- Austria-Hungary invaded Venice on turn 1, making it contested. On its turn, Italy pulls back to Tuscany, leaving 1 infantry unit in a still contested Venice. On Turn 2, can the Austro-Hungarian army leave some units in contested Venice and march the rest into Tuscany to be supported by an amphibious assault on Tuscany that does not require sea combat?
No. Tuscany was not contested at the beginning of Austria-Hungary’s turn.
- Lorraine is contested and contains French and German troops. Picardy is contested and contains British, French, and German troops. On its turn could Britain move troops directly from Picardy to Lorraine?
No. Lorraine did not contain British units at the beginning of Britain’s turn.
- Romania is contested and contains Ottoman and Russian troops. Galicia is contested and contains German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian troops. Budapest is uncontested and contains Austro-Hungarian troops. Could Austria-Hungary move troops from Budapest into Romania and then move troops from Galicia to Romania on the same turn?
No. Romania did not contain Austro-Hungarian units at the beginning of Austria-Hungary’s turn.
I’m still a little confused by movement from contested tts into other contested tts:
(page 15)
Land units that begin the turn in contested tts can be moved… into tts that are also contested and already contain units that belong to your power.
Does this include those tts which have only become contested during the current movement turn?
No.
Another situation I have is:
Venice is contested. Italy wishes to leave just one unit there and pull the rest back to Tuscany, which it controls.
If Austria on its turn amphibious assaults Tuscany from SZ 18, does this entitle Austria to move units from contested Venice through into Tuscany?
No. (Is there an echo in here?)
We need to know if its safe for Italy to run away.
Thanks for your answers.
Still waiting on the American fleet questions above, if you can help.
Also, is it correct that if a tt with a SZ is enemy (i.e. not the original side) controlled the mines have no effect on either side?
I think this will be a great game, but a couple things leave me wanting :?
The Russian Revolution rules defiantly leave you scratching your head (Flash was right, I didn’t see that one coming). An allied strat to have the Russians sell out to gain strategic CP territories, or even CP capitals will emerge (forcing the CP to abort the Revolution), and then we are in fantasy land. I will reserve judgement for now, but I can see this being a topic of major concern for some time, not used, or house ruled to death.
With the Turks in the game, I’m really disappointed that there is nothing to incorporate the straight. Both sides courted the Turks to lure them to their side for passage. When they chose the CP (or the CP chose them), the Russians and English really had a bulls-eye on it. Could of /Should of been written in as an optional rule (like in other AA games).
Can allied units in russian territory launch attacks into CP controlled territory after a revolution.
Yes, but the Russkis will just watch.
So an allied army can prowl around in the off limits territories, or walk from India to Finland and attack Sweden?
What if the allies attack and liberate a Russian territory on their way out of Russia.
The allies can leave a chain of units in off limits Russia and march through territory they have units in up to the front.
Or am I misunderstanding.
Beats me.
I’ll need to test the rule out before I can even pretend to understand it.
Krieghund is evidently quite happy with the possibility of Russian Force Fields, personally I can’t see them anywhere outside Russia being anything less than a game breaker.
The simplest way of dealing it is to state that when Russia removes units from outside Russia it also removes control markers.
Kreighund,
Any chance that there will be an official change for the tank- making it a cost of $5 instead of $6??? I don’t wanna get ahead of myself but several here think (and those tested the game already think) that the tank is useless as it stands. No real purpose of buying it, might as well soak hits with the more powerful infantry or artillery. The tank as a unit already seems broken. Can you explain futher???
Suppose France invades Spanish Morocco. Since this isn’t a capital territory, no units are mobilized here correct?
And what about Spain? Does Spain mobilize units in response to this event or would it remain neutral?
Can fighters being transported as cargo participate in amphibious assaults? And if so, can they be hit by defending artillery in the coastal fire?
While neutral, can American ships
Transport Allied units
Share a SZ with Allies
Share a SZ with CP ships
Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies
The only thing is- why wouldn’t the Allies always have Russia take control of any neutral power that the CP’s attack, since in the event that revolution occurs, if said neutral territory is still russian controlled, the CPs cannot ever attack it?�
Let’s use Holland as an example again. The advantage of having Russia defend it is that if the Central Powers are pushed out and Russia ends up controlling it…
I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.
If a US ship is lost to a German Mine is that considered an act of war against the US?
Thanks for your help with the movement questions, Krieghund! And thanks for the pre-US release clarifications. :-)
So in post revolution Russia, allied units may still enter and move freely among their territories?
It might sound like there is an echo in here but this rule just seems bizarre.
UK forces can walk from India to the eastern front. Linger under the umbrella of Russian controlled territory, immune from CP attack, and move as they please back and forth through Russian territory.
Might sound pointless, but why does Russia become an allied safe haven?
Would it not have been better to just remove ALL Russian units and from that point forward treat ALL Russian territories as non-aligned neutral territories.
Or divide the Russians into reds and whites and have them fight each other.
Quite frankly, I’m more confused than ever on the neutral countries control/income issue. I must clear my mind and read the rules again from scratch.
It seems bizarre that a friendly neutral gives you no income.
While neutral, can American ships
Transport Allied units
Share a SZ with Allies
Share a SZ with CP ships
Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies
Flashman, I think: no to Transport question, as they are not Allied yet and need to be Allied.
Yes to both SZ questions.
As to being attacked: no. They would defend with the other Ally if attacked and they would no longer be Neutral! (All Allies in the same SZ defend together.)
The only thing is- why wouldn’t the Allies always have Russia take control of any neutral power that the CP’s attack, since in the event that revolution occurs, if said neutral territory is still russian controlled, the CPs cannot ever attack it?�Â
Let’s use Holland as an example again. The advantage of having Russia defend it is that if the Central Powers are pushed out and Russia ends up controlling it…
I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.
Wait, what? Russia doesn’t get the income from an activated Holland?
Kriegund seems to be saying that you cannot collect money from a neutral unless you take it by force. I had always assumed that if you defend as Holland, and win, you get to control and collect money for it.
They let you control their armies, but don’t pay for their upkeep…
So an allied army can prowl around in the off limits territories, or walk from India to Finland and attack Sweden?
Yes.
What if the allies attack and liberate a Russian territory on their way out of Russia.
It becomes controlled by Russia.
Suppose France invades Spanish Morocco. Since this isn’t a capital territory, no units are mobilized here correct?
Correct.
And what about Spain? Does Spain mobilize units in response to this event or would it remain neutral?
It remains neutral.
Can fighters being transported as cargo participate in amphibious assaults? And if so, can they be hit by defending artillery in the coastal fire?
Yes to both.
While neutral, can American ships
Transport Allied units
No. Allied units are not friendly to a neutral power.
Share a SZ with Allies
Yes.
Share a SZ with CP ships
Yes.
Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies
No.
I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.
There are many factors that determine which power controls a territory when it becomes no longer contested. These are outlined on pages 15, 19, and 20 of the Rulebook. You don’t always have a choice as to which power it will be, and when you do the choice may be limited.
If a US ship is lost to a German Mine is that considered an act of war against the US?
No.
Kriegund seems to be saying that you cannot collect money from a neutral unless you take it by force.
I never said that at all.
I had always assumed that if you defend as Holland, and win, you get to control and collect money for it.
You do. I’m just saying that the power that ends up controlling it may not be the power that was initially selected to defend it, depending on the circumstances.
