I propose that Romania should be a French aligned neutral. Historically, it was mainly French pressure that persuaded the country to go to war, and it certainly looked to the West rather than Russia for political guidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_romania#World_War_I
Coupled with the rule that an aligned minor neutrals can only be activated by the aligned major power, this makes the Balkan area more interesting, along with the following:
Albania non-aligned worth 1 IPC (making it harder for the Western Allies to grab a foothold in the Balkans)
Bulgaria Austrian aligned? (also delaying Bulgarian entry by a turn)
I’d suggest Portugal is UK aligned, but French income is already too low vis a vis UK; the French can usually do little more than hold the Western front and its a boring power to play. Romania being French aligned gives them an incentive to go through the Balkans to grab the Romanian income.
It could even be argued that Albania should be Turkish aligned to reflect the sympathies of it’s majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_Revolt_in_Albania
Edit: If the Bulgarian/Greek border is corrected, then theoretically Austria could activate Bulgaria A1 with a transport and infantry from Trieste, sailing through the waters of (still neutral) Italy to SZ20.
Greece as German aligned? Had a pro-German king. Probably makes an Allied landing inevitable.
Overall I think this better reflects the delayed entry of these counties into the war.
Note that a power can still invade a neutral aligned to its ally, but this is now an act of war.
So if Russia decided to invade (French aligned) Romania it would have to face the Romanian army, now controlled by a Central Power.
I’m in favour of simplifying the colony rules - e.g. if you attack Spanish Morocco you activate all of Spain against you, including the cruiser in SZ14.
I read the article and agree with your premise, but as a French mini power it would fall immediately after activation (if the French could even get there to activate it). I guess that fits though because once the French talked Romania into going to war (Aug 1916) the CP destroyed the Romanian army in 4 months, and controlled most of the country.
I suppose that if minor powers of this type had a fail safe way of entering the war things could get interesting (time line). If a physical activation hasn’t happened by a certain round the minor power auto activates at a certain time. You would need to rule that certain minor powers couldn’t be attacked until activation or round of play.
Romania was awarded to Russia mostly because of geographic location. Russia was the closest major power and the Romanian units can’t stand on their own (as French) so they were migrated into the Russian army (like Belg into France). There is no game mechanism to resupply units to these minor powers either. If these minor powers were given their own sculpts and able to perform attacks with a major ally then it could possibly work, but you would still need a way to resupply men and at least two new neutral color units (one for the Allied minor powers, and one for the CP minor powers). Would be kinda cool to have some combined attacks in the game.
I don’t see it like that.
Consider the case of Romania. You suggest it will fall immediately when activated by France, but there’s no reason the Russians couldn’t reinforce it if able.
It gives Austria a real dilemma: if they attack it A1 they’re immediately giving the Allies 6 units they might not get for several turns, and perhaps not ever. Furthermore, Russia is likely to contest the tt strait away, denying Austria the income & bringing Russian troops a step closer to Vienna & Belgrade; but more importantly if Russia can capture Romania it is liberated for France - effectively giving the French an extra infantry on the western front every turn.
If it is left alone however it narrows the eastern front (which may be to Austrian advantage), and forces France to consider a costly diversion of units to the Balkans. It may even force Russia to consider invading Romania in an attempt to block the activation of Bulgaria, giving Austria 6 free units! Turkey might invade Bulgaria to drive the Allies out of Greece! I rather like the idea that these nations could join either side despite earlier alignments (after all Italy did this), or stay out of the war altogether.
The OOB alignments make it pretty much certain that every aligned neutral will be activated on round one, which is unhistorical and seems very railroaded.
I don’t see it like that.
Consider the case of Romania. You suggest it will fall immediately when activated by France, but there’s no reason the Russians couldn’t reinforce it if able.
Yes there is. Austria’s turn falls between France’s and Russia’s.
It gives Austria a real dilemma: if they attack it A1 they’re immediately giving the Allies 6 units they might not get for several turns, and perhaps not ever.
Fair point, but it also means Austria isn’t getting income that it desperately needs and can’t activate Bulgaria if it doesn’t one-shot Serbia. Although it does in itself allow a more practical one-shot of Serbia as Russia can’t fork out an inf (that it will cover in income) to get 6 more troops that Austria needs to take care of.
Furthermore, Russia is likely to contest the tt strait away, denying Austria the income & bringing Russian troops a step closer to Vienna & Belgrade; but more importantly if Russia can capture Romania it is liberated for France - effectively giving the French an extra infantry on the western front every turn.
