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.
My game was stalled for a day or two while I clarified the RR rules, so now I can proceed on the assumption that the following effect of revolution are correct:
1. Moscow was contested R & A. It is now shared. Austria can move out some units, but must leave at least one infantry there at all times.
The UK units in Livonia can attack the Austrians here in the one turn they get; any surviving Brits vanish into thin air (labour camps) at the end of the UK turn. If they defeat the Austrians, control of Moscow reverts to Russia.
2. Finland and Kazakhstan were Russian controlled but empty. They are now no-go areas for both sides.
3. Livonia was contested B & G. A Soviet Commisar unit must be placed here to supervise local authority. The enemies are free to attack each other, but the Brits must leave at the end of their turn. If the Germans win the tt becomes shared, but the CPs cannot take control. If the Brits win, it immediately reverts to Russian control. If it remains contested between G & B, the Germans must subsequently leave an infantry unit there even though they have no chance of controlling the tt even when the Brits have all been marched off to Siberia.
4. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine & Tartarstan were CP controlled. They may leave these areas empty, but still collect income from them. The Allies can attack them in their one turn in Russia.
5. Sevastopol is Russian controlled but occupied by the British Indian army. That army may:
1. Attack the Turks in Mesopotamia
2. Stay where they are and vanish at the end of the turn
3. Attack the Turks in Tartarstan or the Austrians in Ukraine, then vanish at the end of the turn
4. Attack the Turks in Romania and, if they survive, remain there
Since Sevastopol is Russian controlled, the CP forces may not attack the UK forces there and take control of the tt
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?
Yes.
1. Moscow was contested R & A. It is now shared. Austria can move out some units, but must leave at least one infantry there at all times.
Correct.
The UK units in Livonia can attack the Austrians [in Moscow] in the one turn they get; any surviving Brits vanish into thin air (labour camps) at the end of the UK turn. If they defeat the Austrians, control of Moscow reverts to Russia.
Nope. “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.”
2. Finland and Kazakhstan were Russian controlled but empty. They are now no-go areas for both sides.
Correct.
3. Livonia was contested B & G. A Soviet Commisar unit must be placed here to supervise local authority.
Correct.
The enemies are free to attack each other [in Livonia]
Nope. “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.”
but the Brits must leave at the end of their turn.
Correct. Well, actually they must either leave during their turn or be removed at the end of it.
4. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine & Tartarstan were CP controlled. They may leave these areas empty, but still collect income from them. The Allies can attack them in their one turn in Russia.
The Allies can attack them there any time that they want. The prohibition against Allied occupation only applies to original Russian territories controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.
5. Sevastopol is Russian controlled but occupied by the British Indian army. That army may:
1. Attack the Turks in Mesopotamia
2. Stay where they are and vanish at the end of the turn
Correct.
3. Attack the Turks in Tartarstan or the Austrians in Ukraine, then vanish at the end of the turn
They can attack, but they won’t vanish at the end of the turn, as these territories are CP-controlled and will remain in play.
4. Attack the Turks in Romania and, if they survive, remain there
Correct.
Since Sevastopol is Russian controlled, the CP forces may not attack the UK forces there and take control of the tt
Correct.
Hey Krieg can fighters stay in a contested territory as long as you have units there?
Hey Krieg can fighters stay in a contested territory as long as you have units there?
Yes
I thought so BJ just wanted to be sure. Thanks
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.
Where in the rules does it say this? Anyway, I’ll wait for the official answer.
I don’t think you can avoid combat in a contested tt……if so…evryone will want to defend and not to attack…In D-day…i think…you could not avoid combat in a contested tt
Yes if on your turn you contest a territory, you don’t have to order your troops out of the trenches into no man’s land; you can hunker down if you want.
OK, so following KHs rules definitions, I’m up to the UK turn.
I have 3 British units in Livonia, which they contest with the lone infantry Germany has been obliged to leave there, who it turn shares the tt with a Soviet Commissar.
The three adjacent tts are all Central Powers controlled.
Am I correct that the sharing of the tt by the German and the Soviet negates the “contested” status between the German and the Brit, and that therefore the UK units may attack 1, 2 or all of the adjacent German controlled tts (2 of which are undefended)?
Otherwise the 3 unit army (it may as well be 30) can do nothing but wait for the Siberian package holiday rep to appear at the end of their turn.
If I’m right, though, the British units who attack the German controlled Russian tts will survive and take control of the tt if they win, and even if the battle wipes out all units it renders the tt in effect an undefended neutral.
But what happens if a British attack results in a contested tt? Does it remain contested between G & B, or does it too receive its own Commissar making it a perpetually shared tt and thus trapping any surviving German in limbo?
My assumption is that Commissars only come into operation in tts contested at the time of the revolution as stated, not thereafter.
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.
Where in the rules does it say this? Anyway, I’ll wait for the official answer.
Bottom of page 17 in the rules, first paragraph under “Phase 3: Conduct Combat”
VonLettowVorbeck1914 is correct.
Am I correct that the sharing of the tt by the German and the Soviet negates the “contested” status between the German and the Brit, and that therefore the UK units may attack 1, 2 or all of the adjacent German controlled tts (2 of which are undefended)?
If I’m right, though, the British units who attack the German controlled Russian tts will survive and take control of the tt if they win, and even if the battle wipes out all units it renders the tt in effect an undefended neutral.
My assumption is that Commissars only come into operation in tts contested at the time of the revolution as stated, not thereafter.Â
All correct.
If you have a minute, Krieg, is the issue I bring up in reply 318 (Western allies pulling the rug out from the CP in Moscow merely by having 1 unit survive to Russia’s turn after Moscow is taken) something that you might be concerned about as being undesirable and/or against the spirit of the game/RR rules?
I’m just trying to get my head around the Rus Rev rules. Once the Rev happens you would need to look at each original Russian territory and determine its status. When I refer to allies I mean the other allies (not Russia).
You would need to look at each original Russian territory to determine:
1) Russian Controlled
Any territory that is Russian controlled would have only Russian units, or Russian & allied units, or only allied units, or no units at all (but not controlled by the CP). It would be off limits to both sides the rest of the game (no attacks). Any allied units that happen to be there would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn). You may want to place a Russian inf in such a territory if it doesn’t have one just to remember it is Russian.
2) CP Controlled
Territories that are controlled by the CP basically become neutral territories controlled by the CP (no orig owner, Russia can’t reclaim them). The allies are allowed to enter/fight for them through out the rest of the game, and they would keep them if captured from the CP. They could obviously become contested, and whom ever controls it would collect income.
3) Shared Territory-Will have a Russian unit in it when said and done, you can’t fight in a shared territory, and no one collects income. As a shared territory the movement restriction of a contested territory don’t apply.
A) Any territory that is contested by the CP & Russia would now be a shared territory. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game. No allied units can enter these shared territories.
B) Any territory that is contested by the CP, Russia & the other allies are also considered to be shared. The allied units would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn), and no allied units are allowed back in the rest of the game. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game.
C) Any territory that is contested by the CP and Allies (has no Russian units), would have a Russian inf placed there, and would be considered shared (same as above). The allied units would need to leave (or would be removed after their next respective turn), and no allied units are allowed back in the rest of the game. The CP are still free to move in/out, but must leave an inf there the rest of the game.
