War in the Americas--Starts!

[TheYank]

There was an SC in Chicago too.

I think the problem was that the map had areas colored in that represented a map that had been played for a few turns - that's why the opening SCs didn't line up to what was listed. So when you were editing the map to make the SCs conform with the original starting positions, you deleted SCs instead of merely making them neutral.

[QueenOfHearts]

Shall I change them? Or do you want me to just leave it?

[TheYank]

Well, I'm absolutely an interested party, but not having that neutral SC in Chicago means I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, especially with UK/GB/Canada's three SCs right on top of me.

[UFOash]

Don't start changing the Win & Trinidad part though.

[Ceebs]

I think we ought to assume that the rules as stated here are indicative of how the variant was meant to be played (it is in it's 4th version, so one assumes it has been adequately balanced)

The strange thing is that this map shows several SCs as being part of a country's empire, but not a home SC (ie. they do not start with a unit there). We are left to assume that they are meant to be neutral SCs and are just confusingly colored.

Therefore, i think the following provinces should be made into neutral SCs: Cal, Chi, Man (all were missed)

Additionally, there are the following other errors:

-Along the Amazon river, there are two provinces named Lor. The green one is supposed to be "AMA"
-Trinidad is meant to be a supply center, not West Indies. Trinidad is also currently labeled "Kre" instead of "Tri"
-The variant rules show that GB is meant to start with Trinidad as an SC, with a fleet there. GB does not start with an army in Toronto
-Just to be exhaustive, the rules on the variant page state that the game is meant to be build-anywhere


It is fully understandable that we may be playing a variant of a variant, and therefore not all of these changes need to be implemented. Perhaps some of the players would like to discuss these, but ultimately it should be up to the discretion of the GM, who passes judgement with the intention of making the game as fair and balanced as possible.

IMHO, i think the game should be fully updated to accommodate these rules

[UFOash]

I think we ought to assume that the rules as stated here are indicative of how the variant was meant to be played (it is in it's 4th version, so one assumes it has been adequately balanced)

The strange thing is that this map shows several SCs as being part of a country's empire, but not a home SC (ie. they do not start with a unit there). We are left to assume that they are meant to be neutral SCs and are just confusingly colored.

Therefore, i think the following provinces should be made into neutral SCs: Cal, Chi, Man (all were missed)

Additionally, there are the following other errors:

-Along the Amazon river, there are two provinces named Lor. The green one is supposed to be "AMA"
-Trinidad is meant to be a supply center, not West Indies. Trinidad is also currently labeled "Kre" instead of "Tri"
-The variant rules show that GB is meant to start with Trinidad as an SC, with a fleet there. GB does not start with an army in Toronto
-Just to be exhaustive, the rules on the variant page state that the game is meant to be build-anywhere


It is fully understandable that we may be playing a variant of a variant, and therefore not all of these changes need to be implemented. Perhaps some of the players would like to discuss these, but ultimately it should be up to the discretion of the GM, who passes judgement with the intention of making the game as fair and balanced as possible.

IMHO, i think the game should be fully updated to accommodate these rules

We've already started, Its a bit late to start taking, renaming and/or converting peoples SC's.
I'm fine either way with the build anywhere thing though.

[QueenOfHearts]

If ALL of you agree to change something, it will be changed. If anyone proposes something within reason, I'm open to hear it.

[Ceebs]

Since we've already started, naturally certain players have vested interests in keeping things the same or making changes.
For example, Brazil:

Don't start changing the Win & Trinidad part though.

Also, we are unlikely to have a unanimous consensus on changes since some people probably aren't reading any of this.

Of the points i expressed earlier, obviously the changing of some abbreviations is within reason for starters. Secondly, the inclusion of the 3 missing neutral supply centers is important to balancing the game in my opinion. Notwithstanding the fact that i *may* stand to gain from the inclusion of california for example, i still think that we ought to play the variant the way it was intended, lest we handicap all of the countries near to these missing SCs. It would be like forgetting to make Tunis an SC in regular diplomacy--Italy is screwed over, to the benefit of all the other players (plus it affects other powers later on)
So, can we have a straw poll on including them? Ideally, this should be done before Fall 1901 as it will impact players' moves immediately (maybe we need a brief delay to accomodate this).

As for the situation around Trinidad and GB's supposed home centers, it' a little more tricky. I'm on the fence about it at the moment, but i'd be interested to hear others' non-biased opinions.

[UFOash]

If ALL of you agree to change something, it will be changed. If anyone proposes something within reason, I'm open to hear it.

I think all of Brazil's territories should be SC's

@Ceebs I'd say the map looks pretty much fine now, couple that with the fact that we've already started on this map & I think we should stay the same.

Although obviously we should change territories that have the same name, that could potentionally screw up orders.

[QueenOfHearts]

So the consensus is....Leave everything alone?