Once again, big thanks to Alex for bringing 1900 to vDip. If I find out any bugs I will report it.

Suggestion: Bosnia should be colored neutral. The formal annexation of Bosnia only happened in 1908; in 1900 the region was under Austrian occupation but not under Austro-Hungarian sovereignty.

It formally belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and I think that making it neutral is the best course of action to represent its (at the time) ambiguous political status.

Some maps even make it (like Tripolitania & Cyrenaica) with a yellow/red outline (depends on Turkey's color), but I guess that would be too much work.

In the PBEM version of this map, I actually do include red outlines for those regions:
https://i.imgur.com/Gd5ANFF.png

There wasn't a straightforward way to both include these and get them to disappear later. I wouldn't want those lines to stick around after a unit actual visits/captures those territories. In PBEM context, I can just manually get rid of them, as seen here:

https://i.imgur.com/TFoU1mj.png

I'll make a note though. Making Bosnia neutral in color might be a good compromise.

I noticed Italy has Fleet Rome rather than Army Rome.

'1900: Sharp's Edition', now that's a variant I would play!

That is most definitely a bug. Good catch!

* Russia and Italy look very distinct on my screen
* I think the abbreviations are easier to read with the white outlines and look good
* No unit placements are affecting the reading of the map for me

Glad to hear. 1900 is a well crafted variant, which is not something I say lightly.

@G-Man
Which resolution are you looking at?

For the low-res map (the default one), I find that the white outlined abbreviations help, but the high-res map, they seem to make a mess.

@Enriador
Oli posted the fix, and there's an army in Rome (as intended).

The EMR rule seems unfair to the rest of the players.

As for graphics:
Mostly fine; however, some provinces such as Wales or Vienna are quite small. Perhaps make them bigger?
Nice work devs!

variantID=1900
LOL

Sorry for too many posts, but two more things...
* Large map font outlines are ok, but the font is disparate with the small map.
* Why is '1900' not in white outline?

Not that I'm arguing the color, but I have to admit, I find the French description of their color quite funny.

"Teal Blue, the shade of blue used in the insignia of the French Air Force"

The French Air Force......in a map set in 1900...

P.S. Does Palestine ave two coasts?

*have*

Both the small and large maps nopunin10did.

@Sky_Hopper
"The EMR rule seems unfair to the rest of the players."
- It might seem that way, but in practice, it keeps Russia from being (by far) the weakest of the powers. It was something Baron added to the rules after several iterations and playtests. With the rule in place, Russia is in the middle-chunk of the powers balance-wise.

"some provinces such as Wales or Vienna are quite small. Perhaps make them bigger?"
- This map represents the borders that Baron and I worked to represent. Historicity took preference over practicality in some cases; at small resolutions I imagine this can be a bit frustrating. Can you still see all the provinces that Vienna/Wales/etc. border? What could potentially be adjusted is the positioning of the units or names, if those are obscuring the borders.

"Large map font outlines are ok, but the font is disparate with the small map."
- It is a different font. For the small map, I went for a font that's more optimized for low resolutions. I wanted to use a variant of Caslon for the large map, since that was a common font from the era, but it may be harming readability.

"Why is '1900' not in white outline?"
- Mostly because it doesn't need it, but that admittedly does make it inconsistent... I'll think on this one.

"P.S. Does Palestine ave two coasts? "
- This one is addressed in the verbose rules; the micro-coast in the south is included for geographic accuracy only. Only the main coast of Palestine is actually playable.

@drano019

Yes, that is anachronistic. Unfortunately, too many countries seem to use the same shades of blue and red in their flags...

"variantID=1900
LOL"

Damn straight.

@nopunin10did:
I suggest you just forgo the "south" coast of Palestine and just make things simpler.

@Sky_Hopper:
I'll consider it. I'm hesitant to change much of the map's underlying geometry, since it was based on Baron's own official drawings, and that coast exists geographically if not for the game.

@Enriador
Baron confirmed that, given the limitations for this iteration of the map, Bosnia should stay yellow, and Cyrenaica should instead be red.

@nopunin10did

Oh. If Baron says Yellow Bosnia, then Yellow Bosnia it is.

