Player and GM feedback on the map

9-player variant by Christopher Carde, introduced and GMd by drrnwrstlr. Standard rules. Game ended with no result

Player and GM feedback on the map

Postby Pedros » 23 Jul 2012, 13:55

When the first game petered out I asked players to provide some feedback about the game, particularly whether the map is a good one and worth playing again. This was not because I had any reason to think the answer would be "No" - I hadn't followed the game closely - but because I have increasingly felt that it's important that possible future players and GMs should have some idea about the valude of a game before signing up to it. What follows is my attempt to summarise their responses.

There was no suggestion from any of them that the map is poor and not worth playing again. One player thought specifically that the map is balanced:-
attitudes wrote:We only got thru Fall 02 with most of the turns having at least one NMR so it's tough to say but I think the map is sufficiently balanced that it would be worth trying again.

and Diplofreak seemed to agree (although he was arguing from a wider viewpoint):-
Diplofreak wrote:I don't really believe that any game with more than 2 players that have a fairly equal start can become unbalanced. I think it would just take a couple of run-throughs for people to adjust.

And UpQuark expressed interest in GMing another run of the game, although he hinted at some map changes:-
UpQuark wrote:I would consider adopting this variant (GM) if there is sufficient interest to start over.

I would need until early August to prepare some map improvements....

I think it would be a shame to see this scenario not run to a better conclusion - it looks interesting.

drrnwrstlr, the GM, seemed to share this view to some extent:-
drrnwrstlr wrote:From what I could tell, I think things were fairly even. Yes, some countries did get three builds, but most countries got at least two builds.... I guess the only thing is that maybe, since both alg and ott only got one each, and they border each other, another center could be added, maybe in Matawatchan.

The one dissenting voice came from Malevolence:-
Malevolence wrote:I still say its a bit unbalanced and could do with another faction in the west/north west area of the map, as those two players are each guaranteed three builds and then more, even more so if they cooperate.... The east is more condensed and out to fight earlier on with fewer SCs.

(Malevolence played the Iroquois, one of the most easterly nations.)
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Player and GM feedback on the map

Postby bluestreaksoccer » 23 Jul 2012, 14:41

I was kaskasia and from the beginning I knew that I was in one of the strongest positions in the game. I had lots of open ground and SC's all over.
"LIVE. DIE. REPEAT" -how I play diplomacy
User avatar
Posts: 2190
Joined: 10 Feb 2011, 18:55
Location: underneath a pile of homework
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (852)
All-game rating: (855)
Timezone: GMT-5

Return to Indians of the Great Lakes {All Maps Lost}

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest