In a historical game this could never have happened. Britain did not have the resourses to add Persia to her list of enemies. Allowing this also puts Turkey in a unrealistic situation of having to face a horde of British infantry directly invading Mesopotamia which never hapened. If we make Persia a permanent neutral then this will force Britian to invade Mesopotamia by sea and to build transports and shuttle them to Persia for a sea invasion which is what really happened.
Not a bad idea.
@SuperbattleshipYamato The setup will need to be changed by giving a transport to Britain off the coast of India with maybe a cruiser to protect it. I need to experiment with this idea.
Let me know if you want me to help playtest it, it seems doable on TripleA.
We wouldn’t be able to play any A&A franchise game if we tried to disallow everything that would never have happened.
Agreed. Maybe a better idea is to beef up Persia’s army. Britain only never invaded because it was too weak (and so many men were sent to France). Increasing the Persian income to 5 IPCs would do it.
@SuperbattleshipYamato My only other pet peeve is the fact that Mesopotamia is such a large space. I think it would play better if it was divided into two spaces, Caucuses and leave the lower one Mesopotamia. That was an idea introduced on Boardgamegeek.
That can also work.
@AdmirlScuttlebut said in Britain Conquest of Persia?:
My only other pet peeve is the fact that Mesopotamia is such a large space. I think it would play better if it was divided into two spaces, Caucuses and leave the lower one Mesopotamia. That was an idea introduced on Boardgamegeek.
“Play better” by what metric? Now the Ottomans have to cover 2 spaces against a UK stack in Persia rather than one.
