Ranking the Diplomacy Maps
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2021
- Here's my ranking (based on a blurry combo of objective and preference factors) of the Diplomacy maps.
My general links are as follows: floridamandiplomacy.wordpress... / discord
/ floridamandiplomacy
ko-fi.com/floridaman
And credit for any subtitles belongs to Perygl, for Romanian, to pompodopompom, for French, and to Sploack, for Italian. - Hry
I quite enjoy Imperial. It’s great fun, even if a bit (very) unbalanced. If you want to join some games of it, come on Floridaman’s server and ask for a link to the variant’s server. I agree with classic being first in this assessment definitely, it’s been the default for 60 years for a reason! (Thanks for the vid FM, the references make me smile 😊)
Pinned your comment, because you're encouraging people to come on my server and play!
I'm glad you enjoyed the video :)
I'll have to try Imperial myself.
I don't think balance should be the ultimate thing to strive for in a diplomacy map. There should be enough of it to give every power a good chance of winning but beyond that I don't think it's useful to balance further. If players are experienced on the map then they adjust their strategies, becoming more weary of the stronger powers, naturally balancing out the game. For instance, in classic, Turkey is strongest on playdiplomacy but I've seen a world championship final board where it was picked last since people know it's potential and so know they will all block it in the corner if it gets too big. I think it's better to introduce more interesting gameplay potential and historical accuracy rather than to prioritise balance above all else. However, I do agree 2:1 win ratio is a sensible limit on imbalance.
I agree that balance isn't the be-all and end-all, but I'm glad we agree on a sensible ratio. No one wants to play as a power that literally never wins, although some might try it and take it as a challenge.
The gameplay potential is really high for Versailles, in my opinion, and my favorites for interesting historical settings would be either War in the Americas or South American Supremacy, since the Americas pre-1900 are not a widely explored or understood topic even in the US.
I think the coolest variant I've seen (but never played) is about cowboys on the border between Mexico and Texas. Some centers are were ranches, which work like normal, but cattle herds are also centers and the whole gimmick was that herds can move like armies. I think that variant's called like ranchers but don't remember for sure.
That sounds pretty cool indeed. I'd never even heard of something like that, but I love it when variants highlight little-thought-about bits of history.
I like the 1936 variant a lot. It's, as the title suggests, a map of Europe in 1936. This variant includes neutral powers with standing armies, which can be influenced by spending Diplomacy points. For example, Germany can move it's three starting armies, but it can also spend one or two DP's to write an order for a neutral power. It can write an order to support his army in Munich to Austria with the Neutral army in Bohemia. A neutral power that gets more than one order assigned, will follow the order which has the most DP's attached to it (almost every nation starts with 3 DP's, and you can spend 1 or 2 DP to influence a neutral power). This aspect can create an immense increase of options and diplomatic strategies. I have never played it, but it looks interesting.
www.dipwiki.com/index.php?title=1936_v3.4
That sounds like a very interesting variant idea. I'd be interested in trying it, I think, at some point in the future. Maybe something I could organize on PlayDiplomacy's forums one day.
@@floridamandiplomacy I printed the map out and tried to do a solo game, to see how the flow of the game is. I really like is as you have a lot of options, you can negotiate with people about alliances, expansion areas, and the usage of DP's. Also I like that the fleet in Turkey is not in Ankara in the North, but in the west, in Izmit I believe. I find it interesting that Russia has only three units to begin with. I am wondering if there is a country that has an advantage in this game, if the game is balanced or not. It seems France is not that kind of a fortress, as Paris touches Belgium.
The variant I've played the most is the modern diplomacy map, in 1990 with 10 players
Is that map basically this? www.variantbank.org/results/rules/m/modern2.htm
Because that looks pretty interesting.
@@floridamandiplomacy yeah, it goes to show that when it comes to diplomacy, the more the merrier. It doesn't feel crowded but you can still make meaningful press with even the people on the far side of the board once you cross into the mid game
@@Cappy-Bara Completely agree. And that's pretty cool. Something to add to the to-try list.
This makes me want to make my own map. If it didn't already exist, my map would be ancient Greece. Maybe a pre-Colombian Mesoamerican map would be good.
If you make a pre-Colombian Mesoamerican map, hit me up to playtest it!
Hundred is great if you only have two friends; I think it's the best of three-player maps (which can actually be very interesting in public press). Imo 1900 is fine--the best part is Turkey having another neighbor (as Turkey in classic there's very little tangible leverage you have over the West--you certainly want the West to attack your assailants but there's really not too much you can offer), but it has major flaws (Germany +3 in '01 almost every time!) Classic also benefits from being well-known, although I won't deny that it's a very good variant regardless. Anyways, nice analysis; I'd hope to play some more variants soon :)
I took the first part of that first line personally... until I realized that you don't actually know how many friends I have.
I suspect that Turkey having another neighbor in 1900 is actually what makes Turkey substantially weaker, in terms of solo rates, in that variant. I can definitely see how it makes the game more potentially fun for the Turkish player, though.
I'll definitely hope to play some more variants soon, and I'll probably want to update this in another year or so.
