GMd: Morg. 2-way draw between Japan (Ninjass) and Vietnam (Janepeg)


Postby Morg » 19 Apr 2014, 23:04

The game has come to a close as Japan becomes the last player to accept the draw proposal, which he did via PM.

This is a space for you to write your AARs. This game was run as part of an attempt to see how it would far as a proposed addition to the main site, so your opinions as to balance, and how enjoyable the game was are important.
"He says there are no easy answers. I say he's not looking hard enough!"
User avatar
Posts: 3105
Joined: 25 Feb 2011, 22:50
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1428)
All-game rating: (1561)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: AARs

Postby asudevil » 19 Apr 2014, 23:25

Stunned you guys let a game go to a 2man draw...unless someone was trying to prove that they weren't GOING to end in a 2man...but Vietnam, you were up to 11 of 15, surprised you didn't make a run for the solo. SUM and BURM were all but guaranteed to you...then you just had to find 2 more.
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
Posts: 16606
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: AARs

Postby Jegpeg » 20 Apr 2014, 00:32

First thanks to Morg for GMing this.

Whether to take the draw or not was a tough one, yes I has 11 SCs, though the way Indo was desperately trying for Burma at the expense on his own SCs made me think I might not be able to get it until he was either down to one centre or I had a fleet in the IO. Japan had 10 SCs and should be able to support himself into
Meanwhile as the guy in the middle it would be easier for Japan to attack me than vice versa, Taiwan and Manila in particular would be vulnerable to the hordes of new Japanese Fleets about to be built. Overall if it had been a solo only game I would have put my chances at 50:50. I had developed a good relationship with Japan and had no problems in sharing the draw with him.

Going back to the start.

I didn't have a good look at the map until signing up on doing so I realised what a biased map it was. Austrailia had little choice but to attack Indo and Japan had little choice but to attack China. No-one else was in a position to help China and Indo so the best they could hope for is for Vietnam to leave them alone to a 1v1.
Deciding my bidding strategy I definitely didn't want Indo or China and Vietnam was first choice as it gave me options for my initial strategy.

It was obvious from the bidding that Ninjass had exactly the same thoughts but I just managed to squeak my fist choice.

In initial discussions everyone seemed like people I could work with so whether to head for Indo or China was a purely strategic choice. I thought that it was best to offer minimal support to Australia to try and keep the South in deadlock while Japan and I defeat China. Indo got the the better of Australia but only by leaving his northern front wide open so I gladly helped myself.

The opposing players and the GM made it a fun game but the map really restricted the enjoyment. I have recently looked at the triangle of map design http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=148&t=16041 and noted this game didn't have any triangles just a straight line. I would not support it's inclusion on the main site I think other maps are far more interesting (The only other variant map I have played was Sengoku and while linear it was not as bad a s this, Heptarchy seems well tested and would probably get my vote)
Posts: 1271
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AARs

Postby Filosofus » 20 Apr 2014, 11:35

First, I want to thank you all for a good game, and to Morg for GM'ing it. This was my first DVFG, and it was a good experience thanks to you.

That being said, I won't recommend this game as an addition to the main site in its current form. Like Janepeg, I believe this variant has some serious balance issues since it's a straight line. Some may argue that Japan and Australia is able to fight each other, but the distance is too great for this to happen in the beginning of the game, which leaves both with only one neighbour. It would balance the variant more if Japan and Australia were somehow brought closer to each other, perhaps through a change in the spaces in the Pacific Ocean. This would, however, make it a circle instead of a line, so there would still be no triangles, but it would be way more balanced.

Due to the game being a line, I really had no choice but to attack China straight away, and thus an alliance with Vietnam was obvious. I was never in a position to stab Vietnam due to geography and my dislike for fighting two enemies at the same time, and I came to appreciate our alliance. When China was eliminated, it wasn't an easy decision for me whether to accept the draw or not. I had tried to keep on good terms with Indonesia in case I was going to fight Vietnam, and I might have been able to beat him considering I got 4 builds the last turn. Vietnam had, however, throughout this game shown an impressive overview, he was a unit ahead of me and he had easier acces to builds than me. Additionally, my new fleets would be quite far away from him, so he would have had time to secure Sumatra and most likely Burma before I could take the fight to him, giving him two additional units to fight me. I decided to go with the draw - all in all it wasn't a bad result for me considering it was my first DVFG, and I had good relations with Vietnam, so I saw no problem in sharing a draw with him.

Even though I had fun playing, I wouldn't play this variant again. Japan and Australia has no (sensible) choice but to fight China and Indonesia respectively, which makes this variant way too predictable.
Posts: 20
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 22:32
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1217)
All-game rating: (1349)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: AARs

Postby bluecuillin » 20 Apr 2014, 17:28

thanks all for playing and Morg for GMing.

i agree with the comments but wonder if we actually missed the best bit from the game in agreeing a draw too early. Not sure how things would have worked out if Vietnam and Japan had gone to war - the Oceans would have added a different element and islands would swap hands quickly.

i would like to give this a couple more goes before deciding on its merit as a version for the main site.
Britain: crowded Othello
Chaos: Warhammer
Far East B: Australia
solo France
Posts: 84
Joined: 07 Sep 2012, 18:21
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1014)
All-game rating: (1022)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AARs

Postby StarWatcher009 » 21 Apr 2014, 22:46

First I want to thank everyone for playing and Morg for gming.

I agree that the map is a bit biased towards Vietnam. He is the only one able to have options.

I found that as Indonesia I had a bonus in that I could have three builds in the first year, so I would have had an advantage over Australia. But Australia convinced me to attack Vietnam and I ended up fighting a war on two fronts. I believe I slowed their advance but ultimately failed.

I also agree that the endgame of this game could be very interesting. It has the potential to become a three way battle with lots of room to make gains, unlike classic where deadlocks are common. But it is also true that one of the three finalists would almost certainly be Vietnam.

All in all it was a fun game but needs remedy before being put up for the main site.

Mimallaby (Indonesia)
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
User avatar
Premium Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 26 Dec 2013, 23:43
Location: somewhere
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1025
All-game rating: 1342
Timezone: GMT

Return to Game 4 (played as Game B)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest