A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

[CCR]

A simple feature, and a map:

--> The [concede] button! (side by side the draw one, as it exists in vdip)
I understand the developers not making it a webdip feature, but, why not allowing it for unrated games? As all 1v1 games are unrated, voilà!

--> The Civil War map! (https://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=33)
The base map already exists in webdip - it is The Fall of American Empire IV, so it is a big push to add it here. Furthermore, it is an equilibrated 1v1 map; Confederacy has some room to grow (à la Austria in FvA), thus it has an advantage in low level games, while playing Union requires a more strategic and incisive play (à la France in FvA)

[Claesar]

I believe we are working on a [concede]-button for 1v1s. It's definitely on our
list. Our developers are a bit busy though. Can you code PhP?

I don't know anything about variants though. Don't play 'em. Technically, if a variant is working on vDip there's a decent chance we can import it as the code is similar.

[badivan1]

i have played a few games of the Fall of American Empire: Civil War; i don't really agree with the assessment that it's balanced. Confederacy can smother the Union very early either with a standard opening or using a fleet gambit opening. if you are inexperienced, playing as Union is not easy

i have explored ways for the Union to break out of the opening stranglehold: i have discovered a specific opening build that might be a saving grace. i haven't played this variant for a while, so don't take my word for it yet. i would need to go back and experiment some more

[ghug]

The existence of a map doesn't really make porting a variant any easier. It's a risky process, as evidenced by the Known World 901 fiasco, and it requires a lot of development effort even when it does work.

That isn't to say no new variants ever, but I wouldn't hold your breath right now.

[CptMike]

i have played a few games of the Fall of American Empire: Civil War; i don't really agree with the assessment that it's balanced. Confederacy can smother the Union very early either with a standard opening or using a fleet gambit opening. if you are inexperienced, playing as Union is not easy

i have explored ways for the Union to break out of the opening stranglehold: i have discovered a specific opening build that might be a saving grace. i haven't played this variant for a while, so don't take my word for it yet. i would need to go back and experiment some more

Are Washington and Richmond supply centers ?

I assume that first turns we have :

Spring :
* Ten > Kent + Ohio > Kent for a bounce and then they take a center
* Georgia > Deep South > Louis (then Dallas, then Kansas, ...)
* Ncar > East Coast > Miami
* New York > NYS > Ontario (then Minn, ... )

The problem is indeed that Confederates can easily move North (take Chicago and support to Kent...) So the building centers of the Union are threatened for the full game...

The maps does not look fair.

[badivan1]

[...]
Are Washington and Richmond supply centers ?

I assume that first turns we have :

Spring :
* Ten > Kent + Ohio > Kent for a bounce and then they take a center
* Georgia > Deep South > Louis (then Dallas, then Kansas, ...)
* Ncar > East Coast > Miami
* New York > NYS > Ontario (then Minn, ... )

The problem is indeed that Confederates can easily move North (take Chicago and support to Kent...) So the building centers of the Union are threatened for the full game...

The maps does not look fair.

Washington and Richmond are indeed supply centers.

a typical Confederates opening could be:

winter: build A Tennessee (Tenn), A North Carolina (NCar), F Georgia (Geo, not sure for the abbreviation, but whatever);
1860 (first year): Tenn-bounce in Kentucky (Kent)-Missouri, NCar-Richmond(Ric)-bounce off Washington (WDC), Geo-East Coast-Miami
build: A Tenn, F Geo, F NCar

a natural Union opening could be:
build: A Ohio, A New Jersey (NJ), F New York City (NYC)
1860: Ohio-bounce in Kent-Michigan (Mich), NJ-WDC-bounce off Ric, NYC-Cape May-Massachusetts
build: A Ohio, A NJ, A/F NYC

you correctly noticed that the Confederates can go to Chicago and put pressure. in fact, Missouri can support Tenn into Kent in Spring, before going to Chicago. even if they went to Chicago first, if Mich went to Upper Peninsula (UP), Chicago can bounce off Milwaukee. meanwhile, their fleets go to Chesapeake Bay and East Coast and move into Cape May in Fall/Autumn. they can put pressure while expanding naturally.

as for the Union, if you go with the natural moves, Ohio has to move backwards to Mich to gain a center. starting from the next year, on top of fending off Kent, they have to defend WDC or lose it, because of F Chesapeake Bay. Union can't expand so easily with natural moves

so, yes, if you don't understand the opening imbalances, the map is unfair

[CptMike]

Washington and Richmond are indeed supply centers.
(...)
Union can't expand so easily with natural moves
so, yes, if you don't understand the opening imbalances, the map is unfair

With Washington and Richmond supply centers the opening changes but the result is the same. So Union has to gambit...

