Possible new variant WiTA Versailles

[Putski]

I really love this idea! 5 / 5 to start with can lead to new insights.

Another minor point concerning WitA is the Stuff happens option, which still is 'Europe oriented'. Maybe when there will be an addition made to this popular variant, this is also something to catch up with.

[ColonelApricot]

So I would like to throw this open particularly to WiTA players for your opinions on a) the idea n general and b) possible selections for the 5 Major countries (who start with 3 units) and the 5 Minor countries (who start with 1 unit).

A new Versailles-type format is a great idea.
What about each major having 2 centers and each minor 1 center. 10 players, 30 centers.

.. CA

[Superspoofer2]

This new version is good, but another way to mitigate the difficulty of finding 10 players would be to lengthen the time a game can be in the waiting phase.

[FloridaMan]

I tend to agree with the players who want this new variant to have at least 6 or maybe 7 players.

I've found the 5 player or fewer variants a little simplistic, a little too much like playing a different kind of game. The diplomatic aspect is over more quickly, because initial alliance structures change the fundamental strategic outlook of the game very quickly.

More players mean more variables, which I generally think is more interesting.

Also, I find the idea of creating new countries as minors (like an independent Alaska) very interesting.

[Strategus]

Yeah seven player is best. But fwiw, Dipsy's original post seemed to imply this should be a quick fix. Maybe best to jfdi, play it and see how the balance is. It can always be updated, but trying to perfect it before designing it will mean it takes forever.

[ColonelApricot]

How about 7 players, 14 powers, 2 centers each, 28 centers in total.

Seven 2-center powers in Sth America (majors) and seven 2-center powers (minors) outside. Randomly allocate a major and a minor to each player.

.. CA

[Strategus]

How about 7 players, 14 powers, 2 centers each, 28 centers in total.

Seven 2-center powers in Sth America (majors) and seven 2-center powers (minors) outside. Randomly allocate a major and a minor to each player.

.. CA

Something simple like this is worth trying.

[Custer]

I second this.....or third.....whatever.

Custer

[dukenukem]

This could also be a great way to balance out the board! Could you add some fun minors to North America, like an independent Hawaii and a Native American army in Oregon? It could look something like:

Majors: Britain (no Malvinas), USA, Mexico, Spain, New Grenada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile

Minors: Nez Perce (A Oregon), Hawaii (F Hawaii), Haiti (F Haiti), Venezuela (A Caracas), Guyana (A Georgetown), Peru (A Lima), Bolivia (A La Paz), Falklands (F Malvinas)

Making the Arctic Ocean and the NW Territories Coastline impassable would help balance things out too.

[Solar Flare]

Not sure whether this is still being considered, but another thought I just had to throw into the mix is how about having all Major powers in South America, and all Minor powers in the north... This would prevent Minor powers being quickly eliminated without so much as a sniff at a three-fleet convoy... I also like the suggestion of 7 players, with each "Major" and "Minor" just starting AoE style, or with just two units each.

Another element of intrigue would then be to make the passage from north to south (certain zones) impassable, for a designated period of time - like 3 or 5 years. This would see effectively two separate wars taking place which could see a single player gaining the upper hand with both of his/her countries, or perhaps one of their countries getting really big, but the other dying off. Then, after the designated period, the borders open and it's no holds barred! This would also help players to keep their combinations secret for a longer period of time, because there would be no intermingling at first, and so no need to reveal your dual nationality.

To implement both of these would certainly open up several more dimensions of intrigue to the variant. Keen to hear your thoughts.