A new taste to the 1v1 scene, or two

[badivan1]

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

[CptMike]

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 ?

[Mercy]

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.

* 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.

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.

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

Yep.

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.]

[badivan1]

[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