2013 discussion on this game

[Pedros]

There was discussion in preparation for a second run of Battle Isle in June 2013. This thread is for comments on the way the first game ran; I'm kicking it off with some comments on the way the 'impregnable enclaves' were approached. The IEs are N Valley or Arryn and Valley or Arryn; Fal Mora and Fal Dara; North Wilderness and West Rang Shada (possibly plys South Wilderness; Southaven and Northern and Southern Mountains of Death; and (possibly although it doesn't include any SCs) theconnection around Snowy Mountains. These could be used to give a guarantee against elimination by a power which controlled one of them (apart from the Snowy Mountains one.)

In the first year it appears that all three pairs of SCs were agreed to be divided between the two neighbours equally, although this isn't certain because the Midlands NMRd in the Fall so didn't take their centre. The other two pairs were divided between the neighbours - all nice and friendly! But in Year 2 they all faced the difficult decision - leave your army there, so effectively wasting a unit in the early stages, or take a risk and move out (presumably by negoatiation.) In the event, one in each pair decided to move out and the other moved in on the second SC. These two attackers became the eventual winners!

What this does demonstrate is that those areas provide some interesting tactical and diplomatic questions.

[Zack L1ghtman]

Hello peeps, Retard.In.Denial here, now under the name of JD CoolPenguin, but you can call me Penguin

I originally proposed the map, and my friend Waterice Man (who appears to no longer be active here) GM'd it.

I must say this list makes me stop and think. The players in the first game here who raved about it - comments like "The best variant I've ever played" - were good players, who've been round the block a few times. If, despite these apparent flaws, they were so positive about it then perhaps we should let it lie there and see how it goes.

Thoughts?

I just want to comment on this.

First of all, there was no big discussion about the map before it was played, and as far as I can remember, no one pointed out any flaws before the game began, so we had the advantage of the flaws only being aware to the players who noticed them. Now I can't 100% remember the game, it was 4 years ago, but to my knowledge none of us used the 2 units supporting each other.

Here's why I think it worked:
Whilst you can have 2 units sit there and support each other and be invincible, it IS NOT a good position. You cannot grow out from there.
Taking control of those 2 centers and supporting yourself to sit pretty the whole game is not a good tactic. It uses up 2 of your valuable units, and doesn't make it any easier to capture any other SC's.

The only time this would become a problem is if someone only had 2 units, and used those 2 units to sit there and support each other, then someone proposes a draw, and the guy with 2 units left does not accept, or if you're playing DIAS and the guy with 2 units supporting himself there does not deserve to be included in the win.

2 units sitting there supporting each other is not a 'tactic', it's a 'last resort', and quite a bitchy last resort at that. It's not a tactic because it doesn't benefit you in a way that helps you win the game.

I should also point out that this a starting conflict zone, and it was great (if I remember correctly). Being in the middle of 2 home countries, this area proved to be a diplomatic goldmine. The whole trick of it was to work out how to not end up in a stale mate, or to form a strong alliance where the stalemate made for a solid alliance.

I can't remember but I'm pretty certain it didn't turn into 3 obvious 2-way alliances due to this fact... there was a lot stabbing attempts, and I remember never really knowing wether I was allied with my neighbour.

Conclusion
So, you could fix the map, or you could just make a rule that people using their 2 units making them undestroyable in those couple of places do not get a vote in the draw and are not included in a DIAS.

Maybe, now the errors have been pointed out, play it again and see if they come into play at all, like a trial run. If they don't really come in to play, that's 2 games where it hasn't really effected the gameplay and we can keep it the way it is.

Penguin.

EDIT:
Additionally...

Reply from Frank Bacher, but it doesn solve all the problems I'm afraid.

1. Map They aren't worried about the impregnable bits - "Up to the players to stop it happening." But they're OK if we want to change it - and clearly we will. Now I have that I'll begin looking seriously at it all, taking into account the comments made here.

I don't know if this is what he means, but: It is not easy to get control of those 2 centers... they are equidistant from 2 home countries, and it would require some good diplomacy in order to capture both of those centers... so, it's not like some countries have the advantage of just running there and sitting tight, they would have to work, and work hard, for it.

Penguin.