But even with this, but I am not sure it changes a lot. Confederates can get 3 new units per turn and grow fast whereas the Union will suffer at the beginning, which means that a rush strategy should work for confederates.

That's sad because the idea is nice.
Map should be adapted to equilibrate the game...

[CptMike]

The weakness of the Union is also a little bit there for the Confederates....

There are ways to put pressure on each...

[CptMike]

If someone is interested to test it :

Just tell me

[badivan1]

The weakness of the Union is also a little bit there for the Confederates....

There are ways to put pressure on each...

bringing up a game of mine. heh ! either way, let's elaborate a few things:

first, i opened with a 3 armies build to take Philadelphia in year 1. next year, it can move to West Pennsylvania to defend Ohio. i like it better than opening with a fleet

second, having an army retreat to Michigan to claim the center isn't ideal. i could hope for the best and go to Milwaukee via Upper Peninsula, but like before, army to Chicago is bad for me.

on the flip side, sending my army to Indiana helps me deal with Kentucky/Missouri/Chicago, but then, where am i getting my 3rd center? even if i somehow got that 3rd center, i need to somehow leave Ohio empty to build my 3rd unit.

minor detail: the Confederates should build a fleet in North Carolina in year 1, instead of an army, especially since i opened with 3 armies

[CptMike]

first, i opened with a 3 armies build to take Philadelphia in year 1. next year, it can move to West Pennsylvania to defend Ohio. i like it better than opening with a fleet

Confederates could gambit and move to Cape May but I don't think it's worth losing a build so that's a good starting point I think.

second, having an army retreat to Michigan to claim the center isn't ideal. i could hope for the best and go to Milwaukee via Upper Peninsula, but like before, army to Chicago is bad for me.

Yes. That's the weak point of the Union and the reason why Ohio should not be available for builds. The strength of the Union is that it has the West Penn - West Virginia corridor to penetrate the front.

on the flip side, sending my army to Indiana helps me deal with Kentucky/Missouri/Chicago, but then, where am i getting my 3rd center? even if i somehow got that 3rd center, i need to somehow leave Ohio empty to build my 3rd unit.

Yes.

minor detail: the Confederates should build a fleet in North Carolina in year 1, instead of an army, especially since i opened with 3 armies

It depends how the game evovle. I would prefer an army in Richmond than a fleet...

[CptMike]

And what is your mind about this : USSR vs NATO ?

[badivan1]

the Cold War variant feels way more balanced in my experience. the map knowledge has a lot of nuances though

[Mercy]

Yes, Cold War is a very good variant in my opinion.

[CptMike]

the map knowledge has a lot of nuances though

What do you mean ?

[badivan1]

what/where you build is very important, especially in the first year. there are a few building options, with their pros and cons. e.g. should i build a fleet to defend, or leave the defense to an army and build it elsewhere instead?

[CptMike]

Another trial...

[captainmeme]

Cold War is a far far better variant than 1v1 FotAE.

I actually recommended Cold War back when 1v1s were first introduced, but the response was that webDiplomacy is mainly for Classic so only 1v1s based on Classic would be accepted.

[CptMike]

(...)

Welcome back captainmeme. We miss you! :)

For anybody who is interested.

[CptMike]

Cold War is a far far better variant than 1v1 FotAE.

I just discover it but I have the feeling NATO is favored...
The map gives a feeling of symetry but that's not the case

* Tk and Alb have both border Gre and it is a key territory
* But UK can go to Nwg Sea and threatens StPet/Leningrad
-> Russia have to be lucky on the European front

* USA has just 2 armies and not fleet, as China, and they both face a single fleet (Cuba vs Australia) but the Australian fleet has much more opportunities to deploy : West Pacific - Indian Ocean not to talk about the Indonesia center which can't be accessed by land in comparison with Cuba, which is "surrounded" and Panama.

On the other side :

* What is very interesting in this map is the 3 (or 4) fronts (4th front could be Arabian Sea bordering India and Iran) and the possibility for a player to invest new builds on a given front and surprise the adversary. But with 11 centers (12 with Iran) on the European front among which 2 x 3 building ones, it should remain a priority

* It is a fast game each player having 6 building centers and "only" 27 centers in total...