• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Doesn't the build infrastructure command give +10 anyway?

Alternatively, how about an event?

Code:
event = { 
    country = ENG 
    id = 56100 
    random = no 
    style = 0 
    name = "Sinai Pipeline" 
    desc = "Poor communications in the El Arish province greatly
 limit British attempts to advance from Egypt into Palestine. 
High Command proposes building a new supply route, including
a water pipeline, through the desert." 
   
 trigger = { 
	war = { country = ENG country = TUR }
	control = { province = 1206 data = ENG }
	supplies = 100
	 } 

    date = { day = 0 month = january year = 1916 } 
    offset = 10
    deathdate = { day = 0 month = january year = 1924 } 

    action_a = { 
        name = "Build it" 
        command = { type = infrastructure which = 1206 value = 25 }
        command = { type = supplies value = -100 }
        } 
    action_b = { 
        name = "It's too expensive" 
        command = { }
        } 
}
 
Agreed - orientate it around a railway line instead to make it more historically accurate, and remove the 'British' part so that the event description can be used for both Turkey and Britain.

Apart from that, it's perfect.
 
Dibo, I've made the odd grammatical correction and sentence restructuring to your Bulgarian description.

Following the preliminary peace of San Stefano after the eighth Russo-Turkish War of 1877/78, the newly formed nation-state of Bulgaria covered Macedonia to the Ochrid Lake as well as a coastal strip on the Aegean Sea. The Berlin Congress of 1878, however, limited Bulgaria’s territory to the region between the Danube and Balkans, plus the area around Sofia. Macedonia and Eastern Rumelia remained within the Ottoman Empire. Russia, keen to exercise control over Bulgaria, watched the successes of Prince Alexander I with a great degree of distrust. Alexander annexed Eastern Rumelia in 1885 and defeated Serbia in 1885/86, but was then forced to abdicate after a coup led by pro-Russian officers. His successor, Ferdinand of Saxony-Coburg-Gotha, led Bulgaria to formal independence from the Ottomans and was crowned Tsar in 1908. Motivated by a desire for ‘Greater Bulgaria’, the country became the driving force behind the Balkans League and carried the majority of the League’s burden in the First Balkans War (1912/13). However, during the Second Balkans War of 1913, in which Bulgaria planned to acquire the parts of the Balkans she considered to be populated by Bulgarians, a coalition consisting of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and the Ottoman Empire defeated Bulgaria. In the peace of Bucharest, Bulgaria lost large parts of her gains from the First Balkans War - Southern Dobrudja went to Romania, and Adrianople was given to the Ottomans. Of Macedonia, which Bulgaria had demanded in its entirety, they managed to hold onto a small strip of territory in the Pirin Mountains, the rest being parted between Serbia and Greece. Bulgaria had suffered a defeat, but its strong army was still intact and Ferdinand I was waiting for an opportunity to strike back at his neighbouring rivals. However, the Tsar had to contend with strong opposition from within both the army and parliament, which had strongly disapproved of the authoritarian style of Ferdinand’s conduct in foreign policy that had already proved so disastrous for Bulgaria.
 
Originally posted by Allenby
Dibo, I've made the odd grammatical correction and sentence restructuring to your Bulgarian description.

Following the preliminary peace of San Stefano after the eighth Russo-Turkish War of 1877/78, the newly formed nation-state of Bulgaria covered Macedonia to the Ochrid Lake as well as a coastal strip on the Aegean Sea. The Berlin Congress of 1878, however, limited Bulgaria’s territory to the region between the Danube and Balkans, plus the area around Sofia. Macedonia and Eastern Rumelia remained within the Ottoman Empire. Russia, keen to exercise control over Bulgaria, watched the successes of Prince Alexander I with a great degree of distrust. Alexander annexed Eastern Rumelia in 1885 and defeated Serbia in 1885/86, but was then forced to abdicate after a coup led by pro-Russian officers. His successor, Ferdinand of Saxony-Coburg-Gotha, led Bulgaria to formal independence from the Ottomans and was crowned Tsar in 1908. Motivated by a desire for ‘Greater Bulgaria’, the country became the driving force behind the Balkans League and carried the majority of the League’s burden in the First Balkans War (1912/13). However, during the Second Balkans War of 1913, in which Bulgaria planned to acquire the parts of the Balkans she considered to be populated by Bulgarians, a coalition consisting of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and the Ottoman Empire defeated Bulgaria. In the peace of Bucharest, Bulgaria lost large parts of her gains from the First Balkans War - Southern Dobrudja went to Romania, and Adrianople was given to the Ottomans. Of Macedonia, which Bulgaria had demanded in its entirety, they managed to hold onto a small strip of territory in the Pirin Mountains, the rest being parted between Serbia and Greece. Bulgaria had suffered a defeat, but its strong army was still intact and Ferdinand I was waiting for an opportunity to strike back at his neighbouring rivals. However, the Tsar had to contend with strong opposition from within both the army and parliament, which had strongly disapproved of the authoritarian style of Ferdinand’s conduct in foreign policy that had already proved so disastrous for Bulgaria.

Great. :)
You may want to add a sentence about Prince Alexander I - something like "Prince Alexander I was assigned with the task to lead the newly formed principality of Bulgaria". IMHO, this text should go before "Russia, keen to exercise control over Bulgaria, watched the successes of Prince Alexander I with a great degree of distrust."
 
Your suggested changes have been included. :)

Following the preliminary peace of San Stefano after the eighth Russo-Turkish War of 1877/78, the newly formed nation-state of Bulgaria covered Macedonia to the Ochrid Lake as well as a coastal strip on the Aegean Sea. The Berlin Congress of 1878, however, limited Bulgaria’s territory to the region between the Danube and Balkans, plus the area around Sofia. Macedonia and Eastern Rumelia remained within the Ottoman Empire. Prince Alexander I was assigned with the task of leading the newly formed principality - Russia, however, keen to exercise control over Bulgaria, watched the successes of Alexander with a great degree of distrust. Alexander annexed Eastern Rumelia in 1885 and defeated Serbia in 1885/86, but was then forced to abdicate after a coup led by pro-Russian officers. His successor, Ferdinand of Saxony-Coburg-Gotha, led Bulgaria to formal independence from the Ottomans and was crowned Tsar in 1908. Motivated by a desire for ‘Greater Bulgaria’, the country became the driving force behind the Balkans League and carried the majority of the League’s burden in the First Balkans War (1912/13). However, during the Second Balkans War of 1913, in which Bulgaria planned to acquire the parts of the Balkans she considered to be populated by Bulgarians, a coalition consisting of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and the Ottoman Empire defeated Bulgaria. In the peace of Bucharest, Bulgaria lost large parts of her gains from the First Balkans War - Southern Dobrudja went to Romania, and Adrianople was given to the Ottomans. Of Macedonia, which Bulgaria had demanded in its entirety, they managed to hold onto a small strip of territory in the Pirin Mountains, the rest being parted between Serbia and Greece. Bulgaria had suffered a defeat, but its strong army was still intact and Ferdinand I was waiting for an opportunity to strike back at his neighbouring rivals. However, the Tsar had to contend with strong opposition from within both the army and parliament, which had strongly disapproved of the authoritarian style of Ferdinand’s conduct in foreign policy that had already proved so disastrous for Bulgaria.
 
Have any considerations been made for how the war should start if the July Crisis does not manifest itself into war? I ought to suppose that we should look at the situations of the countries who arguably wanted war in 1914 to work out what may have happened in 1915, 1916, etc, had war not broken out over Ferdinand’s assassination in Sarajevo.

- The German general staff knew that the Schlieffen Plan would only be potentially successful prior to 1916, before French conscription plans and an improvement in Russia’s infrastructure rendered the ‘knock out blow’ strategy useless – ”The sooner war comes, the better”, as von Moltke, the younger put it.

- The French government knew that Germany’s population was growing to an extent that it may be impossible to get Alsace and Lorraine back if attempts were not made quickly, and would have considered that a war sooner would be preferable to a war later.

- Austria-Hungary was in decline and would have desired a war to redress the balance of power in the Balkans, which was shifting towards Serbia and Russia, which could have caused Austria-Hungary’s ethnic minorities to pull away from the empire and towards greater self-determination, resulting in the eventual collapse of the empire itself.

