Hi Luke,

Like your suggestion about the luck setting, I will probably change that in the next version.

It was my initial thinking to have no rules but It seemed that a lot of people were requesting them in chat so I'd though I'd try it out in the last version. I might change this back again in the next version so I'm keen to get everyone's ideas on this. If anyone makes a post then please state which you prefer.

I've been holding back on the next version because I didn't want to keep small changes and then keep making new versions every couple of days. It's already in the works, but I probably won't host it until I feel I've got as many changes done to make it worth it.


Just a quick note to Marion, yes Ironheart is right, it would be impossible to have some of these teams in the same game if it was stuck to a precise era of time. Also there are a couple of very small inconsistencies with history, for example, the British having Iceland. This was done purely for holding that particular bonus. The only way I would be able to change that would be if I could change where the bonuses are on the map and unfortunately I can't do that without making an entirely new map just for the purpose of this scenario. You never know, I might try it one day if I have the time....

Another thing about the rules: I'm in one playing as the british in india with random team-mates (never a good sign) and one of them attacked without a declaration so, per the current rules I went rogue with them, that may be an issue, especially with open seats. Not sure what to be done, or if you intended it this way, just my thoughts .

Personally I would like to state that I find there to be a big disbalance between the individual parties.
While normally I always love roleplaying games and then especially to roleplay the smaller nations this is made almost impossible by the fact that most people do not seem to be playing with a long term vision.
In the most ideal situation players would form longer lasting alliances but in reality it all boils down to various larger nations forming alliances with each other to take out a singular small nation.

Out of the 6 games I've played so far at least various people get booted out of the game and most strong nations have formed alliances with each other. The smaller nations (especially those in Africa) have all been wiped out.

Where it all boils down to right now is trying to find the game hosted as quickly as possible to try to get one of the top nations or you already know the game is not going to be fun for you. In my opinion that's a missed opportunity.

Yeah,i agree with aranka for example in one game i played as persia and russia just unleashed hell on me,broke my bonuses to his border then he had 3x more income than me.

My problem is that the British Empire is grossly overpowered, and that the bonuses are hugely artificial. I played as the United States, and the British Empire kept propping up Canada, so I could never take it. Furthermore, when they took New York, I lost 30 troops per turn! It was like: Oh they took New York YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY ARMY.

Then I played as the Brits (Africa, then Canada) and in one, we swept the board. Admittedly, Russia was booted, but that actually was a factor against us. The problem with the British is that any decent team simply allies with a few of their neighbors, absorbs the rest, then repeats. That's what screws everyone else over. The British, as a team, ARE widely scattered, but since everyone has airlifts, it doesn't matter.

I think a better way to handle large countries is boost individual bonuses some instead of jacking city or superbonuses up to insane levels. Also, Brazil is usually powerless to stop the Spanish Empire, and Mexico folds like a house of cards when the United States attacks.

As for the British, I'd suggest taking them out of India, giving them Indochina, and merging Canada and Oceania, then making India independent. Tone down Canada's power a bit and that should work out fine.

@Xararex Am in a game in which the British were the among first to be destroyed.

i have only been in two games out of about 15 where the british empire did well. One of them is because british africa won the battle against french africa and now has 130 units per turn and cananda took south america after both were booted. In the other one canada has captured the entire usa and they are doing ok

back to point, these games where the british empire survived were both only because of one of them winning the normal fights, if anything the british empire is underpowered

I preferred not declaring war

Hi Fonzy,


These games are really quite marvelous in my opinion, great job! First off, are you planning to make any more? And more importantly you might want to reconsider the boot times, I know not many people want to wait more than three days, but it seems like too many of the games get ruined by booting major players. In real time booting makes sense but, in multi days it just seems unnecessary and it upsets the balances of power as a result of the ensuing territory grabbing.

Regardless, it is a great scenario! I hope you make more!

boot times are fine, anyone who cant take a turn in three days deserves to get booted, other than the vacations, vacations have to be accepted because players cant control getting booted when they are on vacation

Well I agree that someone that doesn't check in for three days deserves to get booted, however when someone like Russia, China or a person on one of the teams gets booted it can have over reaching ramifications on the entire game. I've tried to talk to the people that have been booted from these games, about half of the time they would have taken their move if given another day or two. Frankly, I think its worth the wait in order to keep players in these scenarios.

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments, all have been taken on board.

I'll probably start hosting Version 4.0 next week, I've been a bit too busy to finish it over the last couple of weeks. I'll make sure I post what the major changes are after I'm finished modifying it.

@Smarterthanyou, it will be going back to no rules ;)

Not that it would change much for smarterthenyou though....
He would still backstab you in the times when the rules were in place

It wasn't my decision aranka, Luke just told us what to do even after we told him that we had peace. I am sorry, alright. Now can you forget about it and move on?

#This reply is about the historically correctness of the map#

I'm not sure how is the newest version looks like, but I'm in the v3.1 game. There were quite a few mistakes in the map, especially in Africa. First, there are 4 lands in Mauritania belonged to Britain, which is wrong. I believe you wanted to put Gambia in it but actually Gambia is surrounded by Senegal, not Mauritania. Second, Western Sahara should belong to Spain, not Britain. Third, Sierra Leon was a British colony, not French. Fourth, Malawi should belong to Britain.

Outside Africa, in northern south america, northeastern Venezuela and Bolivar should belong to Spain. On the right of Venezuela, Guyana was British, Suriname was Dutch, only French Guyana is French. In the Caribbean, Guadeloupe and Martinique was french, Haiti was french, and Belize was British.

In the Pacific,some islands I did not investigate but I know in the west part, Northern Mariana, Palau, Guam, and Micronesia was never colonised by the dutch. They should either be Spanish, German, Japanese, or America.

In middle Asia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan was in the USSR, but i guess this is a game balance issue.

#Suggestions on the game balance#

For the balance issue, here are my suggestions.
Germany lost all its colonies after WWI. This included Cameroon, Togo, Namibia, Tanzania, Samoa, and half of Papua New Guinea. (In the map it is called Momase, Highlands, Islands of Papua) These lands were given to Japan, France, and Britain after WWI, but I suggest them to be given to Germany.

Just take the blue ones.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Deutsche_Kolonien.PNG

African Colonies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_of_Africa

Other sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_New_Guinea

#Researches on the Pacific Islands#

East Timor: was Portuguese
Palau: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Northern Mariana: Spanish -> (after American-Spanish War) German -> Japanese
Guam: Spanish -> USA
Micronesia: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Nauru: Spanish -> German -> British
Islands of Papua: German -> British
Momase, Highlands: German -> British
Nauru: German -> British
Marshall Islands: Spanish -> German -> Japanese
Kiribati: British
Samoa: German -> British
Wallis: French
Niue: British


Islands that did not mention = you were right

Some islands that marked British were actually ruled by either Australia or New Zealand but I didn't bother to distinguish them
Some islands were occupied by the Japanese during WW2
Islands that marked Japanese were given to them after WW1

Hi lokhinwan,

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to research! Also, thanks for providing the links to back up your points.

I'm aware of some of these small discrepancies and some have already been changed, some are going to change, and some will stay the same for balance issues.

Hoping to have version 4.0 finished soon.

Fonzy

The Fonz I made a scenario just like this last summer( Im not accusing you of copying me and this is clearly yours)and instead of having people play for the additional colonies I had the home nation control them but then Great Britain was soon overpowerful