Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

@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?

@Flashman:

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?

No, if you are in a contested territory w/enemy units your options are limited:

1. Can move to a territory you have control of
2. Can move to another contested territory you have unit(s) in.
3. Can load to a transport (but aren’t allowed to off load)

They are looking at adding :
4) Can move to a friendly territory you have unit(s) in.

So scrap your game, you’ve been cheating on yourself lol

@WILD:

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.

That’s why when I suggested the change I thought it solved a lot of issues; it was simple because it had the same rules for moving into allied territories (from contested) as it did for moving into contested ones.

@WILD:

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….

Recall, though, my example:

Right now contesting a territory doesn’t stop a power from moving in. In fact, LOSING the territory  to an opponent slows the other powers more than contesting the TT.

Here’s an example from round 2 let’s say.
Austria’s turn, they move into Ukraine to contest it. Germany’s turn they move 1 unit in and don’t have to battle since it was already contested. At the same time, Germany moves into poland and contests that.

Turn 3: Austria attacks and wins in Ukraine. Germany cannot move in (from contested poland).
OR
Turn 3: Ukraine remains contested (whether through failed Austrian attack or they don’t attack). Germany CAN move in.

It really has nothing to do with boldly moving in, because it’s probably better for Russia if Austria takes it outright since Germany can’t move in.

Now lets imagine the same scenario where Russia anticipates that Germany wants to move into Ukraine through Poland. Austria moves in (round 2), and then Russia just moves out. Since Austria takes control, Germany’s units moved into contested poland would not be able to move into Ukraine the next German turn (round 3), even if Germany moves a unit into ukraine.

–---------------------------------------------------------

@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.

That’ll work. If the situation comes up, we’ll probably just go with it and let you know what happened. Actually that verbiage  is even more clear than what you currently in the rules and also solves the problem of your allies being able to withdraw while you can’t. Good job.

Kim

If you are going to test my idea kim please don’t hesitate to post your thoughts on it. It’s a busy week around here so my group won’t get a whole lot of playing in.

Got the game today  :-D

3 questions for me :

1. if i take a territory with a naval base from the enemy, when an enemy make a sea attack against this territory should i roll the mines dice?

2)the usa player before the 4 turn can:
a) move ship ?
b)collect income?
c) ship his units to europe without attacking central powers?
D) make purchase

3. on amphibious assault i have 3 artillery in the territory the attacker has 3 inf and 2 art so what happens?

A) i roll 3 dice hitting with 3 or less against all the stack
B) i roll 3 dice against each units landing

From the rulebook i understand the option B

Thank you :)

@Panz3r:

Got the game today  :-D

3 questions for me :

1. if i take a territory with a naval base from the enemy, when an enemy make a sea attack against this territory should i roll the mines dice?

NO

2)the usa player before the 4 turn can:
a) move ship ? YES
b)collect income? YES
c) ship his units to europe without attacking central powers? NO
D) make purchase YES

3. on amphibious assault i have 3 artillery in the territory the attacker has 3 inf and 2 art so what happens? YOU GET 3 FREE SHOTS AGAINST THE INVADERS

A) i roll 3 dice hitting with 3 or less against all the stack
B) i roll 3 dice against each units landing

From the rulebook i understand the option B  WRONG

Thank you :)

@WILD:

No, if you are in a contested territory w/enemy units your options are limited:

3. Can load to a transport (but aren’t allowed to off load)

Where did you see this one? I must have missed it somewhere.

I like the rule as it stands, otherwise it lets you game the system.  Here are a couple examples if you allow someone to move where they have units already present:

Poland is contested between Germany and Russia, Ukraine is Austria-controlled with a German unit present.  By allowing Germany to move troops to the Ukraine, you allow them to bypass any combat in Poland, or basically just walk through unscathed since combat is not required to be conducted in a contested beyond the initial invasion.

Another example, the Germans have captured France’s northern coast and the UK has some forces inland.  The UK conducts an amphibious assault and contests one of these territories.  On the following turn, they would then be allowed to just continue inland without fighting through the German line.

