@picard's Middle East 1974 Dip Variant

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Tolbethessar (et al.):

I'd like to request a slot to playtest this variant here. Since there are a few games ahead in line, I expect that'll give plenty of time to polish it to enjoyability.

[Tolbethessar]

Jan 23, 2020 20:49:53 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Tolbethessar (et al.):

I'd like to request a slot to playtest this variant here. Since there are a few games ahead in line, I expect that'll give plenty of time to polish it to enjoyability.

Permission granted. I'll put your variant on the list for the upcoming RPs/games (well, a mental unwritten list, but you know what I mean, a list is a list even when it isn't a list).

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Jan 24, 2020 2:36:20 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Jan 23, 2020 20:49:53 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Tolbethessar (et al.):

I'd like to request a slot to playtest this variant here. Since there are a few games ahead in line, I expect that'll give plenty of time to polish it to enjoyability.

Permission granted. I'll put your variant on the list for the upcoming RPs/games (well, a mental unwritten list, but you know what I mean, a list is a list even when it isn't a list).

By the way, are there any particular stats you'd recommend I compute?

[Tolbethessar]

Jan 24, 2020 2:53:54 GMT Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger said:

Jan 24, 2020 2:36:20 GMT Tolbethessar said:

Permission granted. I'll put your variant on the list for the upcoming RPs/games (well, a mental unwritten list, but you know what I mean, a list is a list even when it isn't a list).

By the way, are there any particular stats you'd recommend I compute?

I'm still away on vacation, but I know of two articles that I would pull stats from a variant and examine with.

variantbank.org/articles/designing_maps.htm

I would suggest that a designer developing a new map-change variant which does not incorporate either special movement rules or multiple units would do well to ensure that for every unit on the board there is at least 2 spaces and not more than 21/2 spaces. Any less then the board becomes crowded, any more then the board becomes too large.

So total SCs vs total spaces, see how it goes.

Although I don't want to reduce variant design to basic mathematics I believe that something can be learnt from counting up exactly how far each Power has to travel to occupy the number of centres needed for victory, as this provides a good indication of the strength of the Power concerned.

If you apply this test to regular Diplomacy you get the following results:

Distance to 18 Centres...

The problem is that the author failed to speak of how he got those numbers. So if you somehow knew the formula, then I would like to hear it. This measurement is something pretty useful if you could compare the effectiveness of each country's potential.

But of course, that is not the whole story, some Powers are far more vulnerable to attack and tend to be eliminated early on. One way of measuring the vulnerability of a Power is to count the number of supply centres within 3 spaces of that Power's home centres and then consider how many of those centres are enemy home centres, the more home centres nearby, the more vulnerable the Power will be to attack. For Diplomacy the results are as follows:

% of S.C's <= 3 Spaces which are enemy home S.C.'s...

Thankfully, this time the author wasn't neglectful. Go ahead and measure the vulnerability of each power by this basic formula, see how it goes, perhaps?

variantbank.org/articles/networking.htm

The nodes are obviously the different powers. For the purpose of this article I have decided that a link exists between two powers if either or both of the following can happen in the first year's moves:
1. a unit of one power could move to a home supply centre of the other power;
2. units of both powers could move to take the same neutral supply centre.

When forming your own map of power links, differnate between neutrals-based links and home centers-based links, of course.

Then make a table of listing the powers, I would use column 2 and 3 the same way as this article's author did, but also add a fourth column based on this data (titled "Available Neutral Choices"). My fourth column is for how much of growth potential a country has in how wide the variety of choices from the map's neutrals are available to it. I wanted to compare the available choices of taking a neutral within the 1st year, that serves as a measurement of how much growth potential a power has on the map according to its starting position and by the end of the first year.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

I think I will go back to the larger map idea of including the USSR and Ethiopia and excluding Iraq, if only so I can space and distribute neutrals a little better. As it stands, Saudi Arabia is way too close to victory and not vulnerable enough.

EDIT: That's not gonna make it better, but the numbers show that:

1. Saudi Arabia is too well-protected and too close to too many neutrals
2. Egypt and Turkey especially may have a hard time growing
3. Iraq is firmly a center power.

So, in the back of my mind, I'm entertaining a possibility of orienting Egypt as a third competitor in the land-sea battle over the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, by giving it an SC in San'a and tweaking other borders, while simultaneously changing the dynamics of Syria to encourage a triangle between Israel, Turkey, and Iraq.

I'm not sure how it'll pan out, but that seems like what is called for.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

I'm back, baby!

