Tad late to this topic but the 'Minor Powers"thread has just been so engrossing :evil:
If your doing the Great War in anything besides a "Diplomancy"type game Italy can’t swing
(as other posters have noted).
Her self interest were such that only AH territory would make joining the war worth the cost.
(It turned out to be one hell of a high cost).
I agree it would be an interesting addition to fool around with Italian entry & some of the lesser
powers for that matter but doing so moves you out of WWI.It’s a fine line I know,Germany can
defeat France or Russia can march to Berlin but Italy can’t become a CP.
You change the course of the war as you play the game that’s a given but if you change the
pieces you change the circumstances/reasons & purposes that created the war in th first place.
A bridge too far-IMO.
We have no idea of the actual rules yet so who knows how Italy will be handled my gut feeling it will
be by a set date entry for the Allies.
@Old:
……but Italy can’t become a CP.
But that is what Italy do, they switch sides all the time. Italy never end a war at the same side it startet, and if they do its because they switched side twice during the war. Italy is the one power you can be sure will backstabb you, man . grin
I like the entry rules that Flashman proposed, now that would make for a fun game, and it would be historicall too. Too bad its too complicated for this game.
The situation for Italy in 1915 was almost identical to that in 1940. Mussolini decided to join in with Hitler before it was too late. For a few casualties he got Nice and Savoy, and a promise from Hitler of Tunisia and maybe Morocco.
Despite the ideological similarities, Hitler and Mussolini had nearly gone to war with each other over Austria, and even as Allies they tried to outdo each other and didn’t keep their partner informed.
In 1915 Germany offered something similar - a slice of France’s African Empire. I think it is highly probable that if Germany had looked like beating France, Italy would have gone in the CPs favour.
Making a CP Italy a possibility gives a sense of urgency, then, to the opening turn or two. If it does happen, then the game could be re-balanced somewhat by, for example, making earlier American entry more likely.
Or, make the Allies pay in cash to get Italy on their side, money which can be spent on units if they don’t succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_WWI#From_neutrality_to_the_intervention_in_the_war
Taking a major nation and just “switching sides” when the game was balanced to include Italy as Entente, would ruin the delicate balance.
Just play a game with Germany as part of the entente as see what happens. There is no point to allowing anything more than when Italy can become a full entente participant.
It’s not exactly like Italy was will likely have the power to just burst out into the world and kill everything, if anything they’re more of a minor major power, they’ll probably have super low income, just enough to pump out some infantry each turn (AH should only be slightly better).
Well, obviously, the game would be “balanced” by other things. I’m not suggesting counties simply switching sides within an existing framework.
Historical considerations come first, “balancing” issues last. That is, if you get the history right, it should be possible to get the balance right without destroying the history.
The whole attraction of history is the possibilities of what might have happened, not what did. Italy might have stayed with the Central Powers, it might have stayed neutral. If you get the August 1914 setup right, then a historical play out should be only one of an infinite number of possibilities.
Or is there no point in allowing anything other than whatever produces an Allied Victory on 11/11/18?
It’s not exactly like Italy was will likely have the power to just burst out into the world and kill everything, if anything they’re more of a minor major power, they’ll probably have super low income, just enough to pump out some infantry each turn (AH should only be slightly better).
Yes, I would put Italy in the 2nd rank of nations with Austria-Hungary.
Russia is something of a hybrid; a first rank power due to size and population, but industrially at the same level as I and A-H.
Nevertheless, these three did have the industrial capability to produce the latest weapons:
Russia and Italy both started the war with bombers, unlike the first rank powers; Austria was a leader in Artillery production.
Turkey has to be in the 3rd rank with the likes of Haiti. No industrial base whatever, totally reliant on imports for modern weapons. It didn’t even raise as many fighting troops as Bulgaria.
So, Italy joining CP shouldn’t be too difficult to balance. It might bring America into the war earlier; Allies get an income boost by not having to bribe Italy; CP has to pay income to bribe successfully; a weak Italy might even prove a back-door for the Allies to attack Austria, whereas a neutral Italy is a barrier protecting the Central Powers (remember the Allies cannot attack neutrals).
Maybe the game should of just started in 1915 when all the countries are at war except the US. Get past all this and just gets to the war instead of dealing with all these countries joining the two sides. I definitely prefer a starting date of 1941 or 42 over the 40. Just get to the main part of the war. The game is long and we don’t need to play out a almost certain French defeat.
Historical considerations come first, “balancing” issues last
Not in a game. Balancing is first always. You want to play a game where the CP always lose? The design must be a delicate tightrope of making a historical game with some allowances for giving each side winning chances.
