I'd agree but all edge countries look that way depending on others starts. Both Austria and Greece need to watchout for italy and should. Italy has a very gentle start with neighbours and ready access to neutrals more than any other country.

Though experience in multiple games might change my perspective, for the time being i completely agree with you GOD.

Austria and Greece together could possibly block/limit the growth of Italy but that doesn't take into account the role of Serbia. If Serbia turns against either of them, that whole approach will fail. I'd consider the necessity for 2 empires to go against Italy at the start of the game quite enough reason to call italy too overpowered. I feel that it would also be extremely difficult to eliminate Italy once he gets a hold of all the neutrals in and around his empire.

This is something I'm looking at and considering. Also, a related question, do Austria and Serbia have a viable path to work together? All the gunboat games may be making this seem worse than it is (Italy's strengths are magnified in gunboat) but the variant may still need a tweak or two.

Options I'm considering, trying to maintain historical accuracy:

- impassable Rome (secured by a French Garrison 1860-1870)
- de-escalate Greek/Ottoman border somehow (increases Greek likelihood of moving on Palermo, which does not happen as often as intended in 1860)
- redraw/increase space between Serbia/Austria

Open to other suggestions as well/thoughts on how to implement the above. I do see at least one or two games going on right now where Austria and Serbia are successfully working together so that's encouraging at least. A few tweaks might still be a good idea though.

Also a question - why does Italy attack Austria so often? I expected them to embrace a naval power role more often, and try to control the southern seas, but instead IS v A seems very common. This has undesirable consequences for the Ottomans as well, and I'd like to fix that too if I make changes

I do think that several viable paths for Austria and Serbia are limited due to Beograd and perhaps that most Italian (both original and neutral SC's are on the Western flank of the Italian peninsula). In any case, any expansion east is going to require a great deal of trust from the Serbian player as it will seemingly always mean Austrian troops marching alongside main sc's of Serbia. Though these are all things that could be compensated with diplomacy in full press games.

Gunboat on the other hand, makes it extremely tricky. Currently running in 1 game but we almost have enough sign ups for the 7x7 Gunboat tournament for this variant. I think it would be great to see the developments and results of that tournament, as there are some great strategists on board who will play around with the possibilities for this variant within gunboat.

In any case, i'm really happy to see a new variant having been added, Ben. Up till this point I do not have enough games of reference to give more precise improvements but the Italy 'issue' seems to be the most obvious for now.

The French Garrison sounds really nice! I wouldn't make it impassable though, rather put a neutral army into it, so that two units are needed to take Rome.

As to the Serbia thing: how about merging Graz and Wien to give Austria better options on Italy, and/or put a neutral territory between Sarajevo and Agram?

I like your proposal for the French Garrison (the neutral army). The Graz and Wien merger could work as well as it would indeed make it easier for Austria to position himself against Italy. Though I wouldn't add the Neutral territory between Sarajevo and Agram as well. With the other changes the balance would already be more even, with Italy not having the same early growth potential as it has now. The neutral territory between Sarajevo and Agram would make it more difficult to go for the surprise strike on Austria by Serbia.

A garrison in Roma would be a good idea as currently it is a free SC for Italy and noone else can get it. That way if Italy wants to get it they will have to stall their advance for perhaps a year. It gives other countries a chance to grab SCs.

The neutral garrison in Rome really doesn't solve the problem. Italy has plenty of time to press the map advantage with Austria, and a luxury of time to deal with securing neutral Rome. If Rome is impassible it' only forces Italy to press the present advantages against Austria even more.

I agree there's a very likely advantage here, but lets make better observations after a battery of play testing to evaluate the entire picture. The reality is that we're looking at this issue in a vacuum right now. It's not just Italy and Austria affected by altering things.

Another thing to consider is that diplomacy can solve problems like this. If Italy is acting the bully in, it should be recognized and addressed by nation other than Austria. this is something that would be much easier to identify to the rest of the map in press games.

Yes you are right, but the garrison would add an interesting aspect IMO.

(from a historic point of view)

Also, two more points I'd like to have clarified (in the variant description):

- do standard rules apply concerning builds? (I guess they do, but its always nice to know)

- what about the two land bridges (?) in Greece and Turkey? Looking at the map info (http://vdiplomacy.com/edit.php?variantID=103) I guess that you intended to show that armies can move on these territories, which is all right.
My problem here is, that fleets can move from the Marmara Sea both to the Thermaic Gulf and the Bosporus directly, while movement from Gulf o. Taranto to Saronic Gulf is not possible, although at first sight I would have assumed that the same rules apply for both land bridges.
Also, there is no indication at all that fleets can go from Bosporus to Marmara without a stop in Istanbul.

