@Dukla:
You are saying that they are active just when the territory is controlled or contested by ‘‘home power’’ but how about the territory was in hands of ‘‘enemy power’’ and after is contested?
If the territory becomes controlled by an enemy power, the minefield becomes inactive. If the territory becomes contested again, the minefield becomes active again for the original controller. In effect, a mine field is only inactive when its corresponding territory is enemy-held.
@Dukla:
Because if I understand correctly the rules if there is a battle and everyone dies the territory still in ‘‘enemy hands’’ so thats why dont understