Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

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.

@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.

So Krieg let me get this straight, if lets say Belgium is contested by the Germans with both the French and UK, Lorraine is totally controlled by the Germans, and Picardy has French and UK units only in it, that on Frances turn seeing a German army in Lorraine could withdraw her forces from Belgium to Picardy (going from contested TT to a TT under French control), BUT on the UK turn, she COULD NOT withdraw her forces back with her allies from the contested TT to Picardy (with other UK forces and her allies that just withdrew) since you cannot go from a contested to a non-contested TT you do not control??

This just makes no sense at all, and quite frankly looks absurd no matter what kind of “can opener” problems you may have encountered in Russia. You can’t fall back with your allies to their TT, yet by rule if the Germans also contested Picardy in this situation than they could fall back?? There simply is no logic to this that can be explained in any rational manner no matter what rules issue you may have had elsewhere.

If the French can fall back to prepare to defend Paris from the oncoming Germans, then their Allies should be able to fall back with them to on their immediate following turn. You may have had a reason for this rule, but it looks so ridicules for the UK to not be able to fall back with her allies that I’m afraid your going to loose me and probably others from this game with this kind of absurdity.

Sorry.

Kim

Let me know when this becomes a real problem rather than a theoretical one, and we may do something to address it.

Why not allow a power to move into an ally’s territory from a contested one if the moving power already had a unit there at the start of the turn?

If we’ve already established that you have to have had a unit in a contested territory to move there from another contested territory, this will gel better with that (and of course make more sense anyways) while still preventing the can opener issue.

I see no point in waiting when it is inevitable that an army being trapped and contained by its own ally will happen soon enough, the situation is nonsensical, and the fix I proposed doesn’t allow the crazy can opener.

Germany and Russia contest poland, Germany, Austria, and Russia contest ukraine. If Austria takes Ukraine, Germany can’t move in, but if Ukraine remains contested, Germany can. Theoretical or not, that should not be that way, and it’s better to get that out of the way now than to wait for what is coming anyways.

I’m sorry, can someone explain what a ‘can opener’ is?  :?

@Krieghund:

Let me know when this becomes a real problem rather than a theoretical one, and we may do something to address it.

Unfortunately it’s not theoretical when you’re explaining the rules to your gaming group and they’re balking that the BEF can’t fall back towards Paris like they historically did. Clearly this is a valid game tactic needed to consolidate against the advancing Germans.

Ok, if you allow units to go from contested to friendly controlled territory I can see your “can opener” problem in Russia. I.E., Germany and Russia contest Poland. Austria on her turn takes total control of the Ukraine. If Russia cannot contest it on her turn, then Germany could 'walk" around the Russian contesting force in Poland moving all but one infantry into Ukraine with their Austrian allies. This clearly is a problem as now Germany is on the gates of Moscow and the Russian force in Poland that was holding the front cannot move back in time to stop the CP from capturing their capital. Ok, I get that.

The answer is to still allow units in contested areas to withdraw to friendly tt’s controlled by your allies provided such a move does not move you closer to the nearest enemy Capital.

Under this clarification, the move in Russia would not be allowed since the Germans would be advancing closer to Moscow, and the move by the UK to fall back towards Paris would be allowed since they are not moving closer to Berlin.

Both of these situations are logical now, and make sense. The qualifier is to eliminate the “can opener” move to get units closer to an enemy capital without restricting units making a strategic withdraw through friendly controlled areas. Now the other example of the stranded Austrians in Russia is also solved as they could withdraw back through German controlled territories from a contested tt to get back home.

My gaming buddies could go with that.

Kim

@ossel:

I’m sorry, can someone explain what a ‘can opener’ is?  :?

If you’ve played other versions of A&A it was usually referring to one power killing a unit in a territory that was blocking, and then an ally of that power moves fast units like tanks through.

The least invasive change would be “Land units that begin the turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that were controlled by your power or already contained units belonging to your power at the beginning of your turn.”  If it becomes necessary, that would be the most likely change.  However, we are not likely to open that up unless it’s really necessary.  Only actual game results will tell.

@KimRYoung:

The answer is to still allow units in contested areas to withdraw to friendly tt’s controlled by your allies provided such a move does not move you closer to the nearest enemy Capital.

This seems really finnicky and could be abused in the case of capitals close together, and seems to me more complex than it needs to be.

Since to move into a contested territory from a contested you have to have already had a unit in the destination, do you like the idea of requiring a unit of your power to be already (as in start of turn) in the friendly destination territory to move there from a contested? If not, why?

@Krieghund:

The least invasive change would be "Land units that begin the turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that were controlled by your power or already contained units belonging to your power at the beginning of your turn."  If it becomes necessary, that would be the most likely change.  However, we are not likely to open that up unless it’s really necessary.  Only actual game results will tell.

In my humble opinion do not hesitate to pull the trigger on this as soon as you get an inkling from even one game that it is a change for the better. The reasoning for not allowing to move to friendly territories (can openers) is totally gone with my 1-unit-present solution.

Other than the fact that changing the rules is generally attempted to be avoided, is there any reason why this change hasn’t been made already? If there’s something I am missing then it would be good to know that going into my next game.

As it stands, can openers aren’t prevented with the current rules anyways, as my Ukraine/Poland example showed. It just happens to be the case that you can can open if the destination is contested, but not allied controlled.

If there is a change to the rules concerning movement from contested territories to allow you to also include friendly territories you have unit(s) in, it shouldn’t be contingent on falling back, advancing or lateral movement. I don’t want NFL refs showing up at my door flagging me for illegal movement, then if I throw my protest flag that they tell me it’s not a reviewable play and they penalize me 10 units LOL.

Kreighund is right, if there is a change it should be kept simple as possible. We already have enough to remember for a game that is supposed to be fairly easy to grasp.

This could present a problem though when you have two powers advancing on one (as Krieghund pointed out w/Russia). The defender won’t have the ability to boldly move to contest a territory simply to restrict the opposition from merging w/friends at the front (to obtain multi power def that would be untouchable). This could lead to more super stacking I think instead of having two powers trying to out maneuver the one, setting up counter attacks etc….

Sorry, this is not already a legal move?

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Why not allow a power to move into an ally’s territory from a contested one if the moving power already had a unit there at the start of the turn?