Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

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.

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