Since I'm doing a version 2, I have to change a lot of regions. If I understand correctly, since I already have run a game, I shouldn't delete ANY regions, yes? Is renaming regions alright or do I have to create new ones since I have changed a lot of region names.

How did you run a test of an unreleased map? I'd like to do the same with my variant.

Tell Oli you want to test your map. He will make it so that you can create a game (only you will be able to select your variant when creating a game). Depending on your settings people will be able to join on their own or you can set an entry code.

A dev can already create a game for his variant.
No need to contact me.

Possible concept for adding an extra power, the Sabaean Kingdom:
https://i.imgur.com/2LVuGHS.png

That last map has two dots in Napata, and none in Meroe.

Indeed, thanks for the spot!

Updated version: https://i.imgur.com/lpZc7XE.png

Hey, Oli, I'm trying to turn some surplus regions I had into (empty) with coordinates 0/0. I am able to set them to 0/0 on the large map by pressing "-5" on the coordinates, however, I am not able to do this on the small map. Trying to input "0" just resets to the original coordinate.

Hi Fake Al,
I need to remove the "old" testgame from the database.
There are too many changes to your variant. After I'm done you can delete these territories.

Ok, that's no problem!

I seem to be having trouble reading my large map. It is problematic that I have a section that's rather detailed? https://vdiplomacy.com/variants/TiglathPileser/resources/map.png

Play-test ongoing here: https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=41925

Still a bit unsure about the next step. The play test seems a bit chaotic. I'd like to stabilize the early game a bit and have uniform growth in the first couple turns.

Here's a very rough concept with Phoenicia added
https://i.imgur.com/2ilvBNd.png

The idea is to concentrate the supply centers (and hopefully battles) away from the far inland parts.

Since I can't stop tinkering https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382417635381346305/697943925511553034/tp2.png

Update with starting units: https://i.imgur.com/7TdjKAO.png

https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=41925 The second test ends with an Urartian victory.

In reading Dan Carlin’s “The End is Always Near”, I discovered Tiglath-Pileser was an Assyrian king. And here I was assuming it was a partnership of a French and Prussian archeological duo!

You saw 'Pileser' and your mind read it as 'Pilsner'.

Yep, love the idea of a joyful beer drinking German archaeologist. So much better than the mean Nazis in Raiders.

Sadly it does not seem possible to view the tests.

Yes, the previous games were deleted since the map has gone through some overhauls. It's the first map I designed, so I've used it for experimenting.

Here's the current test https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=44308#gamePanel

I think you need to make Babylonia slightly stronger.

Yep, plan next is to make Egypt slightly weaker and Babylonia stronger.

Thinking of going back to the drawing board a bit with this one. I want to refocus the map and make it more historical. I'm planning on cutting out most of Arabia and ditching Saba' as a country. I'm thinking of adding Aram-Damascus and Israel as countries, but maybe as weaker ones. Any historians out there know what countries would be historical to add? I think Hamath and Mannea are also possibilities.

Result of the latest test https://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=44308#gamePanel

Did a bit of a redo, adding Israel and Aram-Damascus

https://i.imgur.com/ciiQPdW.png

Quite a different feel to this new version at first look.

Wait, the Eastern seas are now unpassable? I guess it makes sense, but it hurts to see purple and yellow deprived of their navy...

And I miss Saba. Now Solomon too : )

I'll miss Saba, too, but I feel like the non-historicity was getting a bit out of hand. This will hopefully better simulate the time period, which is what I originally wanted to do.

Besides that, I always felt the southern and eastern seas always felt very awkward.

@Fake Al - LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT! Can't wait to play this.

Love the enthusiasm! But I don't think I can put it to test anytime soon. Since I'll be changing the number of players (again), the old test games will have to be deleted from the server otherwise it'll screw with people's profile pages that played. I don't think anyone but Oli can do that, though.

I do like the general set up of this, though. I think every power has multiple players to interact with and that there aren't obvious opening moves for most of the units. I think Assyria's position is interesting in that, even though they start with 6 units, they have by far the most neighbors (and share two theaters with Urartu) and can probably only take 2 centers. The corner powers should only be able to take 1-2 centers while the inner powers have the best access. I'll probably do a bit more tweaking. The only major change I'd do is to add another player. Mannea, Hamath, or Arpad. It's hard to read about these more obscure kingdoms and not want to add them! But, then again, it might be best to keep things simple since the regions for Israel and Phoenicia are already so troublesomely tiny and will be hard to read, no need to create more super tiny regions.

I think I'd argue for making one, two or all three of Mannea, Hamath and Arpad into neutrals with standing armies, rather than adding another player.

That's probably the right solution, standing armies or leave as is. No need to over-complicate :)