Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

Do surviving Russian ships post revolution have any effect whatever?

If not, wouldn’t it be simpler just to remove them?

They are “Russian units outside of original Russian territories”, so they are removed.

Thanks for all the updates Krieghund!

As to the Russian Rules, I was going to use those exact rules anyway. Glad to see them officially! :)

Perhaps the simplest thing would be to remove all Russian units bar one infantry in each Russian controlled original Russian tt. By Russian controlled I’m including those “shared” with CP units, since these are no longer contested they must be considered Russian controlled.

Better still, remove all Russian combat units (since they no longer fight) and replace with a WWII Soviet control marker in each qualifying tt.

Thanks again Krieghund for this timely re-wight of the Rus Rev rules and clarifications to them (this optional rule just simply makes more sense now). The UK will think twice about trying to assist the Russians on Russian soil being they could get trapped there and lose their units (puts some chaos and more urgency into into the situation). The US not being able to load transports as a neutral is also a very welcomed addition (or I guess subtraction lol). Allowing the US navy warships (and empty transports) to move is acceptable.

**PS Krieghund, are you guys looking into making an optional rule for Constantinople controlling ship movement through the Turkish straight (maybe did something in testing, but scrapped it?). Just thinking out loud, but we (I) would like to hear if there might be something down the road on this.

I will say I love what mines do for this area, and also what double mines do in sz 10 & 11 entering/exiting the Baltic while the Germans hold their NB’s, or at least contest the territories linked to them (the Russians really get the feeling of being trapped in the Baltic having to go through both mined sz’s to get out when the German navy is out to sea, and the western allies also see this as an issue). Back to the Ottomans, I know the Turks can somewhat control movement here by keeping a ship in sz20, but the allies really seem to have naval dominance in this game, and a double hit into sz20 seems pretty easy to pull off (admittedly only a partial game under my belt at this time). The Turks can’t afford to buy more cruisers (9 IPCs), and A/H will have a tough time getting their navy past the Italians to be of any assistance here (although it looks like the French might pull out of the Med in most games to claim Portugal, and assist the Brits in the Atlantic) .

I will say though that in our game when the Russians performed the first part of the double hit I rolled snake eyes for the Turk mines. It was awesome to see the look on his face, but I know that was a one out of like 50 shot (not sure of actual odds) that probably won’t happen again. Unfortunately my A/H attack on the Italian navy the turn before resulted in no hits for my side, leaving only my BB on its side, although his Italian mines missed their mark (I even bought an Austrian sub, but they off-set this by lending the Italians a Brit cruiser).

Again maybe the mines do enough for this region and it plays out well, and there is no need for a straight rule. I know such a rule could just add complication because sz20 as a single sz would essentially need to be split into sz20a, and 20b to give the controller of Constantinople control over the straight. Just looking for an explanation, or any thoughts for the future (or past testing for that matter).

I’m with Flashman, I kept forgetting about Mines!  Wish they were labeled on the map in some way (other than the NBs) or as an official cardboard/plastic piece.

The Russian Rev rules are much better and so are the US entry rules!  I don’t see why the US couldn’t ‘tour the world’ with its Battleships and Cruisers- historically they did just that recently with the great white fleet.

@Krieghund:

If you take control of enemy capital on that enemy’s turn due to his attacking you in that territory and losing, any units he purchased are returned to his storage box, and you collect the refunded IPCs.

So to clarify this would mean that the power losing his capital on your turn would hand over any unspent IPCs (saved), and the refunded IPCs from the units he couldn’t place as well (all IPCs go to the victor).

If London is taken in this fashion, the units the UK purchased could still be placed in India right (if they still control or contest it). Incidentally in the same situation UK ships could also still be placed off Wales (again if they still have control, or contest it).

@BJCard:

I’m with Flashman, I kept forgetting about Mines!  Wish they were labeled on the map in some way (other than the NBs) or as an official cardboard/plastic piece.

In our game I though this might be a problem. I placed the green chips (came w/A&A 1942 2nd ed) in all the NB SZ’s at set-up just as a reminder, it does help.

@WILD:

@BJCard:

I’m with Flashman, I kept forgetting about Mines!  Wish they were labeled on the map in some way (other than the NBs) or as an official cardboard/plastic piece.

In our game I though this might be a problem. I placed the green chips (came w/A&A 1941) in all the NB SZ’s at set-up just as a reminder, it does help.

Good idea!  Thought Green Chips came with 1942 2nd edition though?  Or are you talking about the cardboard things from 1941?

Yeah, your right it was 1942 2nd ed (oops)

@Flashman:

Perhaps the simplest thing would be to remove all Russian units bar one infantry in each Russian controlled original Russian tt. By Russian controlled I’m including those “shared” with CP units, since these are no longer contested they must be considered Russian controlled.
Better still, remove all Russian combat units (since they no longer fight) and replace with a WWII Soviet control marker in each qualifying tt.

I think considering the territories like this (in bold) is going to create some problems. Krieghund could you clarify a bit about the situation where the territories are shared?

W/Flashes suggestion it really only removes the clutter of Russian units (which might be cool). It really doesn’t matter if there is one Russian unit in an original Russian territory, or 50 units (it’s the same). An orig Russian territory with both Russian & CP units in it at the time of the Revolution is in kind of in limbo for the rest of the game (no one will gain control) unless the other allies can manage to kill off the CP units in the one turn they are given which would return the territory to Russia’s full control. The CP are allowed to move through orig Russian territories they have units in (formerly contested, now in limbo?), or have control of w/o restrictions. Keep in mind that the CP are also required to keep one inf in any orig Russian territory that they were contesting before the Revolution. They are free to move all units out of orig Russian territories they are in control of though. They would need to make sure they don’t move out prematurely though allowing the other allies to screw them in the one turn they get if they are in Russian originals.

So let me get this straight. If English units are in Russian controlled Tartarsan after the RR, they will be removed no matter what. Even if they attempt a breakout into German held Ukraine, and liberate it, they are still in original Russian territory and removed. (after it’s liberated)

Obviously, even if that was one of the three territories touching Moscow that doesn’t undo the revolution now that its back in Russian hands.

So trapped units better attack so they can at least kill something before they are removed.

Great writeup Kreig. Glad the US entry rules were changed.
Is there any chance the Unrestricted Sub Warfare rules will be changed in the actual FAQ. The damage you can do is so small it’s not even worth the risk.

Im not sure how exactly to change it, but as it stands now I’ll use my subs to attack, not to raid an IPC.

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.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

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.