There have been past issues where late-game playability has been affected by it being too easy to stalemate sea zones. It is most apparent on the WWIV map and others where oceans separate large continents with each containing multiple powers. I believe this problem is primarily due to the fact that the continents are high-sc-producing warzones, but the sea-zones are made up of disproportionate parcels that do not reflect the same sort of contention except for flexibility and stalemating purposes. This creates an impractical scenario where your ability to succeed on land is determined by an early and thrifty means of closing off sea routes, which is usually gained by first-come-first-service. This of course is a realistic strategy but it is skewed in its practicality and presence on such maps. In reality, embattled sea-zones would require the same sort of costly defense and wouldn’t cause situations where end-game conditions could be ‘locked-in’ so early and easily.

With these large games, WWIV and known-world series, etc., I believe the dynamic that we are trying to achieve is the ‘game-within-a-game’ concept, but this usually isn’t achieved because once you’ve claimed local dominance, the second part of the game (world dominance) never happens. Ocean stalemate lines are too cheaply-maintained, and yet they are impossible to break- even if you are much stronger than your enemy. Success on land should determine one’s ability to cross oceans and compete with foreign powers; however these games have the opposite dynamic where one’s ability to set a position which can infallibly ward off the strongest of foreign powers allows them to charge in one direction without worry of defense. In a game with 35 players, it is certain that at least 6-8 players will adopt this technique, and is why full-press games are often difficult to win, or get down to a high-scoring draw. In my opinion, this strategy-enigma is the main hurdle you’d have to cross to achieve the ‘game-within-a-game’ dynamic.

My proposed solution to this enigma would be to open up the sea-zones to additional fleets (perhaps to a small maximum of 2 or 3) that could each be used either in battle, for support, or for convoy. In a game with enhanced naval combat, we could experience several new interesting dynamics:
-alliances would become far more urgent, valuable, AND vulnerable.
-a more realistic conflict-dynamic where success affords more opportunity on foreign shores, and stagnancy creates inefficiency and vulnerability of your naval brigade.
-a wider scope for long-range and end-game strategy
-less likelihood of large draws due to stalemates, which leave some players dissatisfied
-more tactical and fun naval conflicts
-more strategic alliance-building i.e. enhanced diplomacy!

It might also be worth considering extending this concept to certain *important coastal territories and/or those that are enormous on land. If such a concept were to be implemented, we would have to be careful that the game doesn’t change too much, or that navy battles don’t become too clogged with complex orders. This might just lead us into further gameplay issues. This is why I think we should keep it at a small minimum, and perhaps limit the individual abilities of extra fleets. For example, ways in which it might be cumbersome is if certain ships must cut certain support, and if a successful attack is against particular ships or the sea-zone in whole. These are kinks that will have to be worked out if it’s going to be possible to implement such a concept. I have several ideas, but I’m still trying to work out many of the details before I will post them; however I do believe that a nice balance can be found which will improve the WWIV game and that there can be ways to make it practical to implement. Much of this can be left up to discussion, as I’m looking for some suggestions before passing it on to the development stage. Please leave a comment if you have some good suggestions or feedback on plausibility.