"The two most immediate and obvious differences between the modern variant and
the original game are:
For example, France has all its standard neighbours PLUS Spain. Russia has been split into three powers - Poland, Ukraine and Russia. Austria-Hungary is now a battlefield and not a great power, but Turkey is still kept busy with Egypt, while it faces both Russia and the Ukraine to its north ...
"10 POWERS! Damn, this is beyond my ability to compute; I feel I am stretching my brain beyond my grasp."
"The dynamics of ten players!"
"With 10 players, you have 9 other random variables to deal with instead of 6,
a 50% increase. This makes diplomacy easier and more difficult at the same
time. On the one hand, having more players makes it more difficult to talk to
everyone. Developing a good diplomatic relationship takes some effort, which
in turn takes time. You always feel the need not to exclude anyone, and yet
there is a limit to how much meaningful discussion Egypt and Britain can have
at the beginning of the game. Also on the bad side is the fact that with more
neighbors, you have more people who may attack you. It is more difficult to
keep a consistent story (assuming you are not being 100% honest in all your
diplomatic negotiations), and also more difficult to please everyone. The only
saving grace to all of this is that all the other players suffer it equally.
On the good side, having more players allows for well developed alliances to
be formed more easily. Not having every player right in your immediate battle
allows for a period of discussion with far neighbors where information and
comments can be exchanged, such that when it does come time to coordinate
movements and (hate to do it) actually rely on somebody else, you have already
established a good diplomatic relation with them, you feel you know them a bit,
and it becomes easier to trust them.
Another good thing about having more players is when you really piss somebody
off (either by stab, making an error, or just shooting your mouth off), there
are more players to turn to for possible alliance against that player. I can
remember several alliances where I didn't stab an ally simply because I hated
everyone else on the board."
Actually the ratio of non-supply centers to supply centers in Modern (77/64) is greater than in standard (33/34). This gives more territory to defend per SC, and increases the vulnerability of powers, while reducing the chances of stalemate lines. The sheer number of units also provides many more possibilities, making it more difficult to predict what will happen.
Alexander K. Woo disagrees with me:
"Well, I'll say it again as I see another endgame. Modern has too many SCs on
the board and therefore it is far too easy to form stalemate lines. I think the
main reason that draws are more rare in Modern is that players know the
stalemate lines less well. Wait until a bunch of people compile stalemate
databases for DipPouch and players get more and more familiar with it. Then, I
think Modern will turn out more drawish than Standard, though not nearly as bad
as Youngstown."
But others agree:
"I've found one of the really appealing aspects of the variant is that there
are so many options, and so much more room for making trouble."
"Another great strategy article! The more I play Modern, the more I like it. It is sort of an Advanced Diplomacy in that the strategic considerations are much deeper and much more varied than in the Standard game."
"Having more centers also seems to change the game quite a bit, in that tactical decisions become both more and less important. They are more important because with more units comes more decisions. You have greater flexibility in concentrating your units, or spreading them out more. Obviously it is best to concentrate all your forces on one other player, but with so many neighbors, it is hard to ever feel secure enough to do so. On the other side, with more units, a single bad unit move is less damaging. Forgetting to move a unit or making an unwise decision will have less of an impact when there are 64 units on the board as opposed to 34."
While it may be true that more SCs are landlocked in modern, there are also more SCs which are either on islands (Ireland), or can be easily be blocked against a land-only force. If one tries to take Spain, the Middle-East, Italy or Egypt from the north with only armies, then one can easily be stopped by but two units. The same goes for taking Scandinavia from the south. Even capturing or holding such areas as the Balkans and Germany or Poland is made much easier with the use of fleets.
I also believe that access to both seas - the Atlantic and the Mediterranean - is much more important in Modern than in standard. This access gives a much greater chance of winning once one has over 20 or so supply centers. This gives Russia, France, Spain and to a lesser extent, Britain, a good advantage in the end game - an advantage which has been balanced however by a more problematic starting position.
"Modern, I'll admit, I've fallen for."
"When I saw the variant I fell in love with it."
"Modern is a good Dip Variant."
"It really is a great variant. Well done laddy."
"I've finally taken the time to read all the articles in the Pouch about Modern. Very interesting reading, indeed!"
"I know I've only played a few moves so far, but I have to tell you this is far and away the best map I've ever played on. Absolutely ruthless! Are all Modern games this cutthroat? Thanks again for creating such a fascinating map."
Back to the main article
| Vincent Mous-Harboesgaard ([email protected]) |
If you wish to E-Mail feedback on this article to the author, click on the letter above. If that does not work, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.