I played Colonial Diplomacy once as a teen in the 90's and enjoyed it. I'm curious if there is an online version of this anywhere. I don't know how well balanced it was, but I know it was a larger map, and needed more dots for victory. I played as France (French Indo-China) and got obliterated by Japan when I tried to muscle in on the Philippines, and China vultured my supply centers. Not sure who won, but it was pretty fun even though I didn't get very far.
I believe you can play that variant on VDiplomacy (actually, it looks like you can play a lot of different variants on there). So, I might try that site if you're interested in playing Colonial. They have two different versions on that site, though I don't know if either is the one you played in the 90s.
Been waiting for this
I'll probably do a sequel, when I've played 8 or so more!
Great video! I would be very interested in watching a ranking of the world map variants as there are quite a few. Particularly if you could compare maps like World War IV, World Diplomacy X, Imperial Diplomacy II, and Youngstown Redux along with a few others. They are not quick to play (making any review and ranking even more valuable) so perhaps enlist the help of one or two other players in feeding into your ranking, and/or make use of any stats you can get your hands on.
Looking forward to watching a world diplomacy ranking in the near future hopefully! 🤞
Keep watching! I can't promise when I might get to this, but I will definitely keep it in my pocket/add it to my list!
Hey! South American Supremacy made it. Cool! :)
After the ride that game gave me, how could I leave it out?!
All is best in the eye of the beholder... currently I am looking at around 20 different maps and rules...
Nice overview Florida man. After seeing this video I was wondering if you would be interested in including the variants from Web diplomacy [ Such as fall of the American Empire, known world, modern diplomacy, and world diplomacy]. This led me to the idea that you might Give your opinion of the major Diplomacy online platforms such as Web diplomacy and backstaber. I realise you may not play on these platforms very much but would value your opinion nonetheless. Or perhaps you could just tell us why you prefer play diplomacy website. Thanks again for your always interesting insights.
Perhaps if you don't feel comfortable reviewing platforms other then PlayDiplomacy, you could get another guest to join you.
@@forestgreenhobbit I would definitely like to try this, after I set some time aside and properly experience Webdiplomacy, VDiplomacy, and possibly more (since I've mostly played on PlayDiplomacy, and secondarily on Backstabbr, so far). Having a guest might allow me to expedite the process, though.
Comment for the algorithm
The algorithm says, "Yum yum yum! Delicioso!"
The thing I don’t like about 1900 is no impassables. Switzerland and Ireland being neutral are important for balance.
This is a good point. It was a bit harder for me to put my finger on exactly what it was that was wrong with the map, if I recall correctly.
I haven't even played the game diplomacy yet, but I've been watching a lot of these videos. I'm surprised they didn't see Greece as a map on the list.
I appreciate your interest, despite never having played before. There is an Ancient Greece Diplomacy variant I've played since this, along with a few other variants, so I'll probably make an update video soon!
Have you played the Cold War variant?
I have not. I've seen that it's on VDiplomacy, though. I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.
@@floridamandiplomacy I'd reccomend giving it a shot. I liked it, but the statement about a game of chess applies to this one too.
@@ianmccurdy1204 At least with a two player game, it's actually *intended* to be that way. Plus, you get the speed of playing with only two players!
For yours truly, someone new to Diplomacy, could you elaborate upon the Minor Powers rules and how they enhance the traditional game?
Well, the minor powers only exist on variant maps. Specifically, if you look at the "Versailles" map, it has the minor powers Czech, Egypt, Greece, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, and Yugoslavia. The way it works is that each person has a major power, and everyone is also anonymously assigned a random minor power. The major powers are each 3-4 centers, while the minor powers have 1 center each. And you engage in communications through your main power as well as your minor power separately. So, what it adds is that you have a pawn that you can move without people knowing who controls it. If your minor gets a little stronger without people finding out which person controls it, you can have a big impact on the map through it. The minor powers enhance the game both by allowing you to feel like you're playing two powers at once and by adding a mystery element, where you and other powers are trying to figure each others' minors out... although, a lot of the time, people reveal their minors to each other as a trust exercise.
Commento per l'algoritmo
Grazi, and I hope you enjoyed the video!
@@floridamandiplomacy *Grazie
@@ColburnClassroom Well, learn something new every day...
1900 variant is one of my favourites, but an enjoyable game requires the players to understand that germany is strong and turkey weak. If the players are not aware of those imbalances, then they will not utilise them in the negotiations, leading to win bloat for germany.
The opposite is true for the classic. With completely new players, none of who know anything about the "meta", Italy will almost never win, and Turkey is super strong. Those imbalances do not affect the stats on playdip or vdip because players are aware of them.
I think imbalance is actually required for a good game. And for newbies it could actually be good to have a variant where there is one obviously overpowered country, with all the others weaker, like a video game boss. In that sense, 1900 falls short, as turkey does not SEEM weaker, and germany does not SEEM stronger.
Balance issues are heightened if there are fewer players on the board, however, meaning that any imbalance in ancient med is worse than in chaos for example.