So is England. And Italy very similar as well. I don't buy it. I have played two games now and seen USA expand more easily than Russia or England. They should have the same victory conditions as everyone else. Seems to me like American ego at work.

Agreed. But awesome.

Yet the USA can't seem to get a solo...

You will begin to see them soon enough. The sample for the stats has been too little so far, 2 games I believe.

I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I believe the reasonign might have something to do with every single power being capable of getting at least 2 builds in 1901 except the USA. In fact, every power except England can get 3 potentially. Therefore, the US has a built in disadvantage at the start.

And like I said, England and Russia are the two that have the toughest time in this new map. Not the US.

Yes kaug, I know they will show up... I am just saying, as of right now, they seem to be starting out slow... and I feel like drano is probably correct...

Kaug - now you're contradicting yourself.

First you claim Russia and England have it the hardest. Then you say that the sample for stats is too small. So hjow can you judge that England and Russia have it hardest if the stat size is too small?!

Also, going off stats, Turkey has the worst stats, followed by E/R/F/G/US all tied. So your statement is false.

I am not basing my statements on stats so I am not contradicting myself. I am basing it on game experience. I see absolutely no reason why the US should have a smaller victory condition than any of the other nations. And I am saying that Russia and England have it hardest because they are the two most affected nations by the addition of the US as one of them is usually the target.

So, based on the fact that the regular map is balanced, this new addition makes it unbalanced.

Its all speculation on your part. By weakening England (traditionally a strong power), Italy and Austria seem to be doing better, which is good as they are traditionally weak powers. We cannot judge a map purely on the speculation of one person. Time will tell via stats whether or not the map is balanced.

Regarding the win criteria: I already posted a potential reason, but I have no clue if its true. I doubt we'll ever know as the map is simply transcribed from a map someone else made a long time ago I believe.

Also, I will note that the regular map is NOT balanced as I/A tend to do worse than other powers.

Well, but it could be adjusted to have the same win criteria for everyone. If whomever made that map believes that the US starts with a position that is way too weak then make the US a 4SC power like Russia. But it does not make any sense to have different win conditions on the same map. It is extremely unfair. Imagine being a 17 SCpower that loses to a 14SC USA... That would really suck.

Well, considering the map was not made by anyone on this site, and merely put into playable format by Kaner, ill suggest that if you feel that is the answer, then consider learning coding and apply the changes yourself.

As for a 17 sc power losing to a 14 sc USA - yeah it would suck, but hey, no one forced that person to play that map. I avoid certain maps for reasons I have, and everyone is entitled to do the same. But if you like that map so much, you either have to accept it as is, or learn coding and try to make applicable changes. Otherwise, its all a moot point as we're debating a hypothetical that no one will implement.

One last thing: I think sometimes, different win conditions make sense. Personally Rinascimento is to me, a good example. The 1 sc powers have virtually zero chance of "winning" via normal victory criteria without CDs and NMRs. However, Venice/Naples/Stato have the best chance. How is that fair? After 1 year, venice could have 8 scs while Pisa has 2. Is it fair to expect Pisa to get to the same amount for a win when others start in a massively better position?

LoL! and have France with a win criteria of 2 SCs :)

As to USA & its win criteria, I imagine that airborne's USA-Deluxe that he's developing might well be equal SCs for all.

Actually I will probably not play the map more. I did not know about the victory condition when I joined the first bunch of games. When I read it on the rules I was surprised. And yes in a map like Rinascimento it makes ssense because it is very unbalanced. In this one it does not.

I'm more confused as to why the win condition is 18 for all the other powers when the addition of new centres should raise it to 20. Reminds me of why I'm never going to play economic diplomacy.

USA is winning one of my games, and now I am having second thoughts about remaining his ally and going for a 3 way draw, given that when we draw he will have 13 sc and could easily stab me for the 14th.

Had I known this I probably wouldn't have played.

Hey fasces, i can read... -_-

And i wouldn't stab.

But no more discussing ongoing games in a forum, shall we. Especially ince you are a mod. A banned mod, lol.

I thought the rule was no discussing on going anon/gunboat/public press games...

AFAIK, it was no discussing ongoing games of all types. The reason being that opinions and messages on the forums could affect the game, bringing out of game variables into the game. Of course, if its agreed upon beforehand then its all good.

what map are we talking about? :)

The one that added USA to classic

link?

got it, i dont see why usa should win with 14 either... not really a bad spot to start and many possible allies so why easy win? -.-

It's to encourage France and England to team up on him early.

http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4016&nocache=568

knew it was bound to happen. 14 SC USA beats 17 SC Turkey

Yes, I wish you had kept USA out of Lvp.

In USA's defense, Turkey should have won that, but Germany practically handed me the win...

woooow butter won a game!? what happened? did you practice in my absence!? :D

I was about to mention that game.
As Italy I was hoping to support France to Kiel to prevent a win (wouldnt have worked anyways) but what would have happened had I moved out of Munich and Turkey took it for 18 centers?

That would really tick me off if i was at 17 and lost to a 14 SC person.

My only hope in the last turn was for you to move out of Munich and Tunis, which I assume would result in a tie.

haha Rox, you are funny... no I just pretended that whoever I was fighting against was you, and it motivated me to kick ass ;)
and I don't know what would have happened had you hit 18, I assume it would have had to have assigned the win to someone...

If two powers solo on the same turn, the one with more SCs gets the win.
So bozo, you were really 1 short of winning...

hehe butter you know im joking ;)

yes I know you were... as was I. ;)

Well, I was pissed off at Turkey not attacking USA earlier and allowing him to overrun me while I was holding the front. So I decided to just take the survive and allow the USA to win. I was screwed ever since I NMRd anyway. We were headed for a draw before that.

USA only needs ~36.8% of the centres to secure a victory, so you can't even trust him in a 3-way draw, so I guess it's solo or nothing for them.

oops, its only 35.9%. I missed a centre...