As many players either don't know the map info option, or just don't bother to always look into it (myself included), it would be nice to have these aspects both visually better represented on the map (add landbridge in Istanbul, take it away from Greece and just connect Athens to the adjacent territories the way it looks in the large map) or just put them into the variant description, as they are pretty important to know.

That being said, I am really grateful to Ben for the map and really like playing it, just trying to contribute :)

I'm currently Italy in a game, and I agree that Italy is overpowered. Greece seems underpowered, as their only guaranteed SC is Heraklion, and they have to support themselves in, and any aggresion from the Ottomans will probably end them. Just my two cents.

To GOD's landbridges issues - it would appear the intent of the Athens 'landbridge' is to indicate that it's a channel province? Agreed the graphics are slightly confusing as to whether Gulf of Taranto and Saronic Gulf are adjacent.

You can, however, see that Bosporus is adjacent to Sea of Marmara by the slight extension of the SoM sea-zone past the actual site of the Bosporus strait.

DogsRule - and yet the Ottomans have the worst success rate thus far in testing...

Also, standard builds yes, and the Dipwiki link explains the bridges in more detail.

I like the idea of creating space between Austria and Serbia. Rome still up in the air. Putting an Italian home SC that reaches Adriatic shores is good too.

...as this creates more vulnerability to Serbian fleets. If I had to point to one thing that concerns me most of all about the variant, it is that Austria and Serbia don't seem to choose to attack Italy together very often, nor have they been very effective when they do try. Whatever individual tweaks happen, that is the end state that needs to be achieved. A second order effect of this would be that the Greek position is also strengthened in the long term, so we must consider the impact on the Ottoman position as well, who already have a poor success rate in this variant. If the Greeks only can guarantee Heraklion, consider that the Ottomans can only guarantee Salonika...and Salonika is a much more difficult territory to hold.

So, another idea (regarding Italy):

- split the territory known as Agram into territories that correspond to the historical Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slovenia (both A-H territories in 1860.) One of which (Zagreb presumably) might even be a fourth Austrian starting SC. This would certainly only be done along with creating more space between the Austrian and Serbian home SCs. (split Beograd province into two)

(perhaps a three way split of Agram - Zagreb, Osijek, and Ragusa/Dubrovnik - the last of which has a fascinating history as an independent maritime republic similar to Venezia herself)

side note: this Romania/Bulgaria/Greece triple (gunboat no less!) going on in Orient Express-2 is absolutely fascinating, and shaping my design decisions about the variant. Really do need to see more playtests before I make any changes to the map (though I do agree the Italy position in particular needs some, and that changes there will require other changes to maintain balance.)

Hi Ben!

Our Balkans 7x7 tournament has recently started and I explicitly asked all participants to inform you about possible/necessary changes to the variant. We're at a too early stage to provide anything worthwhile, but these 7 gunboat games could serve as a good test run as all participants will have a go at this variant with each playable empire.

We'll keep you posted!

Let's all keep in mind that what's looks great as an opening does not always translate to the rest of the game. Italy looked overpowered at first but many things can change that very quickly. The main reason for concern is that this new Balkans 1860 variant incites conflict from the first season. There's no racing out for safe neutrals here, which is probably a very helpful exercise for us. I'm interested to see what kind of results occur in press games also since Balkans really puts you on your toes with every move.

Completely agree with that, Ruff.

I'm already enjoying this variant a lot because in case of most empires, there are 3 to 4 empires that one could clash with in the first year already. Every move here could have a direct consequence in terms of alliances. With so many opening possibilities, a large sample would be needed to really draw any worthwhile conclusions

I think this variant is going to give me my second heart attack! Yeesh! But I am enjoying the challenge of the ever shifting dynamics, especially in gunboat.

Hey Ben. I know you need input and all, but let's not affect gameplay by discussing the ongoing gunboat here in the forum. K? Thanks!

Thank you for that reminder, YCHTT!

Remarks about the variant in general are allowed, but no discussion on any of our 7 games until they are finished ;-)

That applies to the independent games like Orient Express II as well.

okay, no problem.

current thoughts on the state of the variant then (of course pending the outcome of at least the tournament, also other games I'm spectating):

- Ancona becomes an Italian home SC, Naples goes Neutral (Naples and Palermo were still the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies) and this should pull Italy strongly south. Some sea zone redraws to put (new) starting unit F Firenze within reach of Naples and Palermo in the first year.

- create space between Austria and Serbia (split Agram and Budapest provinces into two separate spaces each.)

- wild card: it is entirely historically inaccurate to have Rumelia Eyalet not exist in 1860. To that end (and to offset the inherent strengthening of the Greek position that comes with nerfing Italy) Bitola should become an Ottoman home SC (renamed Monastir) Examining the impact on Bulgaria though. Should balance out with Greek gains from the Italy changes, but I don't want Bulgaria to feel obliged to bounce in Serres every game.