Italian Diplomacy
Creator: BountyFrog || First Published: 09/02/2016 || Players: 6 || Size: 32x36
Categories: Historical/Geographical
Rating: 6.00 in 3 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
BountyFrog (09/02/2016 09:18pm | Edited: 09/03/2016 10:09pm):
RF - Rome
GE - Sardinia
YC - Genoa
TG - Venice
BH - Croatia
JS - Sicily
-----------------------------
As ahanzee suggested, I have made another Diplomacy map, but
this time larger.

So I think I did a little better this time with how balanced the game
is, also I started them all out with more income. Thoughts?

Again, any tips, suggestions, or comments in general will be
appreciated.
-------------------------------
Update: I have given TG and RF an extra starting base and extra
neutral cities to capture to make it more fair. I have also added
more shoals to Sardinia (GE) to make it harder to defend, and
therefore less overpowered. I also gave JS a port on the side
towards North Africa for easier expansion.
ahanzhe1 (09/02/2016 09:29pm | Edited: 09/02/2016 09:54pm):
LOVED it.
Although it might need some FTA since GE can get to SW properties before JS. And GE's b-boat can get to
there in one turn while JS needs two.

And RF has to fight.....um..Every other player. BH'll probably be able to land units to get the ports while GE
might just be annoying to RF. But I suppose it won't be a big problem since RF can get a lot of properties.

So...The only problem I can see right now is JS being a bit weak. And nice job! :)
Xmo5 (09/03/2016 05:39am):
I'll say the same thing I said on the other one: diplomacy is not a substitute for proper
balance. Weaker players will still be screwed in the long run and stronger players will
still dominate and have more options (including potential diplomacies). Just because
weaker players have the *chance* of not being screwed as hard in any particular game,
doesn't mean they won't.

I think that maps like this, if they're going to be effectively balanced, need to be
playtested extensively by groups of players at similar skill levels playing as different
countries to learn the relative advantages of each. You might find that playing with the
same group is very different as each starting point and some will be much easier to win
from, others will be very hard to win from, but also very hard to lose from (look at the
virtually unassailable GE and JS compared to the surrounded and comparatively exposed RF),
while others might just be losers from the start.

Keep in mind the available funding, attack/defensive strategies, and number of opponents
and the number of opponents that each of the opponents has. Take BH for example. They have
one land front with one opponent and maybe one sea front with 1-2 opponents. RF will
likely avoid them in the sea as they have their hands full in the middle of the map. This
is good for BH and potentially leaves them an opportunity for an HQ strike over the sea if
they play their cards right. TG is their land opponent, and starts with the same funding,
number of bases, and available cities. However, they are sandwiched between 3 enemies, 1
of which is very similar to BH (I'm talking about YC) in that they only have to defend one
land front and start with the same number of bases. What do we learn? TG is in a pretty
weak position while BH and YC can probably expand without concern. They can each push TG
as hard as TG can push either back, so they're bound to be overrun, at which point one or
both of BH and YC will take down RF and fight to the death. GE and JS are pretty much
spectators because they have the same funding, minimal if any connection to the land
battles, and have to spend a lot more to get naval units either for attack or
support/transport. You say "Yeah, but what if TG and BH form an alliance? Then TG is in a
good position!" No, that means that TG gets to survive and have a fighting chance against
YC while BH can safely sit and build up strength to assault RF and go for the HQ capture.
BH is still the powerhouse and TG is still reliant on them. BH is safe, TG is in jeopardy.
THe alliance helps, but does not balance the armies. TG and RF could form an alliance and
that might help against either BH or YC, but one of the two of those is still probably
strong enough to emerge victorious because of TG/RF's weak and exposed positions,
especially with RF being peppered by JS and GE. A problem for RF there is that they have
the choice of either playing defensively or taking to the seas. If they take to the seas,
they divert money from the land battle they need to fund (of which JS and GE have little
or no equivalent) and if they play defensively, they let the two navies grow unchecked and
will eventually be overrun by battleships.

I realize this is a long and rambling post, but hopefully this sort of gives you an idea
of what I mean by "diplomacy is not a substitute for proper balance." If you set it up
with teams in mind and make it a team game, individual players don't need to be balanced.
If you make it open diplomacy, you need to treat it as FFA, but with the added constraint
that each player should have benefits of forming alliances with a wide range of players to
make sure the same alliances don't form every time and screw the same players over, even
if they all start equally.

Also, I highly recommend standard starts with FTA counters and low income, etc. The
imbalances are only exaggerated without that.
BountyFrog (09/03/2016 09:50pm):
I see... Thank you for all of the input, I really do appreciate, even if it
takes me 15 minutes just to read lol

I'll make some changes and see if it gets better :)



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.