- Russia’s continuing internal turmoil made a unifying, patriotic war somewhat desirable.

Given this, if the events of the July Crisis fail to produce a war (which is often the case in the test version), then perhaps it should occur at a random time in 1915, started by one of the above countries simply declaring war on the other alliance.

Which one though? I’m inclined to take something of a Fischerite line on this subject, that if any country contributed most to the outbreak of the First World War, it was Germany, and thus, it should be Germany that is the country to make an aggressive first step in 1915.
 
Here are my thoughts on the matter:

I concur that for the most part a large war in Europe was most likely guaranteed given the outlook of the major powers. Whether Germany would be the most likely to start the war...I am uncertain, every major power (except GB, cause they like the status quo) had a good reason to go to war (you listed some of them).

The way I see it though there are two ways the war could start given no war over the assassination. A dispute over colonies or some form of diplomatic strife in Europe itself.

We could script events for all the cases you gave, with maybe one or two others (Italian claims on AH territory or on French colonial territory would be interesting). Then depenging on certain choices done in the July Crisis (see example) choose which event later fires the war in 1915.

Ex) simple model
July Crisis events
a) leads to war (historical)
b) leads to war on a circuitous path (a few countries switch sides or go neutral)
c) no war

If a or b then it would sleep our alternative events.

If c is chosen it could then lead to other events that unknown to the player would later determine the new war events. (This could even be outside the players control and let the AI choose.) Obviously there would be many events dealing with the no war in 1914 scenario, so the different initial war scenarios in 1915 could come from what choices are chosen there.
 
Goverment

I might be stupid but who was first Lenin orStalin
 
Re: Goverment

Originally posted by Pontus
I might be stupid but who was first Lenin orStalin

Lenin :rolleyes:
 
Further to what we should do in the event that the July Crisis doesn’t produce a war in 1914, I’ve elaborated upon what possibly could happen:

If Austria-Hungary does nothing about Franz Ferdinand’s assassination:
A potential war in 1915 will probably be started by Germany because they see that Austria-Hungary’s diplomatic resolve is failing, and that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would result in Germany’s total encirclement by Russia, France etc.

If Austria-Hungary doesn’t get German support and doesn’t go to war with Serbia:
A potential war in 1915 will probably be started by Austria-Hungary, who would view the failure to gain German support for action against Serbia as a victory for Russia. Because of the continued Slavic threat to the Empire’s status, Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia/Russia in 1915.

If Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia, which isn’t supported by Russia:
A potential war in 1915 is begun by France or Russia. France will view Russia’s inability to act over Austria’s hostility to Serbia with consternation, and will see 1915 as the last opportunity to regain Alsace and Lorraine before Russia is vanquished as a first-rate power. Russia’s lack of support only lasts until 1915 when it joins the Austro-Hungarian-Serbian conflict on the side of Serbia. Russia had previously failed to support Serbia because of a lack of material strength (in 1908, for example, Russia had not recovered from defeat by Japan, and could not oppose Austria-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.)

If Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum is accepted by Serbia
Russia’s pride will be hurt by Serbia’s acceptance of the ultimatum, resulting in Russia making war in 1915 to recover both pride and influence in the Balkans.

Otherwise, I have my own suggestion:
Theoretical chain of events leading to a 1915 war
1. Bulgaria breaches the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest (somehow).
2. Bulgaria tries to obtain support from Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
3. Serbia, Rumania and Greece mobilise against Bulgaria to enforce Treaty of Bucharest.
4. Russia gives support to Serbia, Rumania and Greece.
5. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey (and therefore Germany) declares war upon Russia, Serbia, Rumania and Greece (and therefore France).
 
One thought: Russia's motivation wasn't only pride, pan-Slavism and the desire for a "short, victorious war" to rally the people. They were also desparately concerned about the Austro-German alliance strangling their access to the outside world.

Consider that in the years before the war, most of Russia's foreign currency reserves - vital to support industrialisation - came from exporting Ukrainian wheat via the Black Sea. Previously, this trade passed through Ottoman territory, and the Turks were passive and weak.