Flip flop Italy, red white green Russia, gimped Ottoman, and late bloomer USA just throw both History and Balance out the window IMO>
Yeah this war wasn’t exactly balanced, for example, Germany never stood a chance of taking Paris if the French were even half way competent (and they were spectacular, the 2nd Marne is a textbook victory).
There is of course the bidding system.
Does every game have to start out with each side having an exact 50% chance of winning?
Italy did flip-flop until April 1915.
Russia did dissolve into civil war, with the Germans and Allies backing opposing sides.
The Ottoman Empire had no capacity to produce mechanical units, let alone drive columns of tanks over the Caucasus.
USA was very late to get effectively into the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_FAOk4uMp8
Change those things and the game isn’t about WWI, anymore than A&A Classic is about WWII if Russia and Japan start at war with each other.
Does every game have to start out with each side having an exact 50% chance of winning?
Ideally yes. Games are supposed to allow equal winning chances for both sides. This is not Vegas. The house does not win.
A bid is a bastardization and acknowledgement that the game is not in balance. It must allow the possibility of many player options and counters and in the end not break the game.
This isn’t Risk. A game this complex can never be balanced by universal consent. Hence, players can back their judgement by bidding.
If players want to have Italy starting as a Central Power, neutral or Ally they can do so. But I think the standard game should be as historically accurate as possible. If balance is your main concern, then Make Italy honour its commitment to the CP so we have 4 vs 4.
You’d end up with summat like this:
This isn’t Risk.
4 vs 4= risk
It can be balanced like anything else with some stronger nations and weaker. Just give them all the same abilities or include the Dreadnought of Haiti scenario. Bidding is a failure. The game should offer equal chances for both sides and Historically the CP had 3 high watermarks to win 1914,16,and 18. You cant just take out Italy and assume the game is still magically balanced. Just try that in any other game. The only concern is to delay them from being a full fledged Entente member by some nifty NO’s
Well, obviously, the game would be “balanced” by other things. I’m not suggesting counties simply switching sides within an existing framework.
Exactly. There can be balance if the design takes such a mechanic into account.
Or is there no point in allowing anything other than whatever produces an Allied Victory on 11/11/18?
Another great point. IMO, the best game is the one that gives us the ability to work out the contingincies of 1914 in our own way within reason, not a game that we can watch the same thing happen over and over again with dice as the only real variable.
The nice thing about Italy ( & gas,minor countries) is when the game
Rules surface we can do whatever we want. :wink: .
I’m probably going to chrome the Game with a lot of Stuff from
“War in the Trenches”.
There is no way to balance the game and have Italy be able to swing. To steal a line from someone else. This is Axis and Allies not Risk. If you want to be able to switch sides in the game go play Risk
If Germany had overrun France in 1914 as they did in 1940, would Italy have still joined the Allies? I think not.
That’s why I suggested linking Italian entry to success in the first turn or 2, as well as secret investment of money bribes. Whoever gets Italy has to pay the bribe, so this balances.
Certain people seem oblivious to the Butterfly effect; the outcome of one early battle can determine the entire course of a war, including the allegiances of wavering neutrals.
Most neutrals would only ever join one side, but the timing of this should be variable. Italy is a class apart, acting entirely in the interests of Sacred Egotism.
Old Dwarf, don’t you mean “Death in the Trenches”?
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15391/death-in-the-trenches-the-great-war-1914-1918
There is no way to balance the game and have Italy be able to swing.
Sure there is. You just need to have the side it ends up on be determined by an investment of IPC, and whoever loses gets their IPC “invested” back.
Conceptually this would be along the lines of making promises to Italy and then if they don’t have Italy on their side, they don’t have to fulfill the promises.
Another way to do it would be to tie Italy’s entry as CP to preposterous, unlikely success against France, which would also be tied to an even earlier US entry.
Obviously it’s not easy, but to say their is “no way” is exaggerating just a bit too much.
There is no way to balance the game and have Italy be able to swing.
Sure there is. You just need to have the side it ends up on be determined by an investment of IPC, and whoever loses gets their IPC “invested” back.
Conceptually this would be along the lines of making promises to Italy and then if they don’t have Italy on their side, they don’t have to fulfill the promises.
Another way to do it would be to tie Italy’s entry as CP to preposterous, unlikely success against France, which would also be tied to an even earlier US entry.
Obviously it’s not easy, but to say their is “no way” is exaggerating just a bit too much.
How about no way to make the game historical and balance with an Italy that swings.
