Next new map? Your say!

[Pedros]

I'd definetly say Heptarchy, but as Pedros said there was an disscussion whenever to try and do some balance of the map before. (on an side note I'd love to see this one as an forum game again, hit to all GM's out there...)

Other than that I have no real opinion though.

The discussion (not a lot of it yet apart from you and me Giriom!) is in the Archive Forum for Heptarchy (now continued at viewtopic.php?f=413&t=29382). I have been working on a paper for that and I'v e got some unexpectd spare time this week, so I think it's time to complete it. I'll PM you when it's ready! But I'll record your vote for it, because it's important. As I said, it would be top of my list but for my doubts about balance.

Also you should check with the special rules of five Italies, it have neutral army and Rome is built with first move, nothing comlicated really but anyway.

Good point. I imagine the short-handed games software can handle the neutral army with no problem, but the Rome build is another matter. I don't want to bother dipsy too much with questions which might never become live, so I'll leave it in for now; but if DiploNEV wants to nominate another that's fine.

[sock]

sock - I'm assuming you wanted to vote for Zeus, so I'll count that. For those who want to check it out, see viewforum.php?f=72

yes

[super_dipsy]

You might want to take the approach that you can leave games in the list that have some rule changes - for example although I do not know the game in question, having a neutral Italy and then building Rome automatically does not sound too much of a difficulty. But the one where there is a train that can go multiple squares and can be disrupted might be harder, although thinking about it I think it might be sort of like a convoy in which case that could be relatively easy. Anyway, once we have a list I can take a look and if I think something looks a bit hairy we can leave it for the moment and come back to it.

7 or less players is fine - more than 7 is one of those more frightening things - there are loads of loops in the code from 1-7. If 6 and 7 are not there, this is no problem. But if a loop bigger than 7 is involved that gets much more onerous and risky.

Another thing that WOULD be a problem is anything that changes battle resolution (as opposed to map topology). For example, I did consider in Stuff Happens giving a unit a 'power of two' for a period, where it counts 2 in a battle rather than just 1. But this would be hard to do. So if we can keep the battle resolution part to follow normal battle resolution rules that would be great.

[Bluewolf]

i would have to say,
1900
Ancient Med
Five Italies

Since 1900 and Five Italies may not be allowed,
1. Zeus V
2. Zeus VF

Thanks DiploNEV. Five Italies should be fine, but for the time being 1900's definitely out.

The Zeus we were playing in the Championship was Zeus IV - do you want to specify V particularly (and if so, with or without France?) No problem if you do, just checking. I'll include your vote for the other two until I hear from you.

I say controversy of whether Ancient Med would be allowed as well as 1900, Five italies being a typo for the reserves, I meant:

My votes are:

1900
Ancient Med
Five Italies

If 1 is not allowed but 2 are, let's say 1900, my votes would be:

Zeus V

If only 1 is allowed (let's say Five Italies)

Zeus V
Zeus VF
Five Italies

the others were backups.

[Pedros]

You might want to take the approach that you can leave games in the list that have some rule changes - for example although I do not know the game in question, having a neutral Italy and then building Rome automatically does not sound too much of a difficulty. But the one where there is a train that can go multiple squares and can be disrupted might be harder, although thinking about it I think it might be sort of like a convoy in which case that could be relatively easy. Anyway, once we have a list I can take a look and if I think something looks a bit hairy we can leave it for the moment and come back to it.

7 or less players is fine - more than 7 is one of those more frightening things - there are loads of loops in the code from 1-7. If 6 and 7 are not there, this is no problem. But if a loop bigger than 7 is involved that gets much more onerous and risky.

Another thing that WOULD be a problem is anything that changes battle resolution (as opposed to map topology). For example, I did consider in Stuff Happens giving a unit a 'power of two' for a period, where it counts 2 in a battle rather than just 1. But this would be hard to do. So if we can keep the battle resolution part to follow normal battle resolution rules that would be great.

Thanks dipsy. That means, I think, a couple of things:-

- Firstly, dipsy has already said that he thinks the land bridges and 4-way in Ancient Med are no problem, so that's definitely in.

- Secondly, it means Colonial can come back into the reckoning, although it might not be possible because of the TSR.

- But thirdly, 1900 is still out. The route south of Africa means that units arrive with a strength of one half (and no power to support), so sorry all, no 1900!

I'll have to re-do the list taking this into consideration - and some people might want to change their nominations because of the alterations. If you do alter your vote, can you include a link to the original please, then I'll be able to change the list

[Pedros]

First in this time. If we can include Colonial then it's definitely in my list, along with Ancient Med and Baltic. Original at viewtopic.php?f=77&t=29227&start=20#p476793

[Pedros]

DOI has raised some important questions about Zeus V, which doesn't have totally standard rules:-

8. Pacific Island Areas. Armies may enter the Hawaiian, Midway, Okinawa and Solomon Is., spaces without convoy, as if they were land provinces. Fleets may move and convoy through these spaces as if they were ordinary sea spaces.

10. India contains a Standing Army, which must be dislodged before it can be occupied and claimed as a Supply Center.

11. U.S.A. may always build units in California instead of in a Home SC if it wishes, provided it owns California.

10, I think, wouldn't be a problem (as with Five Italies, it could use short-handed rules for a neutral); except that it would be an eighth nation! 11 would certainly require extra coding - I'm not sure how much. No idea about 8.

I suggest we leave the subject of which version open for now (unless dipsy takes another look in here). If Zeus gets voted in at the end, then we can decide at that point (probably would have to be IV). For now I'm including all nominations of Zeus together.

If nobody does it first I may run a game of V France later in the year - but when I have a slot I already know what's coming next!

[stalin813]

I'd like to add a vote for Zeus V-F

{I'm moving this to the "New Maps" topic stalin because it's a vote - the thread in "Archived" is for discussion of the variants.}

[Pedros]

DiploNEV has a useful description of the differences between Zeus IV and V at viewtopic.php?f=72&t=29290&p=478998#p478998 However, DOI's questions might make it academic for the purposes of this discussion. But it would certainly be interesting to get a game of V France going here on the Forum sometime.

[Pedros]

The nominations for the shortlist will close on Saturday next. If the list stays as it is then all six will be on it - I think six is maximum.