Suddenly, though, you've got a whole bunch of aggressive new states in the Balkans, pushing Turkey back to a small enclave around Constantinople. And just look at them:

Bulgaria, ruled by Ferdinand von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (a former Leutnant in the Kaiser- und Koniglich Armee), and with its railways and coalmines under the control of German bankers.

Romania, ruled by Karl von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, its economy a virtual satellite of Germany.

Greece, ruled by Constantine von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, a graduate of the Berlin Military Academy and married to the sister of Kaiser Wilhelm.

Noticing a trend yet? ;)

Bosnia and Herzegovina, under Austro-Hungarian "protection" and formally annexed by them in 1908.

Albania and Montenegro - insignificant and remote tribal mountain kingdoms.

Turkey itself - since the Young Turk coup d'état, falling increasingly under German influence. The Berlin-Baghdad railway used German money and engineers, and the Turkish army was under the control of German officers loaned to the country.

Is there any wonder that Russia was determined to preserve Serbia free of Austrian/German control?

So if you're looking for an alternative casus belli, I'd suggest that Russia would find Germany or Austria forming an alliance with any of the Balkan states or Turkey as unacceptable. If Russia began mobilising troops, it's likely Germany would push the big red Schlieffen Plan button and WW1 would start.
 
Originally posted by StephenT
One thought: Russia's motivation wasn't only pride, pan-Slavism and the desire for a "short, victorious war" to rally the people. They were also desparately concerned about the Austro-German alliance strangling their access to the outside world.

Consider that in the years before the war, most of Russia's foreign currency reserves - vital to support industrialisation - came from exporting Ukrainian wheat via the Black Sea. Previously, this trade passed through Ottoman territory, and the Turks were passive and weak.

Suddenly, though, you've got a whole bunch of aggressive new states in the Balkans, pushing Turkey back to a small enclave around Constantinople. And just look at them:

Bulgaria, ruled by Ferdinand von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (a former Leutnant in the Kaiser- und Koniglich Armee), and with its railways and coalmines under the control of German bankers.

Romania, ruled by Karl von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, its economy a virtual satellite of Germany.

Greece, ruled by Constantine von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, a graduate of the Berlin Military Academy and married to the sister of Kaiser Wilhelm.

Noticing a trend yet? ;)

Bosnia and Herzegovina, under Austro-Hungarian "protection" and formally annexed by them in 1908.

Albania and Montenegro - insignificant and remote tribal mountain kingdoms.

Turkey itself - since the Young Turk coup d'état, falling increasingly under German influence. The Berlin-Baghdad railway used German money and engineers, and the Turkish army was under the control of German officers loaned to the country.

Is there any wonder that Russia was determined to preserve Serbia free of Austrian/German control?

So if you're looking for an alternative casus belli, I'd suggest that Russia would find Germany or Austria forming an alliance with any of the Balkan states or Turkey as unacceptable. If Russia began mobilising troops, it's likely Germany would push the big red Schlieffen Plan button and WW1 would start.

I take nearly all of that except for one point, that Rumania was not as inclined to Germany as you say, but was rather close to Serbia as a result of the Balkan Wars, as well as a desire to recover Transylvania. Therefore, Serbia and Rumania had comman antipathy towards Austria-Hungary, both having territorial claims to it. Rumania's king, did however, as you say, sympathy for Germany, but his ministers were more inclined to be more pro-Slav.

The chain of events I've suggested as a possible precursor to a 1915 war, works on the basis of Serbia not accepting an alliance between Austria-Hungary/Germany and Bulgaria/Turkey, although I'm sure we can take your suggestion and modify it so that Russia takes exception to Austria-Hungary's and Germany's position in the Balkans.

Therefore, by swapping point 3 with point 4, Russia becomes the proactive diplomatic force, not Serbia/Romania/Greece.

That leaves us with...
1. Bulgaria breaches the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest (somehow).
2. Bulgaria tries to obtain support from Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
3. Russia gives support to Serbia, Rumania and Greece.
4. Serbia, Rumania and Greece mobilise against Bulgaria to enforce Treaty of Bucharest.
5. Russia mobilises
6. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey (and therefore Germany) declares war upon Russia, Serbia, Rumania and Greece (and therefore France).
 
