Oh well.
Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
-
Calling them Russian controlled when the CP has units there completely changes how the CP is able to move into and through them. It’s a muddy use of terminology. My question to Krieg is what they should be called if not contested.
-
I would agree w/Oz that the unlimited sub warfare doesn’t sound too good. In our game I went hard for Russia though, so I really can’t comment much on sub warfare because it just hasn’t come up so far. It’s the 4th turn and the allies already have naval dominance in the Atlantic (French fleet is huge). My German navy retreated to the Baltic after crushing the UK home fleet (where I built a transport and proceeded to kill the Russian bb and land troops up there). Rolling at a 2 or less really sounds like an under achiever rule though and if you roll a 2 it still only costs them 1 IPC? Not sure if risking a 6 IPC sub is worth it, and then to be limited to just 3 sz’s makes it even less appealing.
It might be hard to expand the sz’s though because you are attacking both the US & UK shipping in their respective turns in sz 2,7, and 8. Maybe it could be expanded to where you can roll for sub warfare to include the other sz’s that touch the UK, but you can only roll on the UKs turn for them (not the US).
At the very least I wouldn’t mind seeing subs rolling at 3 or less as a start, because at 3 its 50/50, and maybe you can deduct what you roll from their banks (1,2 or 3 IPCs per sub).
-
He calls them “shared”. I agree that this is not very clear.
But as long as there is a CP unit in them the distinction is clear enough. And, as I understand it, if the CPs move all units out then they cannot move back in again.
They are staying there “by courtesy” until they’re needed elsewhere. Since they can never collect money for these tts, and the Allies cannot attack them other than their last turn in Russia, there is little need for them to stay unless providing a corridor for movement.
It does not matter if Russia “controls” or “Shares” the tts, as it doesn’t collect money in either case, and (I think) they are the same as far as other Allied units are concerned.
Calling them Russian controlled when the CP has units there completely changes how the CP is able to move into and through them. It’s a muddy use of terminology. My question to Krieg is what they should be called if not contested.
-
I thought I was nailing this down but now I am confused.
Moscow is under CP control.
Ukraine is contested. Austrians, Russians, and British are there.1. Austria moves out. Who takes control?
OR, in a different scenario:
2. Russia attacks on its turn and kills all Austrians. Who takes control?#2 I am pretty sure is Russia, #1 I don’t know. I am guessing Russia would take control, which would be a pretty savvy move by Austria if they wanted to prevent UK from attacking and taking it.
-
Moscow cannot be under CP control if there has been a revolution.
Try again.
-
I don’t think he meant a revolution had occurred, but rather, is Russia’s capital is under CP control, would Russia or Britain take control of the Ukraine if the Austrians moved out?
-
Reading page 20, I would think the Allies would want Britain to control the Ukraine, since Russia can collect no income while Moscow is CP controlled. If Moscow is liberated, the Ukraine would automatically revert to Russian control.
-
A county can still control tts when it doesn’t have a capital, and if its own units capture a tt it gains control (if it isn’t liberated for an ally).
If British units captured Ukraine they would control it until Moscow was liberated, then it reverts to Russia.
So this boils down to if the Allies can choose who gets an abandoned tt.
I think we 're in need of a Krieghund decision, but my guess is that the tt is treated as liberated as long as there is a Russian unit present.
-
Yeah, I mentioned nothing about the Revolution.
I am trying to write a catch-all description of the control of territories to help for teaching the game to my playgroup quickly, and it is a beast to write succintly! There are so many contingencies.
New question
It seems strange, but lets say CP is contesting Moscow with Brits after Moscow had already been captured by the CP.Britain takes Ukraine from the CP. Since Moscow is not in enemy hands (but rather contested), it seems Russia takes control of the territory.
-
Here is my attempt at a full description of controlling territories all in one place. This is my attempt at getting everything while being a simple as possible. Any redundancy is for the sake of absolute clarity. If anyone has the time to let me know what I am missing or what is a mistake i’d appreciate it. Note that there might be a couple things on there that haven’t been confirmed yet.
Controlling Territories:
1. If at least 1 unit from each side remains in a territory, it remains contested.
2. If all units from one side are destroyed in battle, the territory becomes controlled.
A. If the attacker has at least 1 unit left, it takes control, unless the territory originally belonged to an ally whose capital is contested or held by the attacker’s side, in which case that ally takes control of its original territory.
B. If the attacker and the defender(s) lost all units, but an ally of the attacker has units there, one such ally takes control, unless the territory originally belonged to an ally whose capital is contested or held by the attacker’s side, in which case that ally takes control of its original territory.
