Good point on Gdansk. I can live with the territory being designed the way it is since the playability on this map is so strong, but yeah, why put the city over there? On the other hand, I think that western portion of Siberia that we're seeing is actually somewhat north of the Caspian.

im just saying that the province called Gdansk could be more accurately called Bialystok

What's with the language? Tone it down a notch...
I didn't say add Algeria and don't mess around with the board more than that with Algeria comes a greater expansion of the SC count and land space in Africa thus allowing for a more field play, secondly with an Algeria we wouldn't need a Gib and Gib SC can be relocated to Cardiff or Plymouth

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=672&p=3918#p3918
Last Post on the page per usual

Wow!--Great idea, great map, has it been play-tested?

no, I just designed it to make my arguement for a 2011 updated modern which apprantly will "fuck Spain and Egypt a little bit more."

It definitely needs to be play-tested, but you've done a great job with the design. Key for me is that you added the extra neutrals to compensate for Algeria's existence, like with Andalusia in Spain, and you made sure that you can get behind Algeria. I think it makes a lot of sense for all of Spain, England, Italy, and Egypt. But as with all new variants, you really need to test-drive them a bit to find out where they're not working and make adjustments before they'll be ready for serious play. I'd love to play if you can get this up on the site here for next year.

Andalusia is not an SC, Andorra is. It is a whole country separated from Spain, inbetween France and Spain.
What would be the original builds, in this variant?
If you want to playtest, let me know, i'm in

Hm Italy loses a neutral centre in Tunisia. Would need a compensation somewhere?

I persoanlly don't believe so since Italy has the balkans.
If this was playtested someone else would need to organize because I'm a terrible organizer

The tiny Andorra, right. I got my AND's messed up. I stand corrected.

The issues I can see arising are that Algeria has three ports on the water all in vicinity of each other. I think one port will undoubtedly have to be moved south.

Also, it will probably be better if Algeria is two opening moves away from Morocco, so that Spain has an equal shot at it as well. If Algeria has too much of a claim on it, it will probably lead to them going north too much of the time.

Since Algeria has a claim on Mali and Tunisia, Libya probably also needs to be two opening moves away Libya. Then Libya would make for some interesting play with all of Algeria, Italy, and Egypt being two moves away from it.

That was supposed to say: "Algeria probably also needs to be two opening moves away Libya."

Easily done, F Con

Better, but that still gives Algeria an awful lot of power over TUN and LIB. It could work, but a thorough examination of the Algerian sphere of influence and a little careful tweaking before and after play-testing are still needed IMO.

b-a-d o-r-g-a-n-i-z-e-r

I will repeat the point that I have yet to play a Modern game in which Egypt did not get walled in by the third year. I've watched two of the best players on here draw Egypt and through all of their unquestionably great skill barely cling to 1 SC survivals as vassals in a stalemate line.

Is the big money table happening or is it doomed?

(Shrug) even reading the Modern Diplomacy Strategy Articles on the Pouch you get the feeling that the variant isn't that balanced, I never really liked a few things on the map in the first place.

I've only played Standard, Colonial, Aberration, and Modern, but I find it the most balanced of the four. And not to fear with Egypt, I've seen it nearly miss a solo and be part of a small draw a few times. Nevertheless, as with most variants, I feel a few things could be improved upon, like GIB.

Ok, four days to go and we need five more players (particularly since I'm not sure what happens if we don't fill the game?). Did I set the points too high? This is my 1st game here and I was awarded 100 to start, so I assumed at least half the people would have at least that many points. Should I have set the game for 50 or 75 per player?

I'd like to know who has joined so I know whom to bug.

@G-Man

100 per player is consider to be bet for high ranked games. Usual bet is considered to be 10 . Your game will be canceled if 7 players don join, so I suggest you to create low bet game and you there will be enough players who want to play.

Alright, four out of five position filled, I am impressed!

One more player needed for Modern Gunboat, winner takes all 1,000 ! Just think of how many games you'll be able to play with that!

1st in the Game of Games series.

And thanks Dejan. I definitely wanted high-ranked players, but of course not so high that the game wouldn't happen!

One more player is doable, however with the 100 bet, we are going to be all known faces :)
gameID=2855
1000 for the winner IF there's a winner

Well if we're all going to be known faces I'll throw 100 into the fray.

I take credit for harassing Amby to join.

Thank you all for your interest and thanks to those who prodded others to join to round out the positions.

I'm new here, so could you explain how we will all be known faces? I.e., couldn't someone have 100 in play by having four games going?

Also, in the future, is there any way to set a preference list for powers?

There is no preference list tool.

But at least on the classic map the more you play one power the lower the probability you get the same power again.