A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

by **badivan1** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:45 pm

Mercy wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:22 pm
[snip]

regarding the NATO armies in NA, while we can leave them on defensive duties, a power option is to convoy of one them. building a fleet in NY for a convoy to Brazil is relatively common. alternatively, if fleet London opens in the Norwegian Sea, and you decide to forgo Leningrad, then you convoy army Alaska to either Siberia or Urals.

another comment, army Shanghai should open to India, so that it can go west and threaten the Eastern Mediterranean region. with that in mind, i think fleet Australia should open to Indian Ocean and bounce in India. in my experience, this exchange feels a bit NATO favoured

by **Mercy** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:22 pm

CptMike wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:02 am
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

I think this is incorrect. There is indeed no symmetry, but I don't think that NATO is favored.

Yes, London can move to Norwegian Sea, threatening Leningrad, but USSR can block a potential takeover from Leningrad by covering it with his army in Eastern Germany. Suppose that in the spring, London moved to Norwegian Sea and Moscow moved to Eastern Germany. The payoff is as follows:
- If NATO attacks Leningrad and USSR holds Eastern Germany, NATO is up +1.
- If NATO attacks Leningrad and USSR moves Eastern Germany to Leningrad, USSR is up +1.
- If NATO does not attack Leningrad and USSR holds Eastern Germany, USSR is up +1.
- If NATO does not attack Leningrad and USSR moves Eastern Germany to Leningrad, then NATO is up +1.
So it is a 50/50 guess who will be up +1 and NATO is not favored.

(There is also the possibility of USSR bouncing in Leningrad with East Germany and Baltic Sea, in which case neither power would gain an advantage so long as NATO doesn't support Eastern Germany to Leningrad with his fleet in Norwegian Sea - which he might do if he chooses not to attack Leningrad.)

Alternatively, NATO can order London to North Sea and block USSR in Sweden. In this case, there is no guesswork involved. If I thought that I was better in 1v1 Cold War than my opponent, I would always open to North Sea, because I would not want to take a risk with a guess.

CptMike wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:02 am
* 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.

While the NATO fleet in Australia has more options than the USSR fleet in Cuba, the NATO armies in North America have less options, and less use, than the USSR armies in eastern Asia.

CptMike wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:02 am
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

I find that is interesting, too. My tactics on this map are often focused on making my own units as useful as possible and making the units of my opponent as useless as possible, and this can partly be achieved by choosing the right builds. If you are USSR, it can be a bad option to threaten NATO in North America because that makes the NATO armies there more useful.

CptMike wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:02 am
* It is a fast game each player having 6 building centers and "only" 27 centers in total...

Yep.

CptMike wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:43 pm
I am a little bit disappointed by the Cold War map. I have the feeling that it is a little bit like in GvI and there is an optimal way both have to follow and a few 50/50 to win or lose.

Isn't that what all 1v1 variants ultimately come down to?

[Disclaimer: I only have played two games on this map so far, though I have played more games on older, test versions of the map in diplolab - a site that no longer works.]

by **CptMike** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:43 pm

badivan1 wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:40 pm
good observations ! also, convoys can add complications too. a few that i have used:
NATO convoys: Brazil (i personally don't go for this convoy, but it can be effective), Siberia/Urals
USSR convoys: Africa (from Albania), Philippines

Agreed.

I am a little bit disappointed by the Cold War map. I have the feeling that it is a little bit like in GvI and there is an optimal way both have to follow and a few 50/50 to win or lose.

On the other side, I find the US civil war map more exciting. Confederates is not that much advantaged. I would say less than Austria that plays the Bud > Tri opening and with less bad consequences.

But that's long.... Maybe the target could be fixed at 18 centers or so ?

by **badivan1** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:40 pm

good observations ! also, convoys can add complications too. a few that i have used:
NATO convoys: Brazil (i personally don't go for this convoy, but it can be effective), Siberia/Urals
USSR convoys: Africa (from Albania), Philippines

by **CptMike** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:02 am

captainmeme wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:34 pm
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...

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:12 pm

captainmeme wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:34 pm
(...)

Welcome back captainmeme. We miss you! :)

For anybody who is interested.

by **captainmeme** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:34 pm

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.

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:12 pm

Another trial...

by **badivan1** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:58 pm

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?

by **CptMike** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:28 pm

badivan1 wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:37 pm
the map knowledge has a lot of nuances though

What do you mean ?

by **Mercy** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:27 pm

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

by **badivan1** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:37 pm

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

by **CptMike** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:28 am

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

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:55 pm

badivan1 wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:50 pm
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...

by **badivan1** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:50 pm

CptMike wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:08 am
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

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:17 am

If someone is interested to test it :

Just tell me

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:08 am

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

There are ways to put pressure on each...

by **CptMike** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:42 am

badivan1 wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:48 pm
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...

by **badivan1** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:48 pm

CptMike wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:04 pm
[...]
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

by **CptMike** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:04 pm

badivan1 wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:59 pm
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.

A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

Re: A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two