Originally posted by Allenby
Further to what we should do in the event that the July Crisis doesn’t produce a war in 1914, I’ve elaborated upon what possibly could happen:

If Austria-Hungary does nothing about Franz Ferdinand’s assassination:
A potential war in 1915 will probably be started by Germany because they see that Austria-Hungary’s diplomatic resolve is failing, and that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would result in Germany’s total encirclement by Russia, France etc.

Actually I would see Germany moving to pick up Austria and Bohemia and then try to move closer to GB to offset the Franco-Russian alliance rather than going to war with France/Russia with a very weak and collapsing ally.

Originally posted by Allenby
If Austria-Hungary doesn’t get German support and doesn’t go to war with Serbia:
A potential war in 1915 will probably be started by Austria-Hungary, who would view the failure to gain German support for action against Serbia as a victory for Russia. Because of the continued Slavic threat to the Empire’s status, Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia/Russia in 1915.
[/B]

I wonder, if AH didn't have German support in 1914 whether they would have German support in 1915. In 1914 they would have had at least a plausible casus belli, in 1915...I just don't see it.

Originally posted by Allenby
If Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia, which isn’t supported by Russia:
[/B]

This should really be the part of the alternate path to war in 1914.
As in Russia does not initially support Serbia (they had some good reasons not to), but once AH occupies Belgrade an event fires that asks AH if they wish to continue or if Belgrade is enough. If they continue then Russia enters the war and the GW is on (there were many in Europe calling for just AH to occupy Belgrade at the time), if they stop then we can go on to alternative wars in 1915...maybe Russia and Serbia launching a strike at AH to retake Belgrade and Bosnia.

Originally posted by Allenby
A potential war in 1915 is begun by France or Russia. France will view Russia’s inability to act over Austria’s hostility to Serbia with consternation, and will see 1915 as the last opportunity to regain Alsace and Lorraine before Russia is vanquished as a first-rate power. Russia’s lack of support only lasts until 1915 when it joins the Austro-Hungarian-Serbian conflict on the side of Serbia. Russia had previously failed to support Serbia because of a lack of material strength (in 1908, for example, Russia had not recovered from defeat by Japan, and could not oppose Austria-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.)
[/B]

This certaintly plausible...

Originally posted by Allenby
If Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum is accepted by Serbia
Russia’s pride will be hurt by Serbia’s acceptance of the ultimatum, resulting in Russia making war in 1915 to recover both pride and influence in the Balkans.
[/B]

Also plausible, but where?

Originally posted by Allenby
Otherwise, I have my own suggestion:
Theoretical chain of events leading to a 1915 war
1. Bulgaria breaches the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest (somehow).
2. Bulgaria tries to obtain support from Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
3. Serbia, Rumania and Greece mobilise against Bulgaria to enforce Treaty of Bucharest.
4. Russia gives support to Serbia, Rumania and Greece.
5. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey (and therefore Germany) declares war upon Russia, Serbia, Rumania and Greece (and therefore France). [/B]

Bulgaria could be after that Macedonian territory that Serbia had gotten from them.
 
Some thoughts about Bulgaria and WW1 start :)

First of all Bulgaria was not under the control of "German bankers". No sir, not at all - unlike the 30s, at the beginning of the century the money invested in the country had mainly come from France and Belgium.

Second as correctly stated in the previous posts above Bulgaria did not give a damn about the Buchares treaty that she condidered "unjust" - Bulgaria did not feel itself bounded by it. However Ferdinand had learned from the disaster in 1913 that Bulgaria could not take alone all its neighbours. So he remained neutral and waited for the offers of the two coalitions. Naturally Germany and A-h. could offer more as Serbia was their adversary - so they could offer Macedonia. It did not help the Entente the fact that their diplomats in Sofia were a bunch of third rate incompetents that were always one step behind thier colleagues from the Central powers. With the Bulgarian entry into the war the fate of Serbia was sealed, as it quite naturally couldn't fight both A-H. and Bulgaria. The landing of the Entente corps at Thessaloniki did not help the Serbs much as their troops were initially soundly defeated by the Bulgarians near Cherna and only the German insistence that Bulgaria should respect the Greek neutrality saved them from another Galipoli style evacuation. Then the Saloniki front became stable for almost three years.

