played it a ton, always have a first love for the real map, but I think a pretty admirable job was done on the ancient one

i think greece is tough to play with the ionian being a very important and ill placed space for greek security

The only balance issue I've found is that Egypt fucking sucks. Everything else is pretty admirably balanced.

I find that any nation other than Egypt has a good chance of success. Carthage I think is the best nation on the board and will almost always win if Rome doesn't jump on him quick

Yeh, but Egypt doesn't suck any more than Italy or Austria ...

I always feel the map is set up so Rome and Carthage don't attack each other. The terrain between Rome and Carthage just seems tedious to me at the start, and I find an attack on the other neighbors more natural. I also find that Carthage attacks Egypt in the first few turns every single game.

I don't know what you're talking about Rancher. I've never had problems as Italy or Austria right off the bat the way Egypt does

im playing carthage, and the way the geography is divided...it is impossible to coordinate moves

the thing is rome always attacks carthage =/ in my experience

Egypt doesn't suck if you stop Carthage from getting Leptis at the start by sending Alex and Mephis towards him. Work something out with Persia and settle with just Petra on the East coast.

no, the Rome/Carthage partnership is the ancient juggernaut

In my experience Rome always attacks Greece...

but if egypt stays out of it, carthage can almost always win in a fight between the two of them, at least in my opinion

im talking about gunboat...no communication

Are you suggesting a game where Egypt and Carthage don't bang heads together? I have yet to see that happen. I've given up trying to peace with Carthage as Egypt because they never accept. Persia is generally more reasonable for some reason...

I find all seven states in the standard game are about equal; from the stats I remember, only Germany and Italy are behind, and I feel like Italy's poor performance is because of general incompetence with Italy, not a problem inherent to Italy's position. Probably the same with Germany, too... but I haven't figured Germany out myself, so I'm not one to talk. ;)

i love the standard so much. i see the board more clearly.

hey since you guys are online, join the live game that is about to start? standard gunboat. link is in advertise your live here thread. posted my Czech

Also, my observations in Ancient Med:

*Greece and Persia almost always go to war
*Carthage and Egypt almost always go to war
*Rome almost always gets its choice of allies and enemies

There aren't too many outcomes from that. Rome wins a lot for a reason.

That said, Rome/Carthage AND Egypt/Persia work as 'juggernauts.' Just like EF and RT are 'juggernauts.'

Germany is one of the best IMO, Holland and Denmark are easy grabs, and France is rather easy to slaughter early on.

The problem with Italy is there are no supplies between its neighbors. The "given" 4th centre is in the middle of nowhere (Tunis) and effectively makes the unit getting it useless for a turn or 2. This is easily remedied by going all out on Trieste.

+1 President Eden. Though I still think Persia is the best spot.

attacking Austria in a gunboat 1901 is a dumb move as Italy. All it does is ensure the Turks have a field day

I'm surprised by this. As Carthage I always prefer peace with Egypt early on because he is easier to attack later. I like to get Rome out of the way quickly. I also find the most potent alliance is Persia/Egypt. The purple/yellow juggernaut always does well.

In my experience, I think Greece is the weakest nation, not Egypt.

As for on the classic map, Italy is my strongest nation, yet Austria is my weakest.

It seems to work for me. I've killed both Austria and Turkey as Italy in a gunboat as Italy.

Austria and Turkey in a gunboat as Italy*

Uh... France is NOT

Funny, I've played med a bunch and have only won as Egypt. Meh.

*NOT easy to slaughter early on by any means.

Do you guys want to move the standard discussion to another thread? It's worth discussing, but idealist was looking for Ancient Med discussion...

Actually by an attack on Austria, I mean support hold Trieste in spring then attack in Autumn. Works every time.

Yeah, that would be a good idea, we seem to have derailed the thread a bit.
On topic, Egypt is not that bad. Stop Carthage from getting Leptis and you will most likely beat him. (assuming Persia doesn't also attack you)

I personally think the variants are rather unbalanced. They don't have the extensive play-testing that went into the classic game map. I won't play the variants.

The key to any state in the Ancient Mediterranean is to form cross-board alliances. Egypt, for example, almost always has to fight Carthage. Play off that fact and the fact that Persia and Greece often fight, get Greece to push east and distract Persia while you make peace with Persia (and, ideally, secure Jerusalem and Petra from the east), and work with Rome against Carthage.

As Carthage, you of course want peace with Rome, which will cause Rome to attack Greece. That frees Persia up to join you in destroying Egypt.

^^this

Peace with Rome as Carthage isn't good for later in the game when Rome becomes almost unassailable and its a race between you and him to get 18 without really taking any SC's from each other.

Peace with Carthage as Rome however, is very good.

My experience is limited to just one game, but these are my impressions:
The initial diplomacy leads to a three versus two situation. The key is not to be in the smaller group. In my game as Persia, I allied with Carthage and Rome against Egypt and Greece. They were doomed from the start.
It is interesting playing on a different map, but the three versus two setup is predictable, and once it starts rolling the outcome is inevitable. I think the standard map offers a far more complex and interesting game, with plenty of opportunities to come back after a slow start, and opportunities mix up the alliances.

Yeah, it's like that, only Carthage and Egypt are never on the same side.

@Hellenic: I think that really depends on the skill of the Egyptian and Greek players. I actually find it easier to move rapidly into Egypt as Carthage rather than Greece as Rome, so if Rome has become almost unassailable it's usually (in my experience) because the Carthaginian player failed to stab in time despite having an opening.

Also, I feel that spyman is right on. The only thing to watch for after getting on the 3 side of the 3 v 2 is when to conduct the game-deciding stab, but that's a product of any game.

The skill of the players is irrelevant when i'm 20x better than all of them anyway ;)