First All Empires Diplomacy game AEDip01

I register for the new game

I would like to take Turkey

Thats a really cool looking map! I'd like to play as England, if thats possible.

I was posting something on Rider's idea when the light went off. I've been without electricity almost all day. 

It's important to notice that Versailles minor powers aren't played independently but rather they are alloted to the major powers (either randomly or in a fixed manner, depending on the version).

This issue of minor powers exist in at least another variant: Ambition & Empire. Here the minor powers can't move but are secretly voted (alloting influence or diplomacy points based in owned SCs) to support or hold.

For instance, a 3 center Italy could allot all its 3 DPs to Yugoslavia to support A Venice-Croatia, or it could allot 1 DP to Yugoslavia, 1 DP to Greece and 1 DP to Spain for diferent support (or hold) actions.

I've just played once this and I can tell you it's a mess and an excellent occasion to lie to your "best ally" impunely.

I have an alternative projected rule which consists in voting not for the moves but for wich major power holds the alliance of each minor power. This vote would only happen in Winter turns (and prior to the start of the game) and the fortunate ally can then order the minor power at will.

Some special provisions are needed:

• Each minor power automatically casts 1/2 vote to its former ally. This way no minor power will easily go back to neutral once allied. If reversal to neutrality happens, then the minor power will:
  
• hold if at home SC
  
• move to its home SC if at any adjacent province
• if it is two provinces away from its home center(s), it will move back to them on random basis but always via the shortest way(s) possible
• if it is more than two provinces away, it will hold
  
• If a major power coquers any center of a minor ally he suffers an important penalty: loses all ability to vote in next winter and has only half (rounded down) votes in the second year after the betrayal. This is naturally cause by the loss of "credibility" of the major power towards minors after the treason. This doesn't affect the previous rule of 1/2 automatic continuist vote.
  

Both rules provide that any option that is more "voted" than any other succeeds. Tie of top options causes the vote to fail. In the first case (A&E style) the army/navy holds. In the second case (my rule) the minor power remains neutral or reverses to that status.

What do you think?

Btw, this is the oficial map of the latest version I know of, adapted for RP:

Or my own (experimental variant on 1900), let's call it 1901:



Like in 1900, Britain (red) starts with 4 fleets (one in Gibraltar Strait). Like in 1900, Russia has the ability to build a 5th army automatically but an SC in Siberia has been provided for that (though it's empty at the start of the game). Like in 1900, naval movement (but not convoy) can happen between MAO and Red Sea (I've simplified the rule a little).

Unlike 1900, Egypt is not British home SC but just a colonial center. Algiers insted is a French home SC and starts with an army. Spain (divided in 3 provinces) and Switzerland are armed neutrals. Their armies just hold passively. I've also modified some provinces and supressed most "bridges" except that of Ireland-Edinburgh (new British format).

Maju's post versailles map is great and accurate..7 minor powers for 7 major powers.I say Let's play the variant in accordance with Maju's special provisions.

If we play the post-Versailles,I take the USSR

Edited by TheDiplomat

wrong forum guys, ignore me

So Bishop and the Diplomat want to play Versailles with my experimental rule. I guess that Rider, the proponent of this variant wants too. Ok. I will write down the rule in the most clear way possible and start a new topic for AEDip04, which I will gladly GM.

Recruitment starts now. All interested players, please PM me with a list of preferences and any comments you want to make. Players that aren't in the previous games' lists must also indicate an email adress.

Also please indicate if you will be absent in Christmas. It may be a good idea not to start the new game before January 7th (end of Christmas vacations in some countries) but if all players are around, then only major holidays must be considered.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Maju, could you give us some kind of analysis of the previous game?

Good question. You should be the ones making the analysis. The GM normally is a little unaware of what's going on and can only read the map and the press.

I'll do a basic analysis from that position:

1901: The game started with an outright Italian attack against Austria. This is often considered an error because Italy should try to be a naval power and dominate the Med. Attacking Austria is a way of favoring Russia and Turkey. While Russia is kind of natural ally of Italy... they don't have the same interests and, in the event of Austrian partition it is likely that Russia ends getting all.

The Austrian opening anyhow was awful: invading Rumania is asking for trouble with Russia. Then he could have outguessed Italy and fallen on his feet but didn't.

In the fall I was surprised of Germany bouncing Russia in Sweden, when Russia had played very neutrally so far. It think this was an ideological decission of TheGeneral and could have cost him dearly.

England seemed to be isolated in the west while Poirot was ideologically also focused in Belgium. England should have then declared war on France, building F Liverpool. The invasion of Channel was an offense that shouldn't be condoned.

1902: Austria could have defended Trieste but chose Greece. But most interesting was the invasion of the Black Sea by Russia. Well and bad played: well because Turkey without the Black Sea is lost, bad because Russia should have focused in continental Europe, leaving Turkey for later. He opened too many fronts and soon suffered the early leader syndrome.

In the west France seemed to be playing most consistently and the mistrust between France and Germany seemed to grow, while English moves showed only weakness.

The fall brought Russia to clear leadership... but he was a giant with feet of clay and too many enemies. France started to threaten Italy with an insulting invasion of Piedmont.

1903/04: Russia lost too much time helping Italy. He should have focused in Turkey instead and at least grabbed Bulgaria. That would have limited his loses.

France started attacking Italy, a very risky and totally unnecessary move, while at the same time invading Germany in the most strange operation of the game. It worked though but it was all very risky.

Attacking Italy when the western triangle wasn't even half-solved was a very odd French strategy. Keeping several fronts open was probably unnecessary but what do I know? Bishop managed to keep pressure on both sides, with some gains but without a decissive victory.

Russia had disbanded F Sev, maybe decieved by Turkey but the strangest of all was Russia building an army in Sevastopol in 1904. He needed fleets!

1905/06: F-G alliance was leading but it wasn't a avery solid one. Russia was clearly defending and so was Italy. Turkey was the only growing power and they all seemed allied.

Fall 1906 was decisive though. France had started to show some weaknesses and then he NMRed. Russia gave the game to Germany out of despair.

1907 could have turned things around. German victory wasn't assured at all and his orders were very shy and undecided. But he was lucky again and won due to the late NMRs.

Conclussion: whatever you do, don't forget to send your orders. The most desperate of the situations can be turned around when your neighbour forgets to send his orders in and you don't.

Well, Hugo threatened to publish your mails but he didn't do it, did he?