Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

Of course what this really needs is a Russian Civil War to sort everything out.

@Flashman:

Technically, you are correct.

But I’m pretty sure KH will rule that no Allied power can control tt in post revolutionary Russia, just as Russia may control no tt outside its own original tts.

This small political window overrides other rules until it resolves itself.

I hope that’s the case, that it’s changed. My point here is that as it stands this is what the rules seem to be saying, and thus an actual change is necessary if USA is not to get the TT in that case.

Here’s the write-up, since I already did it, with a new question that might become mostly moot.

G6: Germany takes control of Russia, wiping the last Russian land unit off the map as well.
UK6: UK moves into Moscow from Karelia, contesting it.
O6: Ottoman Empire establishes CP control over Belarus, Sevestapol Ukraine, Livonia and Tatarstan.

R7: At the end of Russia’s turn, (they had no units to do anything, for the sake of simplicity), Moscow is contested, CP controls at least 3 adjacent to Moscow, plus they control at least one more Russian territory. Thus, the Revolution occurs.
UK7: UK forces contesting Moscow fail eliminate all Germans. UK forces are removed at the end of that turn. With no Allied units in Moscow, it becomes German.
US7: USA Attacks CP-controlled Livonia and destroys all CP units. Moscow is under German control. USA takes control of livonia, and then at the end of its turn, removes its units there.

One thing I can’t keep straight from game to game is when control is achieved. Let’s say in the same scenario above in addition of the contesting units attacking in Moscow, UK forces in Karelia attacked Livonia. When exactly does control of a territory change? After each combat? At the end of the phase?

If the UK units in Moscow are wiped out, then Moscow becomes German.
If the CP units in Livonia are wiped out, then Livonia becomes Allied.

But, depending on which on comes first, it seems that Livonia would be either British or Russian.

(EDIT: I guess this might apply to some situations outside of the Revolution)

The most important issue with your scenario, and why we do need a definitive answer, is that it gives the Germans the double benefit of capturing Moscow (which we must assume still counts as a victory objective) and knocking Russia out of the game permanently.

I had not considered that this was a possibility. If it is, then the Central Powers really do need to consider smashing their way into Moscow by a direct route rather than surrounding it, then somehow manipulating a revolution. But, precisely because of this possibility, the UK would not be stupid enough to contest Moscow from this position and hand Germany the added benefit of revolution.

And on that bombshell, I wish you good night and sweet dreams.

That becomes quite the issue, if it will always or almost always be too risky to try to liberate Russia.

Couple more things:

KH has already said that if you purchase units, then lose your capital, the enemy who gets control in effect cashes in those units.

So if this happens to the UK, can it still place those units in India, with the enemy holding London getting nothing?

Can the UK mobilize units in India if it is enemy controlled? (well the rules don’t say otherwise).

Ref page 22/23: can ALL battleships (including those of Allies) bombard?

Flashman: it says any Battleship!

Normally, Allies cannot bombard(as it is not their go).
I wonder if this is a change or an error.

Krieghund: please clarify, thank you.

@wittmann:

Flashman: it says any Battleship!

Normally, Allies cannot bombard(as it is not their go).
I wonder if this is a change or an error.

Krieghund: please clarify, thank you.

To be clear, it does not say any battleship may bombard, it just doesn’t explicitly say that only the battleships of the attacker may bombard.

However, although it is not explicitly talking about battleships, the box on page 22 says “In a space where a battle occurs, any units that belong to a power friendly to the attacker (other than cargo on an attacking transport) cannot participate in the battle in any way.”

That’s what I thought, but it should be clearer on pages 22/23.

Agreed Flashman.
That is where naval bombardments are explained.
Thank you Von Lettow.

When I go through and condense the rulebook for my group it often looks very different than the official rulebook in terms of what is grouped together. Part of it is preference, but it seems also that the official rulebook is quite spread out.

Situational Issue: Moving from a contested space to a newly contested space.

In my first f2f, we quickly ran into an issue on the Western Front.  Germany had a stack of units in Belgium, contested with the French.  Behind them was a sizeable stack of German troops in Ruhr.  There was 1 lone French infantry in Alsace.  I wanted to pivot my combined forces from Begium and Ruhr into Alsace.  I moved the stack in from Ruhr, making it contested, and then moved my stack from contested Begium into Alsace as well.

From the reading of the rulebook, this may not be a legal move, but the wording is a little confusing on what “already” contested means.  Does it have to be contested at the start of the turn, or can it become contested during the turn so long as the units causing it to become contested do not initially come from the contested territory?  In this example, Belgium.

If it is not a legal move, this is pretty unfortunate.  I can imagine a scenrio where there is one french or British troop in Ruhr and Alsace, and a sizeable stack of German troops in contested Belgium.  If the German troops in contested Belgium would not be permitted move into and attack Alsace or Ruhr, even if German troops were also attacking Ruhr from say Hanover.  In other words, 1 lone infantry behind a contested stack can effectively trap that stack to its potential doom.

The answer to that one is on page 14, on krieghund’s big post with lots of red letters. I recommend copying and pasting that into a word document, it is very helpful.

It is sometimes useful to have a single infantry from an ally in each large stack. For example on the eastern front, you have a German army contesting Poland and an Austrian stack contesting Ukraine.
The Germans cannot move into Ukraine to attack unless they have one of their own units in Ukraine with the Austrians. This seems a little harsh to me, but its one of those little things you have to look out for.

@WILD:

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.

That’s not going to happen.  There would need to be a sea zone on either side of the straits.

@WILD:

@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).

No units could be mobilized.  All IPCs (on-hand and refunded) would go to the power that captured the capital.

@kraftwrk_5:

1)  Does the U.S. collect income, purchase units, and mobilize them even while its still neutral?

Yes.

@Flashman:

Can the UK mobilize units in India if it is enemy controlled? (well the rules don’t say otherwise).

No.

I’m not answering any questions right now regarding control issues in original Russian territories after the revolution.  We’re working on a tweak to that rule, and I should be able to post it soon.

Not sure if you are in a position to answer this one, but what was the rationale behind not allowing Germany to move from a contested territory to an Austrian-controlled territory but allowing them to move from a contested territory to another contested territory that happens to have 1 (or more) German(s) there?

For example, let’s say Austria takes switzerland turn 1. Germany moves in.
Turn 2, Germany moves out into burgundy, contesting it, leaving 1 unit behind in switzerland. Italy moves in and contests Switzerland, the German inf there survives.
Turn 3, Scenario 1: Austria does not attack in switzerland, it remains contested with 1 Germ inf, Germany can move from contested burgundy to switzerland because it is contested.
Turn 3, Scenario 2: Austria attacks in switzerland, and wipes out the Italians. Austria takes control since it was the attacker. Germany CANNOT move from contested Burgundy to Switzerland, even though they still have an inf there.

That makes little sense to me. I suppose the rationale could be something about lack of coordination between allies, but that seems a little weak, especially since allied troops defend with each other at full strength and can in fact even boost each other.

It seems like what would logically open up an avenue for an ally’s retreat does the total opposite. You’re allowed to move where it would logically be harder to move and not allowed to move where it would be logically easier.

I am not saying there is no good reason why you can’t move into an allied-controlled territory from a contested, I am saying that I haven’t seen it yet if there is one. At the very least you should be able to if you have 1 land unit in the friendly territory you want to move into. That would remove potential issues like Germany being in contested Poland, Austria attacking and winning in Ukraine, and Germany moving through to Ukraine.

Also from page 14 of this thread: “You may not move land units out of a contested territory into an adjacent territory that you made contested in the same turn.  The destination territory must have already been contested at the beginning of your turn.”

