Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

It isn’t an ‘attack’ if the UK moves into Belgian Congo.

You have to forget who “owns” colonies of neutrals. In effect they’re completely independent neutral countries with no defence forces.

Ok. Thank you all.
It was what BJCard thought too; it was I who doubted him.

The horse ain’t dead yet so I will keep beating it.

Britain, France, and the CP contest Belgium.
Britain, France, and the CP contest Lorraine also.
CP controls Ruhr and Alsace, France controls Picardy.

France moves into Lorraine from Belgium.

Now, if they attack and win, Britain CANNOT move their forces in to Lorraine. But, if it remains contested, Britain could move in. Unless Britain has enough transports for all the units in Belgium or they somehow have units in another adjacent territory that is contested with the CP (Which in the above scenario they don’t), they are trapped in Belgium.

By clearing out Lorraine of enemy units, France actually traps its ally in an adjacent territory.

However, if there are CP forces remaining in Lorraine to oppose the Allies, Britain has no problem moving in.

This really needs to go sooner rather than later, by allowing a power to move from a contested to an ally’s territory that had 1 or more of the moving power’s units in it at the start of the turn.

It is completely anti-instintive; which is why I completely missed it.

Don’t trap your ally, then. Simple.

This is a lot to look through.  Is there a comprehensive list that explicitly goes over all these FAQ?  Ideally so that I can just print it out to bring with me to my next wargame this weekend.

@johnnyseinfeld:

This is a lot to look through.  Is there a comprehensive list that explicitly goes over all these FAQ?  Ideally so that I can just print it out to bring with me to my next wargame this weekend.

Krieg answered a lot of the questions a couple pages ago, but that’s all we have so far.

Question about transport carrying capacity…does the rule mean u can place 2 land units (max)AND a fighter on a transport?(3 total) thnks…

@tytyboogie:

Question about transport carrying capacity…does the rule mean u can place 2 land units (max)AND a fighter on a transport?(3 total) thnks…

No, 2 of any land unit (does not have to be the same type of unit)

I would like to move the discussion of the proposed change in land unit movement rules to this new thread, to keep this thread focused on Q&A.  Thanks.

I have made some changes to the original list of clarifications on page 14 of this thread.  The Russian Revolution rules have been updated.  Also, clarifications were added regarding control of minor neutral powers’ colonies and British mobilization in India.  Finally, an earlier clarification regarding movement out of contested territories was further clarified:

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 by you at the beginning of your turn.

Krieg, on PG 14 can you clarify when exactly the “one infantry in each army” rule takes effect.

If I win a battle in which I attacked with 10 arty and 2 infantry and lost 2 infantry, do I then have to convert one artillery at the end of my turn?

What about defensively, if that same 10 art and 2 inf are attacked, and I take 2 hits, do I have to remove 1 art & 1 inf or can I remove 2 inf defensively?

You can’t take the last infantry as casualty until you’ve lost ALL your other units.

You may only convert another unit to infantry in the Mobilize New Units phase, if the territory you mobilize in has no infantry after you mobilize.  It cannot be done at any other time.  In all other instances, you must insure that you always have one infantry in each territory through the movements you make and the casualties you take.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@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?

No, wouldn’t be able to move through.  They would only be able to move through if the second territory is contested with their units present.  Both of my examples were of movement into a territory that is uncontested and controlled by your ally.

Couple more Revolution questions:

Why do the CPs HAVE to retain a unit in a shared territory? Since they gain no material benefit from being there, shouldn’t they be allowed to move out (though clearly not in again afterwards)?

Historically, these tts would correspond with regions retained by the Bolsheviks and abandoned by the Central Powers.

However, in those tts which were ceded to the CPs, which correspond to those they control at the time of the Revolution, the locals mainly wanted to set up their own nations rather than come under German rule.

So it would make more sense historically if:

1. CP units can remain in shared tts, but they may abandon them.*

2. In order to collect income from controlled original Russian tts, an infantry unit of the controlling power must be present in that tt during its own collect income phase.

• What if the CPs have a large army in a controlled tt that is completely surrounded by Russian controlled areas - are they trapped there forever?

Finally, I’m growing increasingly worried about the fate of the 2 British infantry units who were being transported to Karelia when the Revolution was proclaimed. They were last recorded in the cargo hold of a Russian transport in SZ 6, awaiting orders from London to disembark at Archangel.

Did they:

1. drown in the icy waters of the White Sea when the transport did a Mary Celeste?

2. disappear into the labour camps of Siberia?

3. disembark at a friendly adjacent tt before the boat was decommissioned?

4. Vanish into thin air when the ship was beamed up by the martians?

Reminder of my POW suggestion:

After the armistice in the east, over a million prisoners of war were released by the Russians.

So: at the time of the Revolution each Central Power receives a number of released POWs (infantry units) equivalent to the number of completed game turns. For simplicity, just place them in their respective capital. I’d place them in the mobilization zone to be brought into play at the end of their power’s next turn, but some people find this too complex…
Or place them in Moscow?

This partly compensates the CPs for their effective loss of Moscow as victory objective; it gives them an immediate boost to represent the end of hostilities and a wave of returning manpower.

@Texas:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@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.

�

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?

No, wouldn’t be able to move through.  They would only be able to move through if the second territory is contested with their units present.  Both of my examples were of movement into a territory that is uncontested and controlled by your ally.

Krieg wants us to continue discussion of this elsewhere, pm me if you like or go to the new thread. I do not agree with your last statement if I understand it correctly and would like us to be on the same page.

When exactly is the USA “at war” due to submarine attacks?

1. The moment the CP declare USW

2. The moment a CP sub moves into the relevant USW zones

3. The moment the USA actually loses IPCs during its collect income phase

Say Germany declares USW on turn 2. It moves a sub into SZ 7. No other Allied power manages to defeat the sub before the American turn comes round. Is America in effect already “at war” because the sub attack has already been made, or does the declaration not come until the end of the American turn when it collects income?

The latter would mean that America cannot attack the submarine that is sinking its merchant shipping because it hasn’t yet declared war, even though it knows it will be at war at the end of the turn.

@Flashman:

When exactly is the USA “at war” due to submarine attacks?

1. The moment the CP declare USW

2. The moment a CP sub moves into the relevant USW zones

3. The moment the USA actually loses IPCs during its collect income phase

Say Germany declares USW on turn 2. It moves a sub into SZ 7. No other Allied power manages to defeat the sub before the American turn comes round. Is America in effect already “at war” because the sub attack has already been made, or does the declaration not come until the end of the American turn when it collects income?

The latter would mean that America cannot attack the submarine that is sinking its merchant shipping because it hasn’t yet declared war, even though it knows it will be at war at the end of the turn.

According to the rulebook, America actually has to lose income due to a German sub attack before they can declare war. So even if Germany has declared USW, and move sub(s) into the appropriate SZs, Germany still has to roll a 1 or 2 to effect a loss on America’s income. It’s possible that the German sub(s) will miss and America will stay neutral.