Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

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.

I had an unusual situation last night. An Austrian fleet of 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport occupied SZ 17. An Italian fleet, also 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport, attacked the Austrian fleet. All four warships scored hits which wiped both fleets out leaving 1 Austrian transport and 1 Italian transport. Since all warships were killed, and transports have no attack or defense factors, they simply sit there and share that sea zone until an opposing warship comes along to sink one or the other.
Did we play this right?

Hello everyone,

I just got the game delivered last night to my home.  I set the whole game up and read the rules twice.  The rulebook states that tanks can absorb a free hit when attacking.  Does it repair automatically?

Thanks

Yes, but when exactly does a state of war begin? Can America attack German units immediately there is a hit, or does it have to wait until it loses money from the hit?

If its the latter Germany may as well declare USW on turn 3, since America can’t attack them anyway until turn 4, when they’ll be at war automatically.

@knp7765:

@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.

Unescorted transports can always share SZs.

@knp7765:

I had an unusual situation last night. An Austrian fleet of 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport occupied SZ 17. An Italian fleet, also 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport, attacked the Austrian fleet. All four warships scored hits which wiped both fleets out leaving 1 Austrian transport and 1 Italian transport. Since all warships were killed, and transports have no attack or defense factors, they simply sit there and share that sea zone until an opposing warship comes along to sink one or the other.
Did we play this right?

@Flashman:

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?

Let’s go with 2.

@knp7765:

I had an unusual situation last night. An Austrian fleet of 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport occupied SZ 17. An Italian fleet, also 1 Damaged BB, 1 CA and 1 Transport, attacked the Austrian fleet. All four warships scored hits which wiped both fleets out leaving 1 Austrian transport and 1 Italian transport. Since all warships were killed, and transports have no attack or defense factors, they simply sit there and share that sea zone until an opposing warship comes along to sink one or the other.
Did we play this right?

Yes.  Of course, they can also leave.

@johnnyseinfeld:

The rulebook states that tanks can absorb a free hit when attacking.  Does it repair automatically?

There is nothing to repair.  The hit is simply cancelled.

@Flashman:

Yes, but when exactly does a state of war begin? Can America attack German units immediately there is a hit, or does it have to wait until it loses money from the hit?

The US must lose income.

@Krieghund:

The Russian Revolution has the following effects:

• Russia will no longer have a turn, and will no longer be considered to be either friend or enemy to any other power.

• Serbia and Romania will be treated as minor neutral powers for the remainder of the game.

• All Russian units outside of original Russian territories will be immediately removed from the board, and Russia will immediately relinquish control of any non-original territories it may hold, including those of formerly aligned minor neutral powers.�  If units belonging to other Allied powers are in these territories, control will be established using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory (see “Land Units”, page 15), otherwise these territories will be uncontrolled until another power moves into them and will not mobilize units when entered.

• Any original Russian territories that are contested at the time of the revolution will be considered to be shared for the remainder of the game. Â Shared territories that have no Russian units in them will each have one Russian infantry added to them to represent Russia’s interest in them.

• Attacks may no longer be made by either side in original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.

• The Central Powers may no longer move units into territories controlled by Russia.�  Central Powers forces can move into or out of territories shared between them and Russia at any time, but the Central Powers must maintain at least one infantry unit in each such territory at all times.�  Central Powers do not collect income from shared territories.�  Rules restricting land unit movement out of contested territories (see “Land Units”, page 15) will not apply to these shared territories.

• Other Allied powers may no longer move units into original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.�  Any such units remaining in those territories at the end of their next respective turn will be removed from the board at that time.

• Original Russian territories that are controlled by the Central Powers at the time of the revolution are considered to have no original controller for the remainder of the game.�  If such a territory is captured by an Allied power, that power takes control rather than returning it to Russia.�  If such a territory is left without units in it after a battle due to both sides being eliminated, it will not be controlled by any power (place any national control marker on it face down to denote this status) until a power moves units into it.

I think this situation will be not as rare as we might initially think:

Germany controls Moscow. Later, UK or USA moves in and contests Moscow (quite easy since they can dump in adjacent Karelia). If at least one of those units remains in Moscow at the end of Russia’s next turn (and the 4 territories are controlled of course), then the Revolution will occur. Because of the rule I bolded, at this point the CP can never get Moscow.

The only ways for the CP to avoid this is to either stack enough units in Moscow that it can’t be successfully contested or somehow ensure that they do not control 3 tt’s adjacent to Moscow. The problem with the former is that since combat only lasts 1 round, it is a LOT harder to post an Army that will eradicate the enemy in 1 round than it is to post an army that in other versions of A&A would have held the territory. The problem with the latter is that it encourages the CP to avoid taking certain territories on the way to or after taking Moscow, when any other capital getting taken means its open season on their territories. The CP can’t un-control the revolution triggering territories, and moving out of Moscow (if they even did have a turn to do it before Russia’s) doesn’t prevent the Revolution anyways. Unless the CP nonsensically forces itself to avoid taking the Russian territories (involved in the Revolution) AFTER they have already taken the capital, they are in constant danger of just one little allied unit surviving in Moscow to the next Russian turn away from Moscow, and half of their victory requirements, being gone FOREVER.

The Revolution is still quite abusable by the Allies.

To cut out all of the gamey rubbish with the Allies abusing the Revolution, especially since it seems according to most every report I have read that the CP has it harder in the game, it would be best just to amend the victory conditions to include the CP winning in the case of the Revolution having occurred and Paris or London being under CP control. Even making the Revolution no longer active (able to happen) after a CP controls Moscow would be better for the CP.

I tend to agree.

I had always assumed that Moscow would still count towards a CP victory after Revolution. When the official ruling stated otherwise, I immediately thought why would the CPs bother driving into Russia if Moscow can be denied to them precisely because they are successful?  It practically dictates that they then have to take Paris and Rome, while either one is difficult enough to achieve from distant Berlin and Vienna with the Allies shipping units in by sea.

In addition my own version of Revolution rules splits the Russians into two factions, so control of Moscow is disputed between these AND the two main alliances; I have never been comfortable with the idea of areas of Russia simply being sealed off from the war outside; this is not what happened.

Ultimately, my own version actually proves the simpler to implement - even though it requires adding a new power and unit set to the game.

If the Revolution works broadly in favour of the Central Powers (which it should since it is the successes of their armies that bring it about), then I think it may have to be moved so that it occurs at the end of a Central Powers turn; then if they get too many units trapped in Russia it is largely their own lookout.

But somehow the mechanism whereby the CPs might decide it is against their interests to capture a tt, and therefore decide not to attack it, should be removed.

@Krieghund:

If you are moving units into a territory both by land and amphibiously, one infantry unit must move in by land, unless you already have one there.

Does “already” in this case mean at the start of the turn like it usually does, or does it mean that if you unload unopposed into a TT during your move phase, your artillery can move in without an inf from an adjacent territory?

@Flashman:

I tend to agree.

I had always assumed that Moscow would still count towards a CP victory after Revolution. When the official ruling stated otherwise, I immediately thought why would the CPs bother driving into Russia if Moscow can be denied to them precisely because they are successful?  It practically dictates that they then have to take Paris and Rome, while either one is difficult enough to achieve from distant Berlin and Vienna with the Allies shipping units in by sea.

If the Revolution works broadly in favour of the Central Powers (which it should since it is the successes of their armies that bring it about), then I think it may have to be moved so that it occurs at the end of a Central Powers turn; then if they get too many units trapped in Russia it is largely their own lookout.

But somehow the mechanism whereby the CPs might decide it is against their interests to capture a tt, and therefore decide not to attack it, should be removed.

Agreed. Until the Revolution is worth the effort, we will be playing without the RR rules. Moscow will be just another capital.

I thought the Revolution rules would help Germany, but it would seem to be the opposite.
As the CPs I am better playing without. You expend all that effort to move slowly East, to be denied most of the income, then the war is going on elsewhere and you cannot reach it!

I think one CP advantage of forcing the revolution is that you basically seal off the east.  If you capture Moscow, you still need to defend it from the British.  If Moscow is captured, the British player should be making an effort to liberate by pumping in forces through Kazakhstan or Karelia.  Once a revolution is triggered, these avenues should be closed and the British would have to go through the Ottomans if they want to get to the Germans and Austrians from the east.  With the revolution, you can push everything west, with a capture of Moscow, you have to devote forces to keep it.  I am not sure if that is worth the trade off of a victory city or not, but the revised rules do make it more worthwhile for the CP than the OOB rules did.

@Texas:

I think one CP advantage of forcing the revolution is that you basically seal off the east.  If you capture Moscow, you still need to defend it from the British.  If Moscow is captured, the British player should be making an effort to liberate by pumping in forces through Kazakhstan or Karelia.  Once a revolution is triggered, these avenues should be closed and the British would have to go through the Ottomans if they want to get to the Germans and Austrians from the east.  With the revolution, you can push everything west, with a capture of Moscow, you have to devote forces to keep it.  I am not sure if that is worth the trade off of a victory city or not, but the revised rules do make it more worthwhile for the CP than the OOB rules did.

That might be an advantage, but wittman’s post above convinces me that the drawbacks outweigh the advantages.

@wittmann:

I thought the Revolution rules would help Germany, but it would seem to be the opposite.
As the CPs I am better playing without. You expend all that effort to move slowly East, to be denied most of the income, then the war is going on elsewhere and you cannot reach it!

Agreed.  I will play without Russian Revolution rules until this has been worked out.  It is optional after all.