Anyway my point is that there are countless possibilities for alternative scenarios within Europe that may or may have not lead to a World war even if the Sarajevo killing did not happen or did not escalate so much. However one must not forget that there were earlier incidents that were somehow sucsessfully diffused. There are a lot of different theories of what exactly cause WW1 and what exactly had happened in the summer months of 1914 prior to the war. But if the mod starting year is 1914 I presume it envisages that the war will start the same year as historically, otherwise the mod shall start earlier to allow the "Road to war" to be depicted. What do you think?
 
I've taken what you've all said. How about this:

Austria-Hungary does nothing about assassination, or gets no support from Germany
1. Bulgaria breaches the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest/asks Serbia to cede Macedonia
2. Bulgaria tries to obtain support from Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
3. Russia gives support to Serbia, Rumania and Greece.
4. Serbia, Rumania and Greece mobilise against Bulgaria to enforce Treaty of Bucharest.
5. Russia mobilises.
6. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey (and therefore Germany) declares war upon Russia, Serbia, Rumania and Greece (and therefore France).

Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia, which isn’t supported by Russia
1. Austria asked whether to continue war with Serbia after capturing Belgrade.
2. If yes, Russia intervenes.
3. If no, Russia and Serbia attack in 1915.
4. If Belgrade not captured by late 1915, Russia intervenes anyway.

Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum accepted by Serbia
1. Austria-Hungary receives Beograd (738), Kraljevo (746) and Novi Pasar (751)
2. Albania receives Pristina (752)
3. Bulgaria receives Skopje (755)
4. Russia immediately aligns with Rumania and Serbia.
5. Russia moves troops to Rumanian and Serbian territory at some time in 1915.
6. Austria-Hungary demands that Russian troops are withdrawn.
7. War.

If troop movements can’t be scripted, we’ll change ‘troops’ to ‘Russian military advisers’
 
Originally posted by Allenby
I've taken what you've all said. How about this:

Austria-Hungary does nothing about assassination, or gets no support from Germany
1. Bulgaria breaches the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest/asks Serbia to cede Macedonia
2. Bulgaria tries to obtain support from Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
3. Russia gives support to Serbia, Rumania and Greece.
4. Serbia, Rumania and Greece mobilise against Bulgaria to enforce Treaty of Bucharest.
5. Russia mobilises.
6. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey (and therefore Germany) declares war upon Russia, Serbia, Rumania and Greece (and therefore France).

Looks good, although you might want to give Germany a chance to refuse for now. Howerver then come in if Russia and their allies do too good, or AH and their allies do exceptionally well, to pick up some easy gains. (A moderate dissent hit if they don't though...maybe 5-10%.)

Originally posted by Allenby
Austria-Hungary goes to war with Serbia, which isn’t supported by Russia
1. Austria asked whether to continue war with Serbia after capturing Belgrade.
2. If yes, Russia intervenes.
3. If no, Russia and Serbia attack in 1915.
4. If Belgrade not captured by late 1915, Russia intervenes anyway.[/B]

Agreed. Although there should be a huge (25%) dissent hit for AH if they don't continue their war against Serbia after occupation of Belgrade.

Originally posted by Allenby
Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum accepted by Serbia
1. Austria-Hungary receives Beograd (738), Kraljevo (746) and Novi Pasar (751)
2. Albania receives Pristina (752)
3. Bulgaria receives Skopje (755)
4. Russia immediately aligns with Rumania and Serbia.
5. Russia moves troops to Rumanian and Serbian territory at some time in 1915.
6. Austria-Hungary demands that Russian troops are withdrawn.
7. War.

If troop movements can’t be scripted, we’ll change ‘troops’ to ‘Russian military advisers’ [/B]

Also good, but if Albania and Bulgaria get territory from the deal, will that put them into the Central Powers Alliance, or just swing them greatly in favor of them?
 
Originally posted by shdwknightx
Also good, but if Albania and Bulgaria get territory from the deal, will that put them into the Central Powers Alliance, or just swing them greatly in favor of them?

I think so - if Albania and Bulgaria join the Central Alliance, then it will necessitate Russia aligning itself with Serbia and Rumania.