Italy

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

@Yavid:

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.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

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.

@Flashman:

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.

@Yavid:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

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.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

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

@Flashman:

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

@DarthShizNit:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

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.