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.
Old Dwarf, don’t you mean “Death in the Trenches”?
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15391/death-in-the-trenches-the-great-war-1914-1918
Yes my Bad :|
Your right Butterflies are never really free,I have no doubt if Moltke  had pulled off Schlieffen,
Italy would have signed on with Kaiser Bill for some  bits of S.France Nappy III  had bit off.
(God I sound like a name dropper :roll: )
You could have a conditional rule for Italy to join the CP under such circumstances without undermining
the basis for the Game.If something that big happened during game play balance would not be an issue
as it’s a logical consequence of play.
My concern was having some Diplomatic Mechanic that would allow Italy to join the CP against
her historic self interest.
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.
If we assume that thereis no way that Italy would have joined the CP, then I would agree with you.
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.
If we assume that thereis no way that Italy would have joined the CP, then I would agree with you.
Which is what we do looking at the political scene in Italy in 1915.
Von Moltke fully expected Italy to attack France in the South. The Schleiffen plan (or his modification of it) assumed not only this, but that Belgium would surrender without a fight, and that British armies would arrive to late or in too small numbers to count.
You could, of course, interpret this as evidence that Italy never had any intention of attacking. But the majority in the Italian cabinet were in favour of at least neutrality right up to signing the treaty with the Allies in April 1915.
Until then, there was in effect a bidding war between the two alliances for Italian support.
I still maintain that Italy joining the Allies in Spring 1915 was by no means inevitable, and that if the CP had either conquered more of France, or offered more in bribes, Italy might have gone the other way or at least remained neutral.
Ideally, if things go exactly as they did historically up to Spring 1915, then Italy should join the Allies. But then, if that’s the case in every game, it’s not really a game, now is it?
http://www.guildofblades.com/WWI_semi_historical.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_WWI#From_neutrality_to_the_intervention_in_the_war
Von Moltke fully expected Italy to attack France in the South. The Schleiffen plan (or his modification of it) assumed not only this, but that Belgium would surrender without a fight, and that British armies would arrive to late or in too small numbers to count.
You could, of course, interpret this as evidence that Italy never had any intention of attacking. But the majority in the Italian cabinet were in favour of at least neutrality right up to signing the treaty with the Allies in April 1915.
Until then, there was in effect a bidding war between the two alliances for Italian support.
I still maintain that Italy joining the Allies in Spring 1915 was by no means inevitable, and that if the CP had either conquered more of France, or offered more in bribes, Italy might have gone the other way or at least remained neutral.
Ideally, if things go exactly as they did historically up to Spring 1915, then Italy should join the Allies. But then, if that’s the case in every game, it’s not really a game, now is it?
http://www.guildofblades.com/WWI_semi_historical.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_WWI#From_neutrality_to_the_intervention_in_the_war
Ok you sold me on Italy starts neutral and can declare war on or after turn 2 but not them joining the Central Powers. Historical speaking Axis and Allies doesn’t allow it’s players to do there own diplomacy
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.
If we assume that thereis no way that Italy would have joined the CP, then I would agree with you.
Which is what we do looking at the political scene in Italy in 1915.
Funny that that game starts in 1914 then.
