True Neutrals in 1914

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

I have found 2 changes to the map that enhance the game play - thought I would share.

Darfur - Minor Aligned with Ottoman Empire (1) IPC.  This new territory sits between French Equatorial Africa and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, with Belgian Congo keeping a border on AES.  This change provides more action in Africa, without it just becoming a big waste of space by turn 3 or 4 and an IPC pump for the British.

Sea zone 31 - A new sea zone that splits SZ17 in half.  SZ31 borders SZ16 to the west, SZ17 to north, SZ19 to the east, and Libya/Egypt to the south.  All of Greece borders the new SZ31 and SZ20.  This change provides much more freedom of movement of any CP ships that leave their home ports from mine rolls.  From the Allied powers standpoint - protects from an AH early thrust into the Black Sea or Eastern Med.

I’m curious if anyone has played only rolling for mines when resolving an amphibious invasion and ignoring them otherwise. My idea is that mines are ignored for movement (unless Allied ships attempt to move through SZ 11 to SZ 10 or 12 while Germany controls Berlin or Allied ships attempt to move through SZ 20 to SZ 17 or 19 or 21 while the Ottomans control Constantinople) and naval battles on the high seas. Mines are rolled for when a player attempts an amphibious invasion in a mined SZ. If a naval battle has to occur before the amphibious landing, then mines are rolled before the naval battle.

Haven’t tried this yet, but I thought it would encourage slightly more naval action, but was curious to get other’s thoughts. Would this unleash the High Seas Fleet or encourage a greater degree of turtling than that already encouraged by the current rules?

(My apologies if this has already been discussed, I haven’t done an exhaustive search of the forums).

Good points, General Veers.  Thanks for your insights.

My play group has just recently, which resulted in a land-slide victory for the Central powers, and the discovery of some rule flaws. Rules changed:

Romania and Arabia now have different mobilisation objectives. (by Flashmans request)

Italy and USA now have much more static entrances.

Colonial mobilisation has been  limited. (Can only mobilise units equal to IPC value of that territory)

Portugal can now be a colony.

Neutral Greece’s entry is now more historic.

Persia no longer has rail-roads. (Flashman)

Given the British dominion a transport capacity of 3. (simple error)

Colonies can only mobilise convoys under the same owner as the territory.

ALL neutrals (including aliened) are now full neutrals. (they can only be mobilised at certain points in the game)

Serbia now has 5 Infantry.

Made it so powers don�t start with ‘convoys’. (Simple error)

Railed in units now attack @ full strength. (players found it more fun this way)

Feel free to suggest rule changes.

Sorry, how does that avoid the unhistorical attack?

Austria shelled Serbia, but not march over the border until some time after.

Given the choice, most Austria players would probably avoid attacking Serbia R1.

I also think USA should not automatically go to war until Russia has suffered a revolution/collapse, so the Central Powers have to balance crushing Russia versus bringing the Americans in.

To some extent devastation is represented by the fact that contested tts yield no income, though we still have the absurdity that a tt might yet produce EIGHT TIMES the usual income if it changes hands often enough.