C. If the attacker loses all units and the defender remains, the defending side takes control.
i. If the territory (from which the defenders cleared all attackers) was originally neutral, originally controlled by a minor power, or originally enemy to the defender(s), one power defending that has at least one unit remaining takes control.
ii. If the territory (from which the defenders cleared all attackers) originally belonged to a power on the side of the defender, the original owner takes control.
D. If there are no units left on either side, the original owner takes control.3. If one side moves all units out of a contested territory, the side with units remaining takes control.
A. If the territory originally belonged to a power on the side that has units remaining, the original power takes control.
B. If the territory was originally neutral, originally controlled by a minor power, or originally enemy to the side with the units remaining, one power that has at least one unit remaining there takes control.4. If a power regains control of its capital, any territories originally belonging to that power that are controlled by an ally of that power return to the control of the original owner.
-
Great discussion, guys. And big thanks to krieg for the work on the game and all the answers!
Two topics I haven’t seen addressed yet:
1) Does the U.S. collect income, purchase units, and mobilize them even while its still neutral?
2) On Constantinople…are new land and fighter units placed on the European or Asian side? (Or either one, at the discretion of the Ottoman player?) My confusion arises from the fact that the large Ottoman logo and accompanying orange square (indicating the capital) is shown on the European side, while on p. 5 of the instructions the units are shown set up on the Asian side. (Another possibility: could it be they are set up in Asia to begin the game, and then anything goes after that?)
Also, can Ottoman land units cross over between Europe and Asia, or is a transport required? I assume that (if this is allowed) a move would still be required to go from one side to the other. (Granted I’m just getting ready to play my first game, but the Ottoman Empire looks to be royally screwed from the beginning unless this is the case.)
Thanks in advance! I’m holed up inside in the middle of a Denver snowstorm, so it’s the perfect day to break this game out!! :)
-
Kraftwrk
Constantinople is one territory that stretches across the Bosporus. There is not Asian side/Europe side.Just imagine it like Egypt. The territory includes the water between it and the other side.
Or like Canada, which also includes the various islands in SZ 2 -
Another Russian revolution question.
Turn 6: Germany takes control of Russia. Britain moves in and contests Russia. Ottomans control Belarus, Tatarstan, Ukraine, and Sevestapol, having just taken Tatarstan.
Turn 7: Russia’s turn comes around. Bel, Tatar, Ukr, Sev all remain under CP control. UK and Gerry remain contesting Moscow. Russia does not change any of this on their turn.
Revolution occurs, correct?
-
Looks like it. There’s really nothing Russia can do to prevent it at this stage. Unless they have a huge army in Karelia…
-
This then makes an interesting scenario, since unless Russia got units into Moscow, Germany would control it exclusively if they did not get wiped out by the brits in the one turn after the Revolution.
So UK’s turn, they disappear. Germany controls Moscow.
US turn, US has a bunch of units in Russia somewhere and then attacks a CP-held territory in Russia. That territory would go to the Amis if they win.
-
The revolution cannot occur if Germany controls Moscow. If the Brits all leave, I assume that the Germans can remain “by courtesy”, but they would not regain control since the terms of the treaty are now in force.
-
I think it would be considered liberated and return to Russian control.
US turn, US has a bunch of units in Russia somewhere and then attacks a CP-held territory in Russia. That territory would go to the Amis if they win.
-
The revolution cannot occur if Germany controls Moscow. If the Brits all leave, I assume that the Germans can remain “by courtesy”, but they would not regain control since the terms of the treaty are now in force.
Read carefully what I wrote. Germany and Britain are contesting Moscow when the revolution happened. On Britain’s next turn, their units are GONE at the end. Assuming they did not wipe out Germany’s forces in Moscow, Germany takes control of Moscow.
-
Yes, physically Germany is the only power with units in Moscow, but it is subject to the treaty terms. But reading them again, well yes, Germany would indeed control Moscow.
But other than a big 6 IPCs, I don’t think it’d be any different from Germany controlling any other Russian tt; its not like they can build units there.
-
Yes, physically Germany is the only power with units in Moscow, but it is subject to the treaty terms. But reading them again, well yes, Germany would indeed control Moscow.
But other than a big 6 IPCs, I don’t think it’d be any different from Germany controlling any other Russian tt; its not like they can build units there.
Except that in that 1 turn where Allied units have to move out or die, another Allied power could take control of Russian TT’s
Suggested Topics