Let’s say Austria is contesting Burgundy, Germany is contesting Lorraine, and Germany has 1 inf in switzerland. If Germany moves the 1 inf to Burgundy, can they then move the Lorraine troops there too? (Page 15, 3rd paragraph of rules suggest no, I just think it would be helpful to clarify that being contested is not enough for that, it has to have already been contested with units of your power.)

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Not sure if you are in a position to answer this one, but what was the rationale behind not allowing Germany to move from a contested territory to an Austrian-controlled territory but allowing them to move from a contested territory to another contested territory that happens to have 1 (or more) German(s) there?

The reason for this rule is unfortunately very fiddly.  It’s there to prevent can openers, which were way too effective against Russia in playtesting.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Also from page 14 of this thread: “You may not move land units out of a contested territory into an adjacent territory that you made contested in the same turn.  The destination territory must have already been contested at the beginning of your turn.”

Let’s say Austria is contesting Burgundy, Germany is contesting Lorraine, and Germany has 1 inf in switzerland. If Germany moves the 1 inf to Burgundy, can they then move the Lorraine troops there too? (Page 15, 3rd paragraph of rules suggest no, I just think it would be helpful to clarify that being contested is not enough for that, it has to have already been contested with units of your power.)

OK.  I’ll update it when I make the updates to the Russian Revolution rules.

Two questions/confirmation requests

1.  France attacks and takes control of Kiel (german territory with naval base).  It landed one transport with inf.  It rolled for a mine hit against the lone transport which missed.  Britain, and then US unload several transports worth of units into Kiel, also taking no mine shots as France controls Kiel.  Next turn, Germany moves into Kiel contesting it.  Now when the allies try to reinforce the territory are they subject to mine fire?  I think according to the letter of the rules the territory is contested so the original owner has control of the mines but I dont see how this makes any sense.  All of a sudden the french controlled mines revert to complete german control just because they move some units into the territory?

2.  This one I think is clear but I just think its a little strange but I guess there is a reason for it (can opners?)  Austria has a number of units in a russian territory (lets say Russia) that is contested with Russian and Germans.  All the surrounding territories are controlled by Germany.  There is no legal way for Austria to move any units out of the territory as there are no other contested territories (with or without Austrians) surrounding it or any territories controlled by Austria (even though there are a number of friendly territories.

Thanks

Perhaps the simplest solution to the Russia problem posed by LVW above is that in order for Revolution to occur Moscow must be Russian controlled or contested by an Allied army containing at least one Russian infantry.

@ksmckay:

1.  France attacks and takes control of Kiel (german territory with naval base).  It landed one transport with inf.  It rolled for a mine hit against the lone transport which missed.  Britain, and then US unload several transports worth of units into Kiel, also taking no mine shots as France controls Kiel.  Next turn, Germany moves into Kiel contesting it.  Now when the allies try to reinforce the territory are they subject to mine fire?  I think according to the letter of the rules the territory is contested so the original owner has control of the mines but I dont see how this makes any sense.  All of a sudden the french controlled mines revert to complete german control just because they move some units into the territory?Â

It’s all about control of the naval base.  Naval bases are controlled by the power that controls the territory, or by the original power if it’s contested.  Control of the base gives you access to all functions dependent on it (mines, mobilization, repairs).

Bear in mind that a turn covers months of time.  That’s enough time to clear or chart enemy mines and lay your own.

@ksmckay:

2.  This one I think is clear but I just think its a little strange but I guess there is a reason for it (can opners?)  Austria has a number of units in a russian territory (lets say Russia) that is contested with Russian and Germans.  All the surrounding territories are controlled by Germany.  There is no legal way for Austria to move any units out of the territory as there are no other contested territories (with or without Austrians) surrounding it or any territories controlled by Austria (even though there are a number of friendly territories.

Correct.

I still think the contested movement rule could apply to ships sharing SZs, particularly ships sheltering in home ports who should not be allowed to move out unless they eliminate all enemy surface ships; in effect they would be blockaded.