How exactly would 1-coast Bulgaria make it harder to get out of the Black Sea?

I mean, consider the Coast Crawl situation on the current board - you aren't even allowed to send one fleet from Constantinople to the north coast if there's another fleet coming in from the south coast. If anything this rule would make it way easier to get out of the Black Sea.

I get your point with Sweden getting split into West and East coast, though. That would definitely slow things down.

So the idea is Denmark and Constantinople would be one coast still, but be consistent between Sweden and Bulgaria. You wouldn't want to change Spain though as it obviously has np potential canal around Portugal nor StPete as it has no means to connecting it's two coasts either, right?

Yes. St. Petersburg and Portugal are both divided by at least one full land province and have no excuse to change. Bulgaria is the only coast in the game divided solely by navigable provinces.

I like the idea of making Bulgaria have one coast. Sweden should still only have one coast. St. Petersburg you'd have to leave alone. I'd almost be inclined to allow Spain to have one coast as well, just because the north coast of Spain is possibly the singular most useless spot on the board; there is no plausible situation I can construct to justify its existence.

I FULLY SUPPORT making Bulgaria have only one coast. I swear I've spent enough time there lately to last a lifetime. If I ever have to go to the east coast of Bulgaria again, it will be too soon. Screw that place man.

You see, there's this inconvenient problem that Bulgaria really has two coasts separated by a small section of Turkey on the west side of the Bosphorus...

I don't really see that as a problem, Gobble; the game already allows some degree of unrealistic geography for sake of playability (c.f. St. Petersburg being both a Baltic and Arctic port). Bulgaria(ec) and Spain(nc) don't provide any interesting or valuable strategic options; making Bulgaria and Spain mono-coasts certainly does.

In my entire time on webDip, I can recall moving to Spain (NC) one time, which was last month, and it almost cost me a solo because of the logistical uselessness of putting a fleet there.

Bulgaria having only one coast would necessitate one of three things: splitting Bul/Con at the Bosphorus, which wouldn't be geographically accurate but then again Ukraine doesn't border Warsaw IRL so who gives a shit; ceding Bul (EC) to Rumania, so Con borders both Bul and Rum; or ceding Bul (SC) to Gre, making the map closer to Modern World where Gre would touch Con, which I think would make Turkey incredibly powerful and Austria even weaker.

Now that I mention it, I think giving Bul (EC) to Rum would make for a cool variant. It would necessarily weaken Russia, but also give Russia's southern fleet more leverage over Turkey.

Bul(NC) is not tapable by the Med general speaking so when trying to conquer Por, it can be very useful if Italy is facing you in the south.

The first solution is the one that makes the most sense to me, 2WL

Draug, I assume you meant to say Spain(NC)? And a fleet in the NC can be tapped by a unit moving to the SC. Unless you were saying something else and it's gone completely over my head. Which is a common practice.

" (c.f. St. Petersburg being both a Baltic and Arctic port)"

Not really. The name of the province is taken from the largest city according to the game's naming convention (home supply centers are cities; all other provinces are province names). The *province* named "St. Petersburg", however, contains both the port of St. Petersburg on the Neva river flowing into the Baltic and also the port of Arkhangelsk/Murmansk on the arctic sea. There is no water route between those very distant ports. For that matter, the land route between the two is pretty dicey, but that is another question.

Yes, but that's the point; the province "St. Petersburg" is allowed to incorporate far more than just St. Petersburg -- unrealistic geography -- for sake of playability. I'm not saying there's a problem with that, I'm simply stating that we take some liberties with how the map is drawn to strike a balance between geographic realism and playability. I don't see any reason why a similar liberty couldn't be taken in giving Bulgaria a singular coastline.

Yes, I meant Spain(nc). And I guess I was thinking because the fleet would move to the SC, it couldn't tap NC, btu you are correct. Blame it on an early morning brain fart.

It does do, one thing however, it make anyone who is moving a fleet there decide if they want to have an influence on Mar or on the northern part of Spain. But, yeah, generally useless except to SH MAO or Por and not piss Italy off by being on the Med side.

