Lunacy in Americas - some questions

This is the home for suggestions for site improvements, changes to house rules, and new variants.
Forum rules
It's okay to suggest new rules variants in this forum, but proposing new *maps* should be done in the linked "New Map Variant Proposals & Voting" subforum.

Lunacy in Americas - some questions

Postby Penelope Pitstop » 19 Nov 2019, 01:01

I’ve just finished participating in the game Lunacy in Americas (161367) – my first time playing on the new Americas map and I really enjoyed it.

I joined the game because of the challenging set up, which was as follows:
Gunboat + Age of Empires + Fog of War + Stuff Happens + No Draws Allowed and swift 12/12/12 deadlines.

Congratulations to DannyBoy26 for winning as Mexico. He finished with 17 fleets and only 5 armies to reach the required 24 centres to win. I played as Peru and came very close to winning, finishing on 23 centres. Eric4703 defended valiantly as Venezuela to hold the stalemate line across South America and finished with a very worthy 3rd place.

So now to my questions:

The map has 61 centres and yet the rules say you only need 24 to win. Why is that? Wouldn’t it make more sense to require a soloist to reach the majority of centres, so 31 in all? I felt in our game there was still a lot of potential play and I wonder if Mexico with so few armies would ever have been able to establish a foothold in South America? I would like to understand why the win requirement is pegged so low at only 24 centres.

Would it be possible to edit the Stuff Happens Associated Press releases to suit the map? We’re playing on a map of the Americas and then get this kind of press release:

Freak weather conditions have seen extensive snowfalls and icestorms causing havoc across Europe throughout the winter, with the icy weather even reaching as far south as the north coast of Africa. With movement being impossible in many places, some armies have been forced to hunker down and wait out the terrible weather.

Or this:

Some of the worst storms in living memory have ravaged European waters this Spring. Many fleets have been forced to remain in port or wait out the storms, leaving them unable to take an active part in the ongoing European war.

Or this:

National feelings about the war are running high across the whole of Europe, and pressure from the masses has forced governments to reject any thought of compromise. All leaders have made public statements agreeing this will be a war to the death, with no quarter asked or given.
Most observers agree that this renders any chance of a negotiated settlement between the warring parties all but impossible for at least a few years.

All of these press releases refer to Europe, the first even to North Africa. And the No Quarter release is also out of place in a game where the set up stipulates that there are no draws allowed anyway.

This is not meant to sound like nit picking. It’s a beautiful map with tremendous dynamics. has the most elegant graphics and easy-to-handle interface of all the diplomacy websites. So it seems like a shame that after all the painstakingly long hours that have gone in to putting this map variant into action, the playing experience should me marred by these little imperfections.

I wonder also if the images used by the Associated Press might be adjusted to suit the map better. I can’t really see how Darth Vader fits in at all?

Thanks in advance for responding to these questions.
User avatar
Penelope Pitstop
Posts: 25
Joined: 25 Mar 2019, 21:58
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1551)
All-game rating: (1993)
Timezone: GMT

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest