|
Reasons for the Selection of Medium Powers
In my discussions with Christian Schlobach my choice for the countries
that would be dubbed 'medium powers' was under fire. Since Christian's
questions were legitimate I would like to elaborate my choice for
the countries listed below.
First, let's start by defining what a 'medium power' is. In the game,
a medium power is a minor power under player control. The difference
between a minor and major powers is not an easy one, since it is
subjective. Let's try an objective definition: a minor power is
a country that is too weak (militarily, politically, and economically) to
influence world affairs on its own. Now, this definition is rather vague.
We are left with questions such as how to define strength, how we can
measure influence, etcetera. Let's assume then that a minor power is a
country not capable of destroying the balance of power on its own.
On with the reasons for my choice. Remember that I define a medium as
a minor power controlled by a player. The reason I haven't
made each minor power a medium power is that in World Affairs
and Crisis'38 I noticed this led to anarchy. Many players were bored with
the few possibilities their poor and weak countries had. As a result, they
began spamming the news or they began showing a-historical and unrealistic
behavior. The reason I didn't opt to leave out medium powers is to give
unexperienced players a chance to explore the game. Another reason was that
for me as the GM to take control of all countries save the Big Eight could
lead to stagnation of the game. As GM I tend to be too neutral; adding a
few medium powers would make the game more interesting.
So why did I opt to include the countries listed below and not others?
Well, initally I intended to use only Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia, as
these were minor powers with well-respected military forces, which
would not be overrun in the beginning of the game. Next to that, they
weren't really neutral, as I noticed during several game that playing neutral
countries can be pretty boring. After discussions with Christian, however,
I included Turkey and Czechoslovakia. Turkey was added because it was
neutral only superficially, but closer examination revealed that Turkey
played out the Axis against the Allies. The special relations of Turkey
with Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, makes this
a very interesting country to play, even if it stays neutral during
the entire game. Czechoslovakia was added on Christian's request
as well: even though the chances are high that the Czechoslovakian player
will not hold out for more than two game-years, it will provide an
interesting challenge for those wishing to learn more about crises.
The Medium Powers
- Czechoslovakia: republican democracy
with a medium economy and a medium-sized population. Landlocked.
Large army, small airforce, no navy. For players who can withstand
the pressure of constant threats.
- Poland: republican dictatorship
with a small economy and a large population. Landlocked, except for the
so-called Polish Corridor. Large army, small airforce, small navy.
For players who like the challenge of having to choose between
complying to one of two neighbours, or to follow public opinion and
try to stay neutral while modernizing the armed forces without
resources to do so.
- Roumania: dictatorial monarchy
with a small economy and a medium-sized population. Borders the Black
Sea. Small army, tiny airforce, tiny navy. For players who like to
ally themselves to anyone capable of protection.
- Turkey: republican one-party / military
dictatorship with a small economy and a large population. Borders the
Black Sea and the Mediterraenean. Medium-sized army, tiny airforce,
small navy. For players who know how to seem a future friend to
everyone, without ever becoming one.
- Yugoslavia: dictatorial monarchy
with a small economy and a medium-sized population. Borders the
Mediterraenean. Small army, tiny airforce, tiny navy. For players
who like the challenge of internal divisions when external threats
are mounting.
|