Russia can’t efficiently contest Romania against a large Austrian attack (15 inf, 4 art, avg 3 casualties); they only have 9 inf, 4 art in immediate range and imo Romania is an all or nothing attack, because the CP can ill-afford to be throwing troops around early. Also neutrals have no original owner-the only time they consider a specific country is in activation (whether friendly or hostile); after that, whoever eliminates all enemy troops takes it (or defender’s choice between allies in the tt if all attacking troops were wiped out).
If it is left alone however it narrows the eastern front (which may be to Austrian advantage), and forces France to consider a costly diversion of units to the Balkans.
This could be a step in the right direction.
It may even force Russia to consider invading Romania in an attempt to block the activation of Bulgaria, giving Austria 6 free units!
Giving Austria 6 free units in the process…?
Turkey might invade Bulgaria to drive the Allies out of Greece!
Doubt it, Turkey barely has the troops to mess around in the Balkans with the Bulgarians, let alone fighting them. This also only works if Bulgaria has its historical 1914 coastline (which it does in your map).
I rather like the idea that these nations could join either side despite earlier alignments (after all Italy did this), or stay out of the war altogether.
The OOB alignments make it pretty much certain that every aligned neutral will be activated on round one, which is unhistorical and seems very railroaded.
Agreed.
Bulgaria would be better put under German influence if we want to be historical, it was they who worked the most closely with the Bulgarians.
Bulgaria would be better put under German influence if we want to be historical, it was they who worked the most closely with the Bulgarians.
youre right but fieldgrey bulgarian Infantry with pickelhauben on their heads also don´t look that historical to me.
Flashman what about making Belgium neutral and whoever invades them is in war with Britain? Wouldn´t that be more historical according to official historybooks?
Yes, “Official” History Books.
According to some theories:
Belgium was anything but neutral. It was already firmly in the Allied camp, and the German attack (which everyone knew would come through Belgium) was Britain’s pretext for the war it wanted in order to to cripple it’s main economic competitor. Much like Poland was the pretext in 1939.
I did think about making Belgium British aligned, but like Portugal the French need all the money they can get.
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?
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.
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
In addition a slight change to the units generated: every THIRD piece is artillery so:
4 ipc = 6 inf, 2 art (Sweden, Switzerland, Spain)
3 ipc = 4 inf, 2 art (Belgium, Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria)
2 ipc = 3 inf, 1 art (Greece, Norway, Serbia, Denmark, Portugal)
1 ipc = 2 inf only (Ethiopia, Afganistan, Arabia (Albania)
Thinking about a different map projection including the east coast of South America top include:
Mexico (German aligned)
Panama (US aligned)
Haiti (German aligned)
Cuba (US colony)
Bermuda (UK colony)
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil (USA aligned; can only be activated by USA when at war)
Uruguay
Argentina (German aligned?)
Brazil & Argentina would have small navies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_dreadnought_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_during_World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_haiti#Failing_State_.281911.E2.80.931915.29
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.
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’m basing the list on the assumption that the map tts will not change; if they do then there are more changes I’d make.
Bulgaria @ 4 is plausible for military consideration, but is it worth that economically? Same with Serbia - a toughened army that gave the Austrians a hard time, but the country was not developed economically.
Maybe Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, Romania & Greece get a “Balkan Bonus” to starting units to reflect recent combat experience (as opposed to a lack of it in A-H).
I also think there should be more starting fighters; Italy used aircraft in the Libyan war, and Bulgaria flew planes over Constantinople during the Balkan wars; so I think Italy, the UK, Turkey and Austria should get a starting fighter; maybe Bulgaria too and France & Germany 2 each.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Air_Force#First_and_Second_Balkan_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_air_force#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Air_Force#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Air_Force
Incidentally Persia seems to have had no railways, so it should be added to Africa & Afghanistan as areas where rail (i.e. 2-space) movement is not permitted.
Its another anomaly in that it had rich resourses (oil) but scarcely an army worth the name.
Regarding Argentina (above) it was more a case of it being anti-Brazil in terms of a naval arms race; so maybe if Brazil is activated by the USA then Argentina can be brought in by the CPs.
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.
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.
One possibility is to treat starting planes (and those built on round one) as reconnaisance machines, with a combat value of only 1.
Every turn/year thereafter, depending on your preferred chronology, each plane built goes up a level until in turn/year 4 new fighters are combat level 4.
When you get your extra planes from Wizards this can be facilitated by adding stripes to the wings with a marker pen/paint.
OR, each fighter that scores a kill in air to air combat is promoted one level to the maximum of 4.
OK, so each main power gets a fighter in the capital to begin with, plus an extra each for Germany & France in Munich* & Lorraine respectively.
Maybe a 2nd Russian machine in Sevastopol, and Bulgaria one to balance?
Anyone have a list of air strengths in 1914?
*or a Zeppelin based in Alsace (Friedrichshafen)
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…
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…
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.