I understand the issue some have with the rule as it stands, but it also doesn’t make sense for a country to be to walk through an opposing countries entrenched troops unharmed either.

I have a question about fighter strafing of enemy land units once air supremacy has been established:
Do you just roll 1 dice per fighter?
OR, does each fighter get to roll 1 dice against each enemy land unit?

One per Fighter, Knp

@Texas:

Poland is contested between Germany and Russia, Ukraine is Austria-controlled with a German unit present.  By allowing Germany to move troops to the Ukraine, you allow them to bypass any combat in Poland, or basically just walk through unscathed since combat is not required to be conducted in a contested beyond the initial invasion.Â

Perhaps if you retain as many units in the contested tt as the enemy have then the excess can move out unhindered?

Actually, if a front is quiet (i.e. no combat in the tt this turn) it would be quite normal for units to be moved out and redeployed elsewhere, as long as you don’t abandon the tt.

@wittmann:

One per Fighter, Knp

Thanks. I’ve played games that do it both ways.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@WILD:

No, if you are in a contested territory w/enemy units your options are limited:

3. Can load to a transport (but aren’t allowed to off load)

Where did you see this one? I must have missed it somewhere.

Remaining at sea is an additional option for transported units, not the only one.  They can offload into any territory that meets the same criteria for eligibility as moving by land.

Thanks for setting that straight (my bad). I think I remember reading something about that earlier in this thread (answerer to Flashes questions about Italy?). Units are allowed off load to other contested territories I have units in, or that I control (same as if they were adjacent), or stay at sea. I re-read the ground unit section, they just say the units are allowed to stay at sea, maybe they spell it out elsewhere better (couldn’t find it).

@Texas:

I like the rule as it stands, otherwise it lets you game the system.  Here are a couple examples if you allow someone to move where they have units already present:

Poland is contested between Germany and Russia, Ukraine is Austria-controlled with a German unit present.  By allowing Germany to move troops to the Ukraine, you allow them to bypass any combat in Poland, or basically just walk through unscathed since combat is not required to be conducted in a contested beyond the initial invasion.

Â

If everything else in your example remains the same, but Ukraine is contested Germany can move through anyways. Your scenario is not a very big deal since 1. Germany had to get a unit to Ukraine on a previous turn in the first place (which means that a can opener move where Austria would wipe out a Russian controlled territory and Germany could move through on its next turn is not possible), and 2. Like I already said, Germany can do that anyways if the territory remains contested. If you want to talk about gaming the system, think of Russia’s position in the current game where they move out of the territory in question to make it no longer contested and therefore Germany would not be able to move in. Russia stops opposing the CP in a territory, and that makes it harder for the CP to move in? That’s what’s truly gamey and will lead to nonsensical gimmicks in-game.

@Texas:

Another example, the Germans have captured France’s northern coast and the UK has some forces inland  The UK conducts an amphibious assault and contests one of these territories.  On the following turn, they would then be allowed to just continue inland without fighting through the German line.

Again, if the territory the UK has forces in inland happens to be contested, the UK can move through without fighting the German line. We are left with Powers avoiding contesting territories (conceptually, avoiding trying to fight to slow the enemy down), in order to slow the enemy down!

@Texas:

I understand the issue some have with the rule as it stands, but it also doesn’t make sense for a country to be to walk through an opposing countries entrenched troops unharmed either.

As I have shown, they already can do that. It just needs to be to a contested territory rather than an allied one. :?

Under my change, the can opener is barely any more potent (if at all) than it already is, since it requires that a unit of your power already be in a tt if you want to move there from a contested. Like I said above, a power still can’t get away with one power (Austria, for example) wiping out a russian-controlled ukraine and  then allowing Germany to move in, since Germany would not have already had a unit there. If you have to already have had a unit in the TT in which you would like to move into, it is decidedly NOT can opening, at least not any more than the rules currently allow in the contested tt movement rules.

Do my examples make sense or would a little more detail be helpful?

@WILD:

I re-read the ground unit section, they just say the units are allowed to stay at sea, maybe they spell it out elsewhere better (couldn’t find it).

Actually, they say the units may also stay at sea, indicating that it’s an additional option.  :-)