Giving Russia five SCs?

And Germany 4...

The USA game has tipped the balance of power too much. Good effort. France could do with another SC too.

Very Good. I like everything, just got 2 doubts.
1) How does Pacific work in 1901? Vla & SFr bounce into it while Smy gets Asia and threats Sev in 1902? Or the USA in fall get Can to have the 2nd build, while Turkey gets Asia and threats Sev? Or Vla gets Arctic in spring and comes back in fall because there's no use in being bounced in Que if you risk to lose a HSC?
Deeper analisys needed. Maybe Pacific has to be splitted in 2.
Looks like Russia has one more unit but all his neighbours are stronger now.
2) All nations, actually, have either one more unit or a easier second build, except England. I wouldn't like to be England on this map. Maybe make Iceland a SC?

The division of territories and empty SCs should be enough. I don't think Cologne and Vla should be starting SCs for Russia and Germany. They will be far too powerful at the beginning if they ally.

Alright, great suggestions still unsure on how to balance out the map

Designer Notes
British Columbia: This is a fun SC, three different power and three fleets can reach Columbia in the first year. If two powers bounce in Man or NPO then the third can sneak in or all three units are around Columbia then it comes down to a bounce or an alliance based support.
Russia, Britain, USA: A strange triangle with the combo very pausible and have different strength
Russia/Britain: A powerful allaince between the two of them, their is 9 units. With Tor-NWT and Vla-NPO (and even Mos-Sib!) can kill the USA early in the game with Tor S Sib-BrC. Alliance between the two can really start cutting up the Southern part of the board.
USA/Russia: An interesting alliance that can kill Britain, and even impact areas far away as Africa.
USA/Britain: A strong naval alliance that take out France and Russia with ease, if Britain and USA can agree to a DMZ and have Toronto fleet go into Europe, Britain now has all 4 units to bear on France. USA goes into the East and attack Russia and Turkey while Britain also attack Russia and start surrounding France.
Russia and Vlad: Russia has three options with F Vlad, first is Vlad-NPO which gives Russia a shot at SanF or BrC, he could combine Vlad-Sib and Mos-Cau ensuring Asia for Russia or perhaps a daring Vlad-ArO and then ArO-WAO and then would be in a great diplomatic position to auction off that fleet or even grab far away SCs, can you say Russia in Morrocco in 02'!
Central Europe: Several changes were made to Central Europe, now Germany is THE power that can control Belgium but now easily indentified as a "leader" and can be more often ganged apon due his power. Austria has now two coast spaces and can build a navy faster while having a flexible position as in Classic including the ability to attack Germany effectively and go for Switzerland. Italy has stronger reasons to go into France, for Morrocco and Switzerland, weakening France. France being the ultimate pwoer of Classic is weaken by the USA backdoor and Italy but has more nuetrals around him.
USA: Has an interesting position to deal with, Canada as a whole is a great prize and has to be in either friendly or American hands at some point. Canada however has Russia and Britain also. Mexico is a gimme SC but the rest is will be hard to aquire 1st year. The strength USA has is that it can effect both sides of the board and with some movement can shift pressure from one side of the board to another.

Part of the purpose of these types of variant maps is not to go too far from the Classic version. Adding too much of this would definitely make for a more interesting game, and maybe even a better one, but changing the map around too much can get confusing and may take away from the original style of playing Diplomacy.

Can you rephrase that please? I think you mean that you think the USA variant is a simple change to the map and should stay that way and not have so many changes but the message is about an unknown topic. However, if I'm correct in reading that, I understand what you mean I just suggesting a map that would be more balanced with adding the USA.

I think the point of the game is to have more balanced Diplomacy tactics. A good Diplomat, in any situation, can make his way to the solo win. Yes, I think the USA map should go unchanged, because a balanced map is not realistic. If you want a challenge, play a game where you are at a disadvantage. Make your playing match the map, don't make the map match the player.

A) I don't see the problem of running two USA mpas, one modified and the other one base
B) Maps should be unbalanced yes but not in a way that the it so unbalanced it unejoyable and extremely hard to win with one country and very easy to win with another. A game should be unbalanced and have varity of positions, strengths, and weaknesses to make it interesting and enjoyable but a map should also again not be a wide spread between nations.
B) Many of the greatest variants came from understanding that yes, Classic Dipplomacy is unbalanced, i.e. 1900 and Abstraction. From example in Powell Spring 2002 article publishing 1900 he laid out a statistic table. Play Balance. Diplomacy does not have a level playing field. Consider the following numbers:


GREAT POWER
GAMES
POINTS
GPR
SOLO
2-WAY
3-WAY
4-WAY
5-WAY
6-WAY
7-WAY
LOSS

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
3699
82386
22.30
283
126
176
158
56
14
5
2881

ENGLAND
3699
98004
26.53
300
182
276
192
54
16
5
2674

FRANCE
3699
109683
29.69
362
173
284
199
68
17
5
2591

GERMANY
3699
94224
25.51
325
154
211
138
69
17
5
2780

ITALY
3699
70251
19.02
219
123
170
149
66
16
5
2951

RUSSIA
3699
112020
30.32
446
139
183
126
60
14
5
2726

TURKEY
3699
98352
26.62
328
149
272
158
57
14
5
2716

(Data as of 29 March 2002)
"It’s true that if we wanted total equality between positions we would play Steve Koehler’s Migraine variant. The “personality” each Great Power has is one of charms of Diplomacy. Even so, I couldn’t help but believe that each of the Great Powers could be given a more equal chance of doing well without sacrificing those aspects of Diplomacy that make it appealing." -Powell
Again, this idea and others I have looked at maps and said maybe this could be more balanced while retaining the same concept and diplomayc approaches that the designer was looking for.
IN other words, I find your statement to be uninformed and a single-minded.

C)*

airborne, you're a genius. Good work. Now it looks balanced & playable, when do we test it? :-)
Only 3 little things:
- Mex is a corner, the only one. Is this useful? If no, a link from SAO to MPA is needed. You could add a new non-SC province, just under Mex, with no separate coasts: Panama.
- "Barents" name has too many "r" :D
- Although a Power starting with no Fleets looks an odd thing, an Army in Zara would assure to Austria at least one build (Ser) even with a northern opening. Since it has now 2 coastal SCs where to build new Fleets, I'd say A Zara!