Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

[Chacmool]

I dont understand why holland should be represented by russian troops. Thats as weird as if norway was represented by turkey.

[Texas Holders]

I think making Russian territories off-limits to both sides would make more sense.

[Flashman]

Define “Russian Territories”.

[Texas Holders]

@Flashman:

Define “Russian Territories”.

Anything Russian controlled.  They get to keep what they conquered, but the “shields” would work both ways.

[Flashman]

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

[Krieghund]

@Flashman:

A few neutrals questions; hope this covers all eventualities:

1. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany BEFORE Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

2. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany AFTER Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

3. Britain activates Belgium by entering before anyone else - who gets troops/control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

4. Britain liberates Belgium from Germany - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

5. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to defeat all the Germans - who gets control/money?

Russia.

@Flashman:

6. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to survive, but the tt is contested. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

7. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, but they are all defeated. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

8. Are colonies of minor allies IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER effected by what happens to their capital tt? Or are they, in effect, independent aligned neutrals with no defence forces.

The latter.

@Flashman:

9. Is Spanish Morocco, in effect, an independent non-aligned neutral with no defences?

Yes.

@Flashman:

10. It seems that neutral US land forces cannot enter non-American land tts, but they can share SZs with Allied ships; can they also share SZs with CP ships?

Yes.

@Flashman:

11. If CP ships attack Allied ships, do neutral US ships in the defending SZ take no part?

That depends on the attacker, who may include the US ships in the attack or not.

@Flashman:

13. Can the UK or Italy move into Congo/Angola/PE Africa at any time, and if so who gets control/money?Â

Yes, and the attacking power would get control.

[Flashman]

Thanks, I think I have it now.  :lol:

[Texas Holders]

@Flashman:

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

Would the allies support the whites and CP the reds?  Historically, the reds didn’t get support from the CPs.  Perhaps that is why the allies can still pass through Russia freely, they are supporting the whites, but if they do so they should have to pay a penalty for doing so, such as lose one unit each turn they are in Russia.

[oztea]

Well this FAQ has certainly been helpful. Hopefuly we can have something written out by Friday? (at least the major issues)

Has Krieg answered if battleships can repair at friendly ports? (not just their own)

[Witt]

Oztea: don’t think he has, but the rules suggest not.
They can only be repaired in a SZ that shares a base with a territory they control.
The word “friendly” is not used.

[Flashman]

Yes; in effect the Reds become a 4th Cental Power, though they cannot operate outside Russia.
The original Russians continue as the Whites, so you only need a set of WWII Red Russians and Soviet control markers.
I will write up a provisional piece on this soon; the trick is to prevent the Allies from manipulating the revolution by, for example, placing a large Allied garrison in Moscow.

@Texas:

@Flashman:

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

Would the allies support the whites and CP the reds?  Historically, the reds didn’t get support from the CPs.  Perhaps that is why the allies can still pass through Russia freely, they are supporting the whites, but if they do so they should have to pay a penalty for doing so, such as lose one unit each turn they are in Russia.

[Krieghund]

@oztea:

Well this FAQ has certainly been helpful. Hopefuly we can have something written out by Friday? (at least the major issues)

There will not be anything “official” by Friday, as we like to wait a while before publishing an official FAQ to see what issues pop up.  However, I will summarize the three errors in the Rulebook and the half dozen clarifications that I’ve made so far by then.

@oztea:

Has Krieg answered if battleships can repair at friendly ports? (not just their own)

Yes, they can.  This is one of the errors I mentioned above - battleships can be repaired at any friendly naval base that is capable of mobilizing sea units.  The other two errors are that the US can’t move units into neutral territories while it is neutral, and you must have been in control of a naval base at the beginning of your turn in order to mobilize sea units from it.

Note that control of a naval base is not the same as control of the territory that it’s in.  You control a naval base if you either control the territory it’s in or that territory is one of your original territories and it’s contested.

[Flashman]

This came up last night: Italy (on the same turn) took control of Trieste (by an unopposed land movement from Albania) and sailed a fleet into SZ 18.

Does Austria roll for mines against the Italian ships? My presumption is yes, since Trieste is Austrian controlled at the start of the Italian turn.

That is, all combat is considered simultaneous.

[Flashman]

Thanks, that answers one of my previous questions:

Can a player purchase ships when he does not control or contest an original naval base, in the expectation of recapturing it on this turn.
Presumably if he was stupid enough to buy such a ship, he loses it without refund (rather than being able to place it a turn later).

I assume the same thing applies to land units for a player who buys them, then in the course of his own turn loses his capital (possible in this version).

[Krieghund]

@Flashman:

This came up last night: Italy (on the same turn) took control of Trieste (by an unopposed land movement from Albania) and sailed a fleet into SZ 18.

Does Austria roll for mines against the Italian ships? My presumption is yes, since Trieste is Austrian controlled at the start of the Italian turn.

That is, all combat is considered simultaneous.

Yes.  Italy doesn’t gain control of the territory until the Conduct Combat phase.

[Witt]

Thank you for clarifying those 3 errors, Krieghund.

[oztea]

Krieg is there any chance the revolution rules will specify that russian units and control markers are removed from original CP territory?

That would make the transition to a post revolution game a lot smoother

[Flashman]

To what extent does a fleet have to declare its intentions for a 2 space move?

I assume that a fleet sailing into enemy SZs can, if it hits mines in the first, decide not to continue to a 2nd even if it originally intended to.

But what if it intended to amphibiously assault after the 2nd move; is it still legal to call off the attack?

Example: Russian fleet sailing from Petrograd intending to AA Kiel but suffering from mines in SZ 11.

Are contested sea zones treated exactly as per contested land areas for movement purposes?

[Texas Holders]

@Krieghund:

Note that control of a naval base is not the same as control of the territory that it’s in.  You control a naval base if you either control the territory it’s in or that territory is one of your original territories and it’s contested.

Just to get clarification on this, if you lose control of that territory, but later contest it again, do you regain control of that naval base?

Also, say you lose control of the territory, but one of your allies later contests it, so none of your units are present, do you regain control at that point, and if not who does control it?

I guess to summarize, does control default to the original owner regardless of how the territory became contested?

[Flashman]

@Texas:

@Krieghund:

Note that control of a naval base is not the same as control of the territory that it’s in.  You control a naval base if you either control the territory it’s in or that territory is one of your original territories and it’s contested.

Just to get clarification on this, if you lose control of that territory, but later contest it again, do you regain control of that naval base?

YES

Also, say you lose control of the territory, but one of your allies later contests it, so none of your units are present, do you regain control at that point, and if not who does control it?

NOBODY CONTROLS THE TT, YOU CONTROL THE NAVAL BASE

I guess to summarize, does control default to the original owner regardless of how the territory became contested?

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE CASE