Balkan re-alignments

Thats what my (non-official) books also told me about Belgium.

To solve that problem France (/GB) should receive money (5-10IPC) from “neutral” USA every round.

USW could be made more important within this process. Instead of throwing dices for every SZ, the subs could attack transports with IPCs on them (every transport can carry 2 IPC for example).

Did you ever thought about an activation of Minors via paying money?

@Chacmool:

Did you ever thought about an activation of Minors via paying money?

That’s actually a pretty good idea. I’m more in favor of aligning Bulgaria with Germany, but paying to activate it is basically an equivalent of a war loan (e.g. 4 IPCs). And in my when-I-have-time house rules, Bulgaria would operate as a country piggybacking on a larger CP power, but with an economy unto itself. So the activation is basically like a significant cash infusion into an otherwise small economy.

I can’t see Romania being aligned with France, even though it recieved substantial help later in the war. It simply had more natural political ties with Russia, and Russia increasingly had to assist the Romanians directly once the Romanian invasion turned into a rout. So, yes, then after that point, the French assistance becomes more important.

I would consider operating Romania just as Bulgaria (attaching it to a larger country but with its own economy). Bulgaria and Romania were not too far off in the amount of troops mobilized, and if not equal, the Bulgarian troops made up for it in quality. Though I must say the Romanians had improved greatly by the end of the war.

I have early-war British HaT pieces that will stand in for Bulgarians (field caps are pretty similar at that scale), and A&A 40 can provide Frenchmen in Adrian helmets posing as Romanians (accents will give them away).

But I think it would only fair to boast the value of Bulgarian and/or Romania by an IPC just to facilitate their economy. They really shouldn’t be able to reinforce with more than a corps/infantry per turn.

I hear a lot the French need money. If the French got less money wouldn’t it force the Brits to spend/mobilize on the western front, instead of spending in India for 2-3 turns to crush the Turks.

@WILD:

I hear a lot the French need money. If the French got less money wouldn’t it force the Brits to spend/mobilize on the western front, instead of spending in India for 2-3 turns to crush the Turks.

I agree. It  makes sense; it happened historically.

The leader of Argentina was about as committed to staying out of the war as Switzerland was, and even if she did somehow go to war, popular support was overwhelmingly on the side of the Entente. So strict neutrals would probably be better for them.

@Flashman:

Full list of suggested changes to neutrals:

Belgium +1 ipc = 3
Holland = Netherlands +1 ipc = 3
Norway -2 ipc = 2
Switzerland +3 ipc = 4
Spain + cruiser in sz14
Albania - Turkish aligned -1 ipc = 1
Romania - French/Italian aligned
Bulgaria - Austrian aligned

What about Montenegro? Its no longer represented by turkish aligned Albania, so I think its better to give Serbia 3 IPC

Also I think the Serbs were tougher than the Romanian troops.

Bulgaria maybe 4 IPCs?

I would agree that the Balkan armies should start off bigger to represent their veterancy, but yeah, more IC doesn’t make much sense, I mean BUlgaria collapsed economically without ever really being challenged. They weren’t exactly economic powerhouses.

Agree to more planes, by early 1914 Russia already had the best strategic bombers of the war, and even the Austrians had their own flight schools. Every nation should start out with at least one plane IMO.

And for Argentina, I mean for game purposes sure, makes an easy balance, but as long as we recognize that it wouldn’t happen historically  :-D.

@DarthShizNit:

I would agree that the Balkan armies should start off bigger to represent their veterancy, but yeah, more IC doesn’t make much sense, I mean BUlgaria collapsed economically without ever really being challenged. They weren’t exactly economic powerhouses.

Agree to more planes, by early 1914 Russia already had the best strategic bombers of the war, and even the Austrians had their own flight schools. Every nation should start out with at least one plane IMO.

And for Argentina, I mean for game purposes sure, makes an easy balance, but as long as we recognize that it wouldn’t happen historically  :-D.

In fact, the Russian air force was the largest in the world at the start of the war. It seems that it wasn’t used very effecitvely at first, but picked up greatly from there. Some of the tactics developed by the Black Sea Fleet with seaplanes and carriers were highly advanced for the day.

@Flashman:

Another possibility is that the level of a plane also relates to movement, so that a level 4 plane would be able to conduct bombing missions, e.g. a German L4 aircraft based in Belgium can bomb London and return to base, corresponding to 1917 Gotha bombers conducting such raids. So maybe we don’t need a seperate bomber unit at all…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_Raids

By level 4, I assume you mean an aircraft attacking on a 4 or less? Seems a bit much for me. Perhaps that might be true against air-to-air action, but what about their involvement in the land battle? Fighters strafing at 4 or less would be kind of ridiculous for this time period. They could certainly do damage to ground targets, but not on the scale of WWII.

Russia, France, and Germany should start with air forces. Everyone else should build them. I’m going to see what sorts of numbers I can find for air forces, c. 1914.

Great Britain should start with planes as well. The Royal Naval Air Service had 93 planes when the war broke out and would conduct what might have been the first strategic bombing missions of the war for the Entente when they bombed German Airship hangars on September 22, 1914.

In fact, every major nation should start with a plane (though I could understand not giving the Ottomans one as their air force at it’s apex was nothing more than a few planes, hell Romania fielded more planes than the Ottomans).

@Flashman:

In the later war aircraft conducted some pretty damaging strafing runs. We’re only talking about a few machines, so I don’t think 4 is that excessive.

But perhaps aircraft should only be able to straf if there is no air to air combat.

The level would also apply to movement; so German planes based in Belgium would be able to SBR London and return to base only at level 4, available 1917 which is about right. This depends on if you want separate bomber units or not.

Ok, I see where you are going. I’m not a big fan of a seperate bomber unit, but at the same time, the Zeps, Gothas, etc., at least need some representation. They were an innovative use of airpower, but their casualties were horrendous. I’m not sure what a Zeppelin (or Gotha) cost, but it probably never broke even. Just seems like a piece that might cost a lot of IPCs for relatively little return. My feelings are mixed.

@Flashman:

My point is that the material damage done by bombing in WWI was insignificant; but the moral panic it caused was highly damaging, forcing nations to build their own bombers to retaliate, and withdraw fighters from the front line to defend their cities.
Bombers only become a viable unit if morale is the main factor in forcing the enemy out of the war.

Sort of like an SBR on a nation’s morale factor, is what you’re thinking? I could go with that, in addition to their tactical abilities. Assuming we’re talking about Gothas, Handley Pages, Zeps, Capronis, etc. and not D.H. 4s!  :-D