@ezpickins, yes a better Civil War variant is needed, I think. Not sure how one would go about that.

Also a fan of fasces' Cold War, though I'd alter the nukes a bit. But since it's not going to happen right now, who cares what I think? :-)

Nukes should be over powered and dangerous. The armegaddon counter is to try to prevent the leaders of the countries from nuking each other. Should they be dumb enough to use nukes, the world ends and both sides loose.

I suppose so... I'd be interested to see how that plays out.

I realize there has been discussion of a different type of cold war variant (whole world, nukes) however I tried to design what Imperial Civilization described as I said I would. I didn't put names on it yet because I wanted to make sure it was what you wanted. So here it is so far: http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=653. And I haven't yet thought about balance issues.

I have made several variants some well thought out some well half-cooked. My most recent one is one which I find interesting. A Second Ferelden Civil War 30 years after the events of Origins.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwZ3TXdj5ZyHMzg0Y2JkYzktYTIxMy00MTFkLThkYmYtNGU2OTdhNmQ0Y2Iw&hl=en
My current project is creating a new Modern Diplomacy and updating it to 2011. Which includes (for now) Algeria as a new power, "Two Libyas", the White-Baltic Sea Canal.

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=653

@Elphias: That was much, MUCH better than I expected anyone to do, but, unless you do feel like it would diminish the fun of the variant, could you take one SC out of West Germany, and one out of the USSR?

@ezpickens- I am currently starting to work on some maps I want to do... 3 to be exact. all on the 48 States, and one is a 2 player game that will be a civil war game.

Of course. I actually didn't realize I gave West Germany four SCs until after I posted it. The USSR I had made 3 SCs in the north and then decided to add one in the south. I am also planning on making a few more changes for balance and playability.

Ok, thanks for all you have done with this variant. I think you should deserve more credit then me when it is finally able to add to the site.

maybe you could let West Germany have four SCs and Units to begin with, but none of the units start in Berlin?

THEN EAST BERLIN CAN MARCH RIGHT IN TO WEST BERLIN!!!

Not happening in this variant, ezpickins

thats the point ImpCiv, it makes the relationship strained like it was in real life.

I know, it may be realistic, but we have to keep the game fair for all the countries, including the Germanies.

I'd almost say divide France and England to make it 6 player, 3 NATO, 3 commie (although Yugoslavia was kinda its own thing.)

Sorry to disregard your suggestion SD, but I have a request for Eliphas: Do you think Warsaw Pact could have its starting SC's at Warsaw, Kiev, and St. Petersburg?

how about give West Berlin a fortress rule similar to Benevento in Renaissance, that way you can simulate a siege of West Berlin

:( can you post the link to the image? webdiplomacy.net is censored at school unfortunately.

Hey, no comments on the forums...?
More discussion, please.. :-))

The HQ of NATO is in Brussels, so Brussels should be part of NATO...

Sorry, not st. Pete, but leningrad

I agree with that Fasces, Brussels should be a supply center rather than Marielles.
@Oli: What did you mean by that?

I love the idea of a Cold War variant. I think longer term the site would probably have two variants: a global game and a straight NATO/Warsaw Pact variant.

The global game would be presumably played on a map like WWIV and you'd have not only USSR/USA but also their allies. To keep the game realistic you'd also have a number of neutrals (the most significant of course being China who was pretty much on the fence after the Sino-Soviet split in '61 and detante between China and USA after Nixon's visit in '72).

Personally while the nukes would be good, let's be realistic. If one side is losing and resorts to nukes, the otherside would retaliate back. So yes, there would be no winners only losers. That'd mean it would be all too easy for game after game to be lose-lose. As a result over time players would probably give up playing it knowing chances are everyone would lose (and your Diplomacy ranking would be constantly downgraded.) I'd suggest instead we keep it to conventional warfare.

I'll focus my comments though mostly to the Warsaw Pact-NATO variant which I think has the potential for more complexity in gameplay in some ways.

To have better "balance" I'd suggest both the European NATO and Warsaw Pact countries (minus USSR - I'll get to that) have roughly the same number of SCs. That said, you could have more Warsaw Pact starting units than SCs, as they're better positioned to advance on neutral/non-aligned SCs (Finland, Austria, Yugoslavia - Tito and Stalin fell out in '48)

Re: USSR I'd suggest you either leave it out entirely (as this would create an unbalance with US SC's not present), or create USSR and USA as "off map" SCs (just like Spain in Dutch Revolution). You could probably have a number of USSR SC's physically on the map that could be captured, but maybe certain SCs are "off map" eg Leningrad, Moscow, New York, Washington DC etc). This would mean no side could totally "lose" all their SCs, but presumably you'd set victory conditions where you needed a set number of SCs to "win".

Re: units, if you don't have nukes I'd suggest maybe an armored unit and a new paratrooper unit. This could effectively be like the Knights unit in Germany 1648. It would allow the players to drop units beyond the iron curtain (either way). I'd also suggest that NATO has one or two paratroop units on the iron curtain border which would "support" a NATO unit in West Berlin (which gets around the issues we've been discussing re: West Berlin.

Personally I'd suggest Switzerland stays totally neutral and can't be invaded (like Classic).

If possible with the coding I'd also suggest that NATO (being the "good guys"/supporters of democracy) can't invade a non-aligned/neutral SC. I'm open to them being able to support standing neutrals though, and being able to take a non-aligned/neutral SC post a Soviet invasion.

I'd also leave out any SCs on the NATO/Warsaw Pact map from North Africa as that would distort play.

Ok, that'd my two cents on the idea. Feel free to give it (or bits of it) thumbs up or thumbs down. Hope it helps with people's ideas.

That sounds too complex for what my idea was...
Speaking of, where did Eliphas go?

Nah. not complex. Just fun :-)

@The Ambassador: i think your ideas are pretty cool. I think what Oli was saying is that he can't have more than two different types of units in one game. He could have paratroopers, but that would mean he has to get rid of either the army or the fleet, which makes little sense

I still think West Berlin should have the fortress rule until someone takes it then the rule goes away

@eZ: good point, shame.... the paratroop unit was such a good idea ;-)