Ancient Mediterranean Variant?

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at
Post Reply
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:04 am
Karma: 5

Ancient Mediterranean Variant?

#1 Post by » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:22 pm

So i would like to get a discussion on:
1.) What are the diffrences between the cllasic variant and the amcient med in:
c.end game
2.) what are the best strategies for:

Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am
Karma: 98

Re: Ancient Mediterranean Variant?

#2 Post by mhsmith0 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:30 pm

Off the cuff I'd say some of the key differences would be:

1a opening
I'd tend to say there's a bit more of commitment in terms of early opening play. Since everyone has two immediate neighbors, and usually a decent # of neutral centers between each other, you're basically choosing early on who you're attacking or leaving alone, which can have pretty substantial consequences.

Using gunboat as an analogy, in regular dip Austria is hosed if everyone attacks there in 1901 (R/T are somewhat likely to, and Italy will either be very friendly or very hostile), but everyone else will have some kind of useful defense or at least ability to delay things a while, and also there are plenty of neighbors who just don't go after each other early b/c it doesn't make sense (G/R don't fight in 1901 in particular, barring a decision from Germany on Sweden).

In ancient med, you can (if you like) choose pretty clearly to be hostile to or friendly to any of your immediate neighbors. In particular, fleets can go in multiple directions productively, and armies are really choosing which centers to try and grab, and that leads to friendlier or most hostile relations to one or another neighbor.

1b midgame
I think there's a bit more tactical flexibility, mainly because of it being fleet centric and there not really being particularly central powers (or at least not when compared to traditional dip). So whereas England and Austria aren't really going to interact until things start to settle in (i.e. late midgame), Rome and Egypt, Greece and Carthage, etc can all be bouncing around with each other relatively quickly, since every power pair is either neighbors or has just one power in between them.

1c endgame
I think the big thing here is that the stalemate lines aren't as clearly defined and central as they are in traditional maps. Like, you can look at this piece ... 90&t=34105
and yeah there are potential stalemate lines, but there are a bunch of them that look quite a bit different, as opposed to the traditional map where the stalemate lines mainly hinge over Munich, MAO, Tunis, Berlin, and/or STP, and it's pretty straightforward for power A to set up at least a partial stalemate against power B (England usually can't take Tunis from a non-collapsing Italy, for instance), whereas here there are a bunch of ways to move units around, and there are semi-independent functions of the fleet portion of the stalemate and the army portions, so it's a bit easier to cut a hole in a stalemate position before it can fully develop

I guess it's probably also indicative that a lot of gunboat games seem to end pretty quickly; solo's by year 7 aren't wildly common but can happen

2 strategies
I'm not sure there are critical differences in the strategies for individual powers here. Rome and Greece have the ability to target each others home centers in 1901, but I get the sense that it's usually unwise to try at that juncture. Persia also (I think?) has the ability to work with Greece against Egypt or vice-versa, more than any other neighbor pairings. Beyond that, I think it's mainly trying to have one neighbor you make peace with and another you attack, all the while keeping an eye on making sure no one gets too strong.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests