The results of the current tournament, with two games left, do not lead one to believe that Italy is necessarily all *that* strong.

I guess the fact Italy has been in nearly every draw does indicate it is a bit OP.

'Strong start that you have to band together to hold back' is also likely to meet greater success in games where the average participant isn't well versed in the need+skills to do so.

It is a smidgin strong, as is Bulgaria, but Greece hasn't done well at all in the tournament so far.

tantrumizer's last comment here is an additional reason to nerf Italy. (benefit Greece) That said however, I don't see many positive Ottoman results either, and I think the perceived strength of Bulgaria is due to the fact that most Greek and Ottoman players are not viewing an alliance with each other as a viable option. Almost no Ottomans have chosen to leave the Mediterranean to Greece and focus on attacking Bulgaria or Romania (as was intended to be equally appealing as attacking Greece.) I will have to work on that, as just giving Greece a free hand in the west will not improve that dynamic.

this (Greek/Ottoman alliance) may be something like and Italy/Turkey alliance in standard right now. (i.e. least likely alliance pair on the map.) Balkans1860 can't be balanced until that changes.

But that may be something that changes itself as players get more familiar with the dynamics of the map and come to see a potential positive outcome from that alliance.

very true. unless I missed it however, that alliance pair has not occurred in a single opening of any playtest here (or elsewhere) thus far. While it may be possible on the current map, I cannot consider it to be appealing or intuitive under those circumstances, and that is the design intent: that G/O would be no less appealing as an opening than a G/B alliance

My point is your comparison to I/T in Classic. I like to ally with Turkey in Classic, but only if he shows a willingness to go after Russia and not fool me into taking out Austria only to be their next target. same with G/O. Of course, the challenge is Ottoman is bottom left corner and only has two real directions to go as . If you want to make that a more viable alliance, make Romania a more feasible target as well. It is currently too far away from Ottoman to be a real target.

Sorry, Ottoman is bottom *right* corner. It was late in the afternoon and I confused my left and right. :-)

the idea of making Romania an easier target is good, and might have a desirable side effect of making Austria's life a little easier.

I played ottoman once. My only data point. Couldn’t figure a smart opening and was a struggle all the way. I think I’m agreeing with points made above. Maybe alliance with Greece and head north would have been better. But it’s just not an option if you have to get early builds. Ottoman is not strong enough in my view. Needs tweaking. (Had fun losing tho! :-)

Italy got taken out in the most recent 1860 Balkans game I played.

To be fair, I (Serbia) convoyed two armies across to his lands immediately to do that. Unfortunately that also ended up killing me, and I can't see that approach being popular.

Stats currently show 5 solos to Italy, 2 to Bulgaria and 0 to everyone else.

Austria will have a solo soon but I can't discuss it *yet*. :-)

tantrumizer - yeah, I noticed that. I dare say that Italy engaging all of Bulgaria's western rivals may have played a hand in at least one of their solos as well. Agree with Grahamso1 that Ottomans need improvement too. Captainmeme - making Austria+Serbia a good alliance option has been my single most challenging obstacle in this variant.

Officially reporting Austria's first ever solo in Balkans 1860.

...on vDip. happened once elsewhere, but that one was very skewed (neighbor went into CD at a critical moment)

No CDs, just hard foight and well timed stab.

new map ready for release - v2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cDiFn92d_ky7fRdAWsV6U2a4agjoIRME/view?usp=sharing

Serbia looks VERY weak on that map. They only have 1 guaranteed SC, but they are in the map's center.

Thanks for your work on this!

Romania doesn't have any guaranteed centres at all and would have to throw 2 units at Varna just to stop Bulgaria taking it and Ruse in the first year. I think it'd be good to throw a bone from Bulgaria to Romania somehow.

I had considered splitting Split (ha ha) into a non-SC territory (Rijeka) and an SC in Split to the south. If Split is uncontested though, this pulls Serbia strongly in Austria's direction. Increasing the likelihood of an A/S alliance was a primary intent of this map.

Romania has Sevastopol guaranteed, and I'm really not seeing them as any weaker than Turkey in Standard. An alliance with either the Ottomans or Bulgarians should be profitable...?

Also, I expect the new Ottoman SC in Monastir to be typically pro-Serbian and aimed at attacking either Bulgaria or Greece

Hm...what do you think of restoring Nis, but as a neutral SC. There may actually be some historical precedent for that with waning Ottoman power.

Romania can be bounced in Sevastapol by Ottomans. That's what happened in both of my games as Romania to date.

If Romania moves botht eh fleet and the army towards Sev, it can't be bounced. @ on 1. But, it also means he has to have a good relationship with his other neighbors.

Austria also takes a significant risk reaching for Kolosvar, and rarely opts for it, as their focus is on Serbia and Italy.

This matter of Serbia needing another dot is more convincing. But I need it to be one that pulls them in a direction other than north