If the CPs decline the armistice, does the revolution nevertheless occur and, for example, make Russian controlled territory off limits to the other Allies?
Does Russia still get a turn to fight off the Central Powers?
Or does the Revolution, in this case, have no effect on the game?
Not to hijack this thread, but we’re thinking about changing the Russian Revolution rule to allow the Central Powers to decline the armistice if they want to. That would keep Russia from “gaming” the rule. Of course, there is only one revolution, so accepting it is a one-time opportunity.
If the CPs decline the armistice, does the revolution nevertheless occur and, for example, make Russian controlled territory off limits to the other Allies?
Does Russia still get a turn to fight off the Central Powers?
Or does the Revoluiton, in this case, have no effect on the game?
Not to hijack this thread, but we’re thinking about changing the Russian Revolution rule to allow the Central Powers to decline the armistice if they want to. That would keep Russia from “gaming” the rule. Of course, there is only one revolution, so accepting it is a one-time opportunity.
I’m almost positive it probably means “No revolution happens”
A thousand times yes on making that ruling official though. Destroys gaminess without complicating things further. Forces Russia to play like it wants to survive instead of “How can I self destruct for the most damage”.
Not very historical, as the Armistice was signed about 6 months after the Communist Revolution, and over a year after the Tsar was overthrown.
In fact it was only signed after the Germans renewed the offensive when Russian delegates stalled in hope of more Allied intervention.
It means that when the revolution conditions (as per the Rulebook) are met for the first time (once per game), the Central Powers have a choice. If they all agree to an armistice, it goes down exactly as indicated on page 14 of the FAQ thread. If any Central Powers player refuses the armistice, everything continues on as normal - Russia has a new government, but it has no effect on the game.
Try it out and let me know what you think.
Should be an improvement. I wasn’t comfortable with the Central powers having to think if they really wanted to take Livonia/Belarus/Tartarstan; just too counter-intuitive.
I DEFINITELY like this. I’ve played on the Allies side twice now (though not as Russia, per se), and both times my teammates and I figured out the best way to “kamikaze” Russia’s army and still trigger the revolution, destroying a large CP stack and denying them a a victory city in one fell swoop!
It means that when the revolution conditions (as per the Rulebook) are met for the first time (once per game), the Central Powers have a choice. If they all agree to an armistice, it goes down exactly as indicated on page 14 of the FAQ thread. If any Central Powers player refuses the armistice, everything continues on as normal - Russia has a new government, but it has no effect on the game.
Try it out and let me know what you think.
It means that when the revolution conditions (as per the Rulebook) are met for the first time (once per game), the Central Powers have a choice. If they all agree to an armistice, it goes down exactly as indicated on page 14 of the FAQ thread. If any Central Powers player refuses the armistice, everything continues on as normal - Russia has a new government, but it has no effect on the game.
Try it out and let me know what you think.
Two thumbs up for me…i will be using RR rules now!
@wittmann:
BJCard have I missed something?
Thought it was not necessary to contest Moscow; Russia could control it or contest it.
I will check p14 of FAQs again.
Going back a few post, you guys got it right (in later posts). You can either contest Moscow, or it can be Russian controlled. You (as CP) would contest Moscow to trap the Russian army in Moscow if you have the 3+1 territories you need to force the Revolution. If Moscow is contested when Russia’s turn comes up, they won’t be able to attack the adjacent territories that are in CP control (Walla Revolution). The UK can be the spoiler here though if it is the Germans that force the Revolution, by ampib landings, or by killing off your CP army that is contesting Moscow (coming up from India) before the Russians turn comes up. The turn order is huge when trying to force a Revolution.
BTW I think it should be up to the CP to decide if the Revolution happens, so the allies can’t use it to their advantage. I’m on-board with it being a one time deal if the CP refuse too.
I also think that we should look into the CP taking full control of Moscow could also forces a Revolution, and the CP could refuse the deal here as well if it was in their best interest (still can only refuse it once per game). If it is in the best interest for the CP to take Moscow (for VC) then so be it. If it is in the best interest for the CP to force a Revolution to remove the Russian army from the game to preserve thier own resources then cool.
We had one game were the Russians left Moscow nearly unprotected (only their new builds), so that if the CP took it they would only get a handful of IPCs, but it would preserve their huge Russian army, and the Revolution would be off the table as long as the CP held Moscow. This felt kinda wrong that the Russians would give up Moscow, then have the opportunity destroy the CP army once help arrived (if they even need help). Just my 2 cents.
The Russian Civil War is the solution. Logical, historical and in practice easier to implement.
The Russian Civil War is the solution. Logical, historical and in practice easier to implement.
Seems more complex than the Revolution actually.
