map, or any lower combination of the two.

gameID=1023

Time to teach a lesson in Mercantile economy!