Power of Politics 1914 : A WWI scenario

[Schulz]

I know only modding but I can help at playesting and suggesions if you wish.

[Hepps]

Since there has been some interest and responses to the idea of this project, I spent a little time last night making some more visuals to better explain how I had planned this to work.

The neutrality situation...

The two Neutral Powers (USA & Italy) would be set to an AI until they are brought into the game via diplomatic action. They would have reduced income and have no movement phases while they remain neutral.

The remainder of the Neutral Nations would not (technically) be nations at all and instead would have triggers to place units each turn while they remain neutral and triggers to convert their holdings to the appropriate Major/Minor Power should they be brought into the game via diplomatic action.

[Schulz]

1. Is Belgium part of British Empire? Is Montenegro part of Serbia?

2. The colonial parts of these empires look like a bit overvalued.

3. I think only British Empire and France may be playable with their colonial empires since the Germans had just insignificant colonials while Russia and Ottomans had no colony.

4. What are the situations of Canada and ANZAC?

5. Will Centrals and Entente nations have to pay the same amount of Pus for absorb the same neutral nation?

[Hepps]

@schulz said in A WWI scenario design based loosely on NML & TWW:

1. Is Belgium part of British Empire? Is Montenegro part of Serbia?

Belgium is simply part of The British Empire and its African holdings are part of British Colonial Africa. Montenegro is part of Serbia, Albania is set up as a "Staunch Neutral". There are a number of other countries that are also set up as "Staunch Neutrals". IE. Switzerland, Columbia, Costa Rica, etc. etc.

2. The colonial parts of these empires look like a bit overvalued.

I think it is a reasonable representation given how the regional conflicts will play out.

3. I think only British Empire and France may be playable with their colonial empires since the Germans had just insignificant colonials while Russia and Ottomans had no colony.

Hence why Russia & the Ottomans have very little colonial holdings at all.

4. What are the situations of Canada and ANZAC?

Canada is lumped in as part of Britain. while ANZAC is part of British Colonial Pacific Asia.

5. Will Centrals and Entente nations have to pay the same amount of Pus for absorb the same neutral nation?

There is no purchasing of the Neutral Nations. Each side will need to vie to convince neutrals to join their cause.

[Hepps]

So here is some of the ideas that surround the Bolshevik uprising.

While the Bolshevik forces will have a near full spectrum of normal military units, they will start the game with only 2 units available to them which can only be produced and placed out of the Bolshevik Uprising territory.

This territory has connections to most of the Russian interior. So they can invade nearly any spot on in the Russian Heartland on their move. (Note! No nations army may move into the Boshevik Uprising Territory at any time for any reason)

Civilian Riots

Att. 1 / Def 0 /Mvt 1 /Hit points 3... Can Strategic bomb Factory or Recruitment Center for 0-6 damage.

Bolshevik Rebel

Att. 1 Def. 1 Mvt. 1

This means that until the Bolsheviks have taken a territory or territories where they can establish a Recruitment center (Any terr. with a PU value) or a Factory (Territory with Urban terrain) they will be limited to the preceding 2 unit types. Once they have some territorial gains on the map the basic military units will become available to them once they have their production centers up and running.

It is important to note that the Bolsheviks will be at war with both Alliances. The Russian and Communists will only be removed from the war when the required objectives have been achieved. At which point they will become Neutral (and impassable) to both Alliances.

[Hepps]

@schulz said in A WWI scenario design based loosely on NML & TWW:

3. I think only British Empire and France may be playable with their colonial empires since the Germans had just insignificant colonials while Russia and Ottomans had no colony.

The idea is that while some of the Colonial Minors for some of the nations might be meager at the game start... how the course of the war plays out could create a viable secondary power for some of the nations that start with little to nothing.

As an example...

While the Ottoman Empire starts the game earning only 3 PU for its Imperial Ottoman Vilayet Minor (Northern Hejaz, Southern Hejaz and Qatar).

Depending on how the game plays out, it could be earning substantially more (to the tune of 28 PU) within the first 4 or 5 rounds of the game.

This is the same for many of the Colonial Minors.

[alkexr]

@Hepps

Civilian Riots

Att. 1 / Def 0 /Mvt 1 /Hit points 3... Can Strategic bomb Factory or Recruitment Center for 0-6 damage.

I remember trying to create land units with SBR and getting an error stating that only air units can strategic bomb. But I really like the idea.

[redrum]

@hepps I'm guessing then that those territories are "originally owned by" the colonial Ottoman minor then since otherwise they would go to the Ottomans directly?

[Hepps]

@alkexr They will be air units if need be.

[Hepps]

@redrum The colonial territories will be originally owned by the assigned Minor Power. Then the territory will be set to "if Captured by" goes to whatever the appropriate Minor would be.

[Schulz]

Well Russian territories had been drawn perfectly. Well done. Wouldn't red colour better for Communist units rather than pink?

Also Qatar was under British protectorate. Not all today's inner Saudi Arabia was united. Some tribes were pro-Ottoman like Jabal Shammar. Hejaz was absoultely worthless for Ottomans they did try to keep the area for only Religious reasons, Hejaz had been excluded from taxation and conscriptions.

[Hepps]

@schulz As far as Qatar...

"Under military and political pressure from the governor of the Ottoman Vilayet of Baghdad, Midhat Pasha, the ruling Al Thani tribe submitted to Ottoman rule in 1871.[68] The Ottoman government imposed reformist (Tanzimat) measures concerning taxation and land registration to fully integrate these areas into the empire.[68] Despite the disapproval of local tribes, Al Thani continued supporting Ottoman rule."

"The Ottoman Empire fell into disorder after losing battles in different fronts in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. Qatar took part in the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. The revolt was successful and Ottoman rule in the country further declined. The United Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire accorded their recognition to Sheikh Abdullah bin Jassim Al Thani and his successors' right to rule over the whole of the Qatari Peninsula. The Ottomans renounced all their rights to Qatar and, following the outbreak of the First World War, Abdullah bin Jassim Al Thani (who was pro-British) forced them to abandon Doha in 1915."

This is the information I could gather for Qatar from Wikipedia. Therefore if the map is set to start in 1914, then it would seem appropriate for the country to be set up as an Ottoman Vilayet.

As far as the Hejaz region. I am trying to strictly limit the number of 0 PU territories (I really dislike putting something on a map that offers nothing). The PU attributed to them could be said to represent their strategic value as well as their religious significance to the Ottoman Empire. Besides that abstract valuation it also serves to give the Ottoman Empire some much needed income in order to make them even competitive.

[Hepps]

@schulz said in A WWI scenario design based loosely on NML & TWW:

Not all today's inner Saudi Arabia was united. Some tribes were pro-Ottoman like Jabal Shammar.

I understand that the Arabian peninsula was not a single unified country. But for the game purposes I am simply leaving them as a single Neutral Power that is on the verge of joining British Colonial India. Trying to make this into 2 or 3 neutral factions would offer no real value to the game since each would be worth between 2 - 3 PU individually. The way I have set it up (while being a real over-simplification of the real situation) offers both Alliances with some real value.

[Schulz]

Will there be mutinies besides Communists?

[Hepps]

Here is what I have detailed for Imperial Russia so far.

I have some great maps of Russia from the turn of the century, but unfortunately I cannot read Russian. If anyone knows Imperial Russian Geography... feel free to make some suggestions.

[Schulz]

I am Turkish if you want to know anything about the Ottoman Empire get in touch with me. There are some documentations about the role of the Ottoman Empire during ww1 that aren't English.

[Hepps]

@schulz Sure. It would help to have decent regional names for the Ottomans.

[Schulz]

[Hepps]

@schulz Looks good. Helps to have some one who knows the regional history of a particular area.

Though I do not understand why you would change Kuwait to Basra. As Kuwait it can be set up as a British holding.

I am also probably going to leave Baghdad as the city. Since Mosul was a much smaller city at the time.

[Schulz]

It depends I was referring from http://www.wikizeroo.net/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly90ci53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvVmlsYXlldA

Kuwait had exactly the same situation with Qatar. If you count Qatar as Ottoman territory then Kuwait also should be count as Ottoman territory too. But none of them was under Ottman rule. Yes, Kuwait should be remain as Kuwait if it is under British protectorate. Though the Kuwaiti ruler supported the Ottoman Empire. From wiki;

"During World War I, the British Empire imposed a trade blockade against Kuwait because Kuwait's ruler supported the Ottoman Empire.[68][69][70] The British economic blockade heavily damaged Kuwait's economy.[70]"