But Red Cyrenaica?! It's just half of Ottoman Libya, and since TRP must be neutral, it will look incredibly inconsistent on-map with half the country divided. Best to leave CYR neutral as well, as the region was firmly connected to Tripolitania in every way.

I don't mind southern Palestine. It's clearly not a canal neither has a South Coast on-map, and given the way vDip deals with orders input the grand total of problems that will arise from this cosmetic coast is likely zero.

I find the smallmap font hard-ish to read as well, as I said elsewhere. Far from impossible, just slightly unclear at first sight.

P.S.: Yellow Bosnia + Neutral CYR/BUL/ARA, the status quo, is actually very reasonable on second thought. The criteria for coloring can be seem as De Facto power over a region, not De Jure.

That way we justify why the Senussi emirate in Libya, the Bulgarian monarchy and the Arabian tribes are neutral, and why Bosnia is under Austrian control at start.

@Sky_Hopper, why does the Russian Emergency Measures (REM) seem unfair?

I assume you didn't read the Gamer's Guide; the Guide perfectly explains the rationale behind it in great detail. Before this rule, Russia was by far the weakest of the Great Powers, worse than even Italy in Classic. Now Russia can kick some ass as they don't crumble so easily.

The only change to the variant I would like to see is a very small map change in Italy, with Tuscany being reborn and Rome annexing southern Venetia to gain an East Coast. This change was proposed by Baron Powell himself back in 2015, and the goal is to reduce the screaming Italo-French tension.

I recommend this article for those interested in variant design in general. The proposed change is at the bottom of the page: http://uk.diplom.org/pouch//Zine/S2015M/Powell/1900change.htm

Tangent:

Note that I'm not going to make this (or any) change to the map's topology or rules, since I think perpetual material redesigns can hurt a variant's longevity, but the one small change I'd make is this:

I'd break the adjacency between Konya / Armenia and instead make Ankara & Damascus adjacent. I've found that SCs that are isolated, without being adjacent to any others, can potentially present defensive problems. It's particularly true when such an SC is on the mainland, unlike London or Tunis from classic Dip.

Turkey is currently the back-of-the-pack in terms of performance in 1900, and giving it a home SC that's so disconnected strikes me as a weakness in its case.

>I'd break the adjacency between Konya / Armenia and instead make Ankara & Damascus adjacent.<

An interesting proposal; never saw it anywhere else. Does Baron have an opinion?

I like your rationale, as too often Damascus feels like a far away outpost like Algeria or Egypt rather than a decent third home center. Improving Turkey's defensibility shouldn't create a dangerous ripple effect on the rest of the board, I hope.

A similar situation is faced by France, with Marseilles being isolated and too often victim of an Italian attack (A MIL-SWI, A ROM-PIE). I believe, like Baron does, that adding Tuscany back would ease tensions between the two weakest powers of 1900.

Turkey is in the back of the pack indeed, but even more behind we have Italy & France, two powers practically doomed to conflict due to multiple zones of tension, especially in Piedmont/Switzerland. As you can see here (http://uk.diplom.org/pouch//Zine/F2014R/Powell/france2.htm) France is now dead last in overall performance with its two primary neighbors, Germany & Britain, sporting superior performances.

Can't we have both proposals, in the hopes of a better experience? *.*

Anyway, 1900 really ought to just stay as it is at this point. Let it stand on its own merits.

I've seen a number of attempts to reinvent the European wheel by this point, trying to "fix" the original conceit of the board to make it more universally balanced. 1900 was one attempt to do so, and it didn't quite meet *that* goal. The data from full press games currently suggest that it's approximately as balanced / imbalanced as classic Dip, rather than a drastic improvement.

It does succeed in its other goals, though. It's more historically accurate to the period; the borders are more reflective of the political divisions, and the power imbalance matches the history too (Germany on top, Turkey on bottom).

1900 increases interaction between powers that normally lie on totally opposite sides of the map. It's more likely to end in a solo, partly because of its winning conditions and partly because it makes many of the classic stalemate lines harder (though not impossible) to form.

Instead of trying to perpetually improve upon it, what I would suggest is that variant developers look at these sorts of considerations when making *new* maps.