*BUMP*

Just want to keep this variant under discussion: It's good, but it still needs some improvement! =]

I'm sorry Triskelli, I'm very busy at work and I don't want to take a quick look to your comments: I prefer to read them with the attention they deserve.
but trust me I won't forget to read them@!

This has been my obsession for the past few days =C

I think I have a suitable economic proximity web drawn up, but I'd like to hear some opinions on this:

Namely, do you players consider Germany as being connected to Italy and Austria at the start of the game? While they do border each other, Italy and Austria usually have very little to do with Germany in the first couple of years... Should Germany be counted as having significant military influence on them?

Ok, here I am. thank you for all of you for your feedback, and in particular to Triskelli who seems to be fallen for this variant :P and Guaroz who gave me some very useful comments privately.
first of all, a few personal comments about my own variant:
- I do like the idea that a power can survive only by defending his economic savings; the easy stalemate lines were meant for this to happen. but I think I indulged too much and put far too extreme stalemate lines...!
- I do like the idea that there are much more units on the political board; that was one of the ideas I wanted to test, quite in the opposite direction of the NoNeutrals variant (which nonetheless I very much like). I enjoyed playing and observing plenty of units defending rotten powers which would have destined to fall if not for their strong economics!
- I don't dislike the original positioning of the different powers in the economic panel, as I believe it's not a bad idea to put politically-close powers close each other also in the economic panel. but I do agree that with the current panel the gameplay of alliances/stabbings is not much improved with respect to the classic map. besides, mixing them would offer a different flavor to the variant.

Guaroz's ideas:
1) Take out some barriers, specially those of Wood and Cotton
2) Add more links between T and E, for example Spices<>Tea and Silk<>Ships
3) Add all of them: Cylindric economy
4) Diagonal links, for example Tea<>Glass, Cheese<>Coal, ... ,Spices<>Wood.
5) The cylinder could be in the other verse: Cattle<>Ships, Barley<>Iron.... Or in both: Spheric economy
6) Add a non-SC rectangle above the home SCs bordering all the SCs at the top. it could be called Transportations or Railways or Merchant Fleet etc. Each homeSC would be at max 1 move distance from the others
7) Add a non-SC rectangle also below the panel.
8) Add one or two non-SC rectangle at the side of the map, between T and E
... and combinations of the above!

Private Triskelli's idea:
add neutral non-SC squares between the economic SCs

Just a couple notes, i think the way the panel is set up offers too much strength to the major alliances of EF Axis and Juggernaut, since the three are pretty much unstopable if they work together.

Also, i really like the x &/or y axis wrapping idea.

Also also, just something to consider, diagonal moves on the panel.

It would let austria have a more significant impact on russia, and it would make it so you can't have a very weak alliance forcing themselves into draws. For instance, if russia just holds in rye and turkey holds in rice and they don't attack eachother, they are guaranteed to be part of any draw that takes place. To me, that makes little to no sense.

my thoughts:
- we have to remember that the map needs to be graphically well-visible. for example, the 'spherical economic' (even if interesting) would be a total mess of lines when played.
- Triskelli's idea of mixing the NoNeutrals and the Economic is good, and I'd see it as a potential new variant, twin of the Economic.
- I'm totally in favor of a new more open economy, adding a link between the left and the right side of the economic panel (Cylindrical economy); I hope this will not screw up the visualization of the map.
- I think Guaroz's idea of the two non-SC territories bordering all the top/bottom SCs of the economic panel is great, and add a lot more of interaction without ruining the map display. I'd call them Railroad and the MerchantFleet (two of the names he proposed), but I'd like to hear more ideas if you want.
- I wouldn't like to put neutral SC in the map, as the game would be more slowed down
- I'm open to discuss the removal of the barriers between some sectors of the economy: I decided to put them to minimize the chances of early stabs between close players, but they probably create too easily defendable stalemate lines..
- (original raapers2 idea) allow anyone to build anywhere in the economic panel. not a bad idea indeed, otherwise some players can remain without hopes after a few turns.. and it'd also speed up the game in the eco panel. but maybe I'd make free-build SCs only the ones in the top row.. what do you think?
- order of the powers the suggested G-T-E-I-R-F-A has some strong points and encourages the interaction between powers which are far away. it may be reviewed if (as Guaroz proposed, and I endorse) the economic panel became cylindrical.. because G and A would become close. in this case, maybe you can think of an even better displacement, Triskelli?

did I miss anything???

Would keep the barriers on eco or it will get to hard to defend anything

I also like the barriers since i find them cool, but i just think there needs to be some way of getting around them. Not sure i understand the Merchant Fleet and Railroads idea, but if i do sounds good to me.

And unless you are ignoring the diagonal moves, you missed them : P

- diagonal moves: I did forget them! I'd not put them though, because otherwise anyone can go anywhere and it becomes really impossible to defend anything (as in Octopus)

The Merchant Fleet and Railroads would be two width non-SC territory placed on the top and at the bottom of the economic panel, one being linked to every SC of the top row, and the other linked to every SC of the bottom row.
clearer?

I would not ad to much... maybe just connecting left and right could be enough...

A good combination could be this
1) the two non-SC territories bordering all the top/bottom SCs of the economic panel (Railroad and the MerchantFleet) - This would reduce the stalemate lines a lot.
2) free-build SCs only the ones in the top row. - This would reduce the fear of leaving your own HomeEconomicSC open. It would also let you build more than 1 unit per turn into the EP if you got 2 top-SC opened. We want to encourage quick-expansions, right?
3) Maybe a link in Wool<>Cotton. It would make a hole in the stalemate line and, after the first years, let some more interaction between E & T rather than just via Railroad or MF (as they would probably be very busy).
All the rest remains as it is now. Not a revolution, just some little fixes.

I agree about 1 and 2 - that was actually my idea too.
about 3, I'd introduce links between all the left and right squares: Cattle-Rice, Tea-Spices, Wool-Cotton, Ships-Silk .
what do you think?

I do really like the Railroad/Merchant fleet idea, as well as a cylindrical econ map.

I've been working on fully revamped maps based on proximity, but I agree that a few tweaks should be sufficient.

As far as different combinations of powers around the cylinder goes, Germany will always have to be paired up with someone he's already touching, because the only power he's not next to is Turkey. However, I have found these other combinations of non-adjacent units:

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

Those pair Germany up with powers he normally doesn't interact with heavily until the mid-game, and are still viable in spicing up negotiations. I personally vouch for an A-G link, because Austria and Germany rarely attack each other until one has a significant lead...

@Tadar: all 4 links, no. Every couple of players has 1 barrier between them. Why should E & T have none?
@Triskelli: I don't think a new combination is necessary but, in case, I vote for the first: G-T-E-I-R-F-A

@Guaroz: England and Turkey shouldn't have any barriers because they're the most isolated on the political map. It's a matter of balancing the two maps with each other, not with making the Econ map perfectly symmetric.

Ah, well. If symmetry is not the matter then one link (Wool<>Cotton) is more then enough, I believe.

When I proposed the cylindrical map, I meant to erase all the barriers, not only make 4 links between E & T.

I don't think diagonal moves are a problem. Even if all the barriers removed, 8 units are enough to hold everything.

So do we have a consensus then?


A cylindrical Econ map with fewer barriers and a Railroad and Mechant Fleet at top and bottom of the map. Does anyone else support shifting the positions of the powers?