Honestly, it isn’t. Once you’ve set it up you have two Russian powers ready to go at each other. Thats it.
A lot less to remember, like the CPs having to keep a unit in shared tt (whatever the logic for that is).
but now you have two powers fighting in Russia; do they act as normal allied to the entente and CPs? Where do they build units? What territories are ‘home’ territories? How many units do they start with? What order are they played in?
They are allied to their respective sides; the only restriction is that the Reds cannot operate outside ORT.
Whichever side controls Moscow at the end of its turn builds units there.
Otherwise, each side can place one new infantry in each ORT it controls at the end of its turn.
I’ve also considered making Karelia/Petrograd a production centre, so its possible both sides may control a capital.
Regarding cash, only a faction controlling the capital collects and spends; the other is, in effect, treated like any other power that has lost control of its capital. If Moscow is contested neither can collect and build there.
All ORT are “home” for Russian factions.
At the time of the Revolution, those units in Moscow, Karelia & Tartarstan become Reds, other Russian units remain Allied.
Both factions remain in the game until the end; even if one is eliminated its tt can be liberated by its allies.
Moscow counts as CP victory objective if the Reds control it.
How is this “a lot less to remember,” Flashman? :?
No, thanks.
They are allied to their respective sides; the only restriction is that the Reds cannot operate outside ORT.
Whichever side controls Moscow at the end of its turn builds units there.
Otherwise, each side can place one new infantry in each ORT it controls at the end of its turn.I’ve also considered making Karelia/Petrograd a production centre, so its possible both sides may control a capital.
Regarding cash, only a faction controlling the capital collects and spends; the other is, in effect, treated like any other power that has lost control of its capital. If Moscow is contested neither can collect and build there.
All ORT are “home” for Russian factions.
At the time of the Revolution, those units in Moscow, Karelia & Tartarstan become Reds, other Russian units remain Allied.
Both factions remain in the game until the end; even if one is eliminated its tt can be liberated by its allies.
Moscow counts as CP victory objective if the Reds control it.
Compare it to RR rules as of now.
Its simpler and more intuitive.
Of course you need to import Bolshevik units and control markers, but you knew that.
I must respectfully disagree. Adding a ninth playable power (the Communists) is neither simple, nor intuitive.
Of course you need to import Bolshevik units and control markers, but you knew that.
I did know that; you’ve mentioned it once or twice, I believe. =)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however prejudiced and misguided.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however prejudiced and misguided.
No it is not. The Russian Revolution had no connection to the war anymore, this was a totally separate conflict and when the Revolution occurs, the Russians are no longer concerned with what the outcome is for the remaining powers.
Put this in your house rules if that’s your preference, but the rest of us have no use for adding additional units, control markers, an additional power to the turn sequence. Larry isn’t going to even consider this idea. Kreigs latest modifier to having the CP accept the terms of the revolution effect or decline its effects pretty much makes this optional rule workable if you chose to play with it.
Kim
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but that is only your interpretation of events. The Allies considered intervention in the RCW vital to open up the eastern front again and draw CP units away from the west.
WWII was essentially 3 conflicts which happened to take place at the same time, yet we constantly talk about it as though it were a single event.
The conflict in Russia after 1917 was part of the same event as WWI to a much greater extent than the European, Pacific and Chinese conflicts were a single “World War II”.
Regarding latest official RRR: yes it is a big improvement, but I still think the CPs need an extra incentive to accept.
I would also replace -
The Central Powers must keep a unit in “shared” OR tt at all times.
with -
The Central Powers must keep a unit in controlled OR tts at all times in order to collect income from them.
I’m sorry Flash, I agree w/others that the Russian CW is beyond the scope of this game, and shouldn’t be represented. They aren’t even going to consider such a thing because the units/control markers don’t come with the game. Nor do I think creating two Russian factions would make things easier, after a revolution occurs. Revolution is already messy enough, w/o creating two Russian armies, and dividing it up. If Russia goes into revolution then they pull out of the war, and you follow the rules set forth. The minor tweaks that have been done, and the new proposal to have the CP agree on the deal makes it better IMO. There could be some other minor tweaks, but not something on the scale you are suggesting.
I do think you (Flash) have a valid point about having to keep CP units on the shared ORT though (could be several units left idle). You don’t have to keep a CP inf on an ORT that you control, so why do you need to tie-up valuable units in these shared territories when a CP control marker would suffice. There really is no reason to have a CP inf left there, those inf are needed elsewhere.
You could do a couple different things to indicate it is a shared territory, and not tie-up valuable CP inf.
Instead of units just place a CP and Russian control marker on a shared ORT (easy enough).
Place a Russian inf on top of a CP control marker to show the interests of both parties.