Then it would change a carefully designed balance in the game and suck.

@PE ... I think you are misunderstanding ... perhaps deliberately? It is not the geography that is unrealistic with respect to "St. Petersburg" ... it is the force-fitting of the naming convention for geographical areas. The broad geographical area referred to by the Diplomacy map-name "St. Petersburg" has two very distinct historically accurate coasts, each with its own historically accurate port facilities (both able to "build" fleets).

Bulgaria has two similarly distinct historical coastlines (even if we were to rename it "Sofia"), though the fleet-building capability may be a bit overdone there. Spain (even if renamed "Madrid" or "Barcelona") is the same. Sweden, on the other hand, has one continuous coastline, with the land connection between Sweden & Denmark apparently consisting of the numerous ferries or other small boats that could be used to transport troops across the Kategat.

@Draug -- you do bring up an interesting point re: double-coasted provinces ... why should a fleet on SPA(nc) be distracted by a fleet attacking Barcelona [SPA(sc)]? There might be an interesting variant rule stating that a fleet must be able to reach the coast on which the occupying fleet is harbored in order to cut its support. That might just result in making it even harder to break out of the Med, though.

@VirtualBob - Then you probably also need to change the ability to offer supports in similar fashions. Such as Western Med being able to support Spain while the fleet is in the NC. Or GoB or Livonia giving a support hold to St.P when the fleet is in the NC. Or similarly Norway supporting St.P when the fleet is in the SC.

For the record, I'm content with the game's mechanics as is and there isn't anything I can think of I'd want changed. I was just voicing some dismay that I've had the recent displeasure of frequenting the eastern coast of Bulgaria more than I'd like.

Yeah, if the coastal fleet can't reach a territory or sea zone, it shouldn't be affected by a fleet in said territory or sea zone either.

Sweden should remain unchanged and is historically "accurate", if that's what we're going for.

In Empires in Arms, Russia can't build fleets in the winter in St. Petersburg because its frozen. If we're going to be realistic, Russia would only be building there in the spring.

In Spain, Vigo, Bilbao, and Santander are three of the busiest commercial ports in Spain and are all NC, so its accurate. Doesn't make it strategically important or even useful in the game though.

On our map, Bulgaria has a NC. On the actual Diplomacy board, Bulgaria has an EC. What's correct?

East ... not that it matters, though.

Could go either way. But EC seems more appropriate in my opinion.

The "realism" of current or hypothetical geography of the map is entirely separate issue. OP was specifically asking about only the hypothetical impact on game play while putting realism issues completely aside.

There are plenty of examples of unrealistic geography in the original map as well. However,
1) that's a completely separate debate
2) tactical realism is not the point of diplomacy
3) game play balance is more important that geographical realism

Absolutely agree, @yebellz ... especially #3

yebellz said what I was trying to say better than I could say it with 3)

3

But to address some of the original questions...

Sweden with two coasts:
I think this would significantly weaken Russia, increasing the possibility of having two trapped fleets with limited range. The ability to threaten Norway would be severely hampered since a fleet on the hypothetical "east coast of Sweden" couldn't support action on Norway. Denmark and Kiel would become much more strategically important as those territories would control naval traffic between the Baltic and Atlantic, with Germany most likely becoming the gatekeeper.

Bulgaria with one coast:
I think this change is even harder to speculate about. It might help ease tensions between Turkey and Russia in some games, giving the latter a second path for moving its southern fleet into the Med, while avoiding a sensitive Constantinople transit. However, Bulgaria is also a strongly Turkish SC, leading to an awkward situation regardless. In a lot of scenarios though it does open more tactical options for Russia and Turkey in that a fleet in Bulgaria can impact both Greece and Rumania. It may also give an Italian or Austrian fleet easier access to the Black Sea as well.

Both scenarios are very difficult to speculate about. The only way to know is to use extensive play testing, which can reveal much more as players invent new strategies as they adapt to the changes.

However, diplomacy is as much about what happens off the board than on it.