This is the first draft of the redo, which means it sucks, but it gets what I'm now aiming at:'

1. The dark blue and the red are not powers, they are armed neutrals - NATO and the USSR. NATO will be an active armed neutral, which can be influenced with DPs, while the USSR just holds.
I'm debating giving NATO another SC in Djibouti or Bahrain. Is it worth the squinting?
2. In the Suez, I'm going to put a bonus NATO unit, enforcing the DMZ. That could help Israel and Egypt live in peace.
3. Egypt gets to play a split position - to bother the Saudi
4. Iran will start a unit short.
5. I forgot to mark Oman and Sudan as SCs, though in hindsight, I'm not sure how necessary they are. Sudan probably is pretty important for Egypt.
6. You'll notice Israel got 3 SCs but Iraq got 2, both being central powers. I'm debating which call was the right one.
7. Yes, it's kinda ugly.

[Frederick the Great]

1. Good concept!
2. Again, good idea instead of making Suez empty or with an SC but still empty
3 and 4. Nice.
5. Sudan can be an SC so Egypt doesn't get stuck just after taking Ethiopia. I'd suggest adding Djibouti in too but wasn't Djibouti French until '75? Oman can be an SC as it has two cushion spaces bordering it in Yemen and Saudi, and how Iran and Saudi (maybe even Egypt and Iraq) could use an extra SC while going around the Peninsula.
6. Make Kuwait neutral, but a universal build site for everyone?
7. Make the water more light blue? Lol

[Tolbethessar]

Feb 13, 2020 6:48:42 GMT Frederick the Great said:

1. Good concept!
2. Again, good idea instead of making Suez empty or with an SC but still empty
3 and 4. Nice.
5. Sudan can be an SC so Egypt doesn't get stuck just after taking Ethiopia. I'd suggest adding Djibouti in too but wasn't Djibouti French until '75? Oman can be an SC as it has two cushion spaces bordering it in Yemen and Saudi, and how Iran and Saudi (maybe even Egypt and Iraq) could use an extra SC while going around the Peninsula.
6. Make Kuwait neutral, but a universal build site for everyone?
7. Make the water more light blue? Lol

Kuwait IS neutral.

I agree with Sudan and Oman getting their SCs back. Assuming that Iran doesn't start with a fleet immediately, Oman would probably not be taken until the 2nd year, nice to still have neutrals lying around after the first year grabs. But I'm not 100% on Sudan until we have the cold hard numbers. Egypt has three units to start with and S.A. has only 2, and Egypt starts close to S.A. on top of that as well.

Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger.
I'm kinda concerned about Iraq have no Barsa. It really should have at least Barsa and Kuwait as available sites to build fleets at least, and yep a 2-SC center power is a horrible idea. What about Saudi Arabia? Isn't it also kinda a center power which means it's a bad idea to be a 2-SC power too?

[Frederick the Great]

What I also mentioned about Kuwait was that anyone can build there, so it would kind of solve the Basra issue as well.

Saudi DOES need a third unit, but where? Close to the Emirates/Oman?

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Allow me to respond:

A) I think I will give Iraq a third home center in Basra. SA too, by splitting the Gulf Coast off from Riyadh. Then, to balance that, I'd want to change Iran's SCs to give it two on the coasts as a counter to SA.
This leaves Turkey as the last 2-center power, so maybe I'll remove the NATO unit from Greece to give the Turk a better time.
B) I'll make Kuwait as an Iraq-only build site, with Qatar and Beirut as free-build sites. 

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Meet the latest draft. I made this in Inkscape (thanks nopunin10did for that tip), and it looks... better in some ways, worse in others.



I don't love the unit icons, but it's a first try, so I'm not beating myself up over how derpy they (esp. the Soviet and Iraqi ones) are.

Notes:

1. I tried to change the borders between Israel's SCs - now Tel Aviv (north) and Jerusalem (central) to make them nicer-looking. This is a work in progress.
2. Djibouti is tiny. I hate it. 
3. I like my unit assignments, mostly. Iran's two-fleet, one-army setup keeps it from steamrolling Iraq, while also making it a significant player that won't be paralyzed the first round. Israel is optimized defensively, while not being able to zerg rush any of her neighbors (historicity of such a curb-stomp aside - *1967 noises*). 
4. NATO units can be influenced by DPs, Soviets cannot. Should I change this?
5. The geography around Athens (Greece) is charmingly non-planar, as Crete is part of Athens and also borders Adana via land bridge. I love it. 
6. The Saudi seems to me like he's positioned to focus on whichever front, depending on A Riyadh. He can go for the Yemens, the Gulf, or even Jordan. 
7. Suez is designed as a barrier that makes it possible, but not inevitable, for Israel and Egypt to go to war. I'm contemplating putting a fleet there, though, so Egypt can invade Israel easier (using her DPs to have Suez go to either sea).
8. The SC coloration does not indicate possession, but build rights. Egypt may not build in Sana'a, as you can see, but he may build in Tripoli and Damascus. Iraq may build in Kuwait - and Damascus. Yes, both of them may build in Damascus - Egypt to reflect the legacy of the United Arab Republic, Iraq for Ba'athist reasons.
Qatar and Beirut are universal build sites.
I will impose a build cap of 2 or 3 per phase, as some countries (Iraq) are theoretically possible of building on as many as 6 sites.


Another note on NATO and DP orders:

I will allow more DP moves than in A&E - NATO units will be allowed to successfully move, and even convoy. Some things they will not be allowed to do are:
1. Support or convoy an attack on another NATO unit.
2. Support or convoy an attack on a NATO-owned home SC of NATO (Athens, Nicosia (Cyprus), Djibouti, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai).
3. Support a USSR unit holding.
I may choose to reflect historicity and allow Turkey exceptions to rule 2, perhaps also rule 1.

---

Considerations I have:

1. Should Turkey have a third home SC, in Ankara, despite the strong corner position? Should I have it have three SCs but only two units? How do I balance this?
2. Should Suez be a fleet or an army?
3. Should I give Turkey extra powers on NATO?
4. Is Egypt's split position a bad idea?
5. Should I make the USSR DP-influenceable? Would that shaft Iran too badly on Baku?
6. Should I add a land-bridge from Sharm-el-Sheikh to Hejaz, and/or from Bandar Abbas to Muscat or Dubai?
7. Do I need more free build sites, like in Aden, Djibouti, Addis Ababa, or Dubai?
8. How should I reflect NATO builds if NATO ends up gaining SCs? And NATO disbands?
9. Anything else?

[Frederick the Great]

Ok so this is going to be really damn long so be prepared.

1. Looks good to me.
2. Yeah it went unnoticed for me until you had mentioned it, if you can make it a bit bigger then please do.
3. Good initiative, makes Irani politics way more dynamic (has to talk to everyone because he can get almost everywhere).
4. Soviets should be under influence of other nations as well.
5. I love it too after I noticed the landbridge, will add to some interesting results.
6. This is the art of diplomacy, figuring out where to go, you can't just head out for one front because that's the only front you had to launch an attack on.
7. I like it.
8. This is about Egypt specifically, but I think that Tripoli (would actually be Tobruk, the closest major city to the border, or not even that but some small town but for simplicity's sake you can call it Tobruk) shouldn't be a build site, but Sudan. Egypt building right in Sudan would give Saudi one hell of a time, for Saudi then would have to use Jeddah wisely.
Also related to Sudan and Egypt, Ethiopia shouldn't be an SC as in that area there is already a good concentration of SCs (both the Yemens plus Djibouti). In turn, Sudan should be an eligible build site for Egypt. This combines in nicely with my previous statement on Saudi and Jeddah.

About the DP and NATO thing. I think no nation should be allowed to use one NATO unit against the other as it would be simply illogical. Instead NATO would help the players in attacking other players, not itself.

Now, your considerations:

1. A Turk Army in Kurdistan can really spice things up for Iraq, Iran and the Caucasus.
2. Fleet.
3. No, that would be disadvantageous to Iran (who isn't Islamic in '67) and Saudi.
4. I think it's a good idea because it will give the Saudis a harder time to their south and west, and if Egypt isn't split we'd have to accommodate the third unit/SC back in Egypt, destabilising Israel as a consequence.
5. I think either both the NATO and the USSR should be able to be influenced. Idk why, I ain't able to explain it properly just yet.
6. Sharm to Hijaz yes, and Bandar Abbas to Dubai I think.
7. If you REALLY want another free build site, like REEEEEEAAALLY, then Salalah in Oman can be one, to balance the effects of (Qatar and) Lebanon.
8. I don't know about this one, maybe Tolbethessar does?
9. Not really, at least at present.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

Frederick the Great, a couple of clarifications:

1. Does it really warrant doing to screw Saudi Arabia more by further aligning Egypt southwards instead of towards the north and east? Saudi is already dealing with armed neutrals, A Sana'a, and the Iranian navy, so I don't think he needs to be screwed harder.
2. Would Kurdistan really be the right place to put the Turkish SC, brushing up on the Iraqis in Mosul? I'd think Ankara would give Turkey more flexibility, and Iraq more peace of mind.

[Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger]

I'll make a changelog in the morning, but meet the latest update, now with zigzaggy borders of questionable accuracy.

Immediate notes:
Yes, making an "Africa" space was painful, and yes, I am punishing Turkey for having three home centers by making him work for a build - like Iran.

[Frederick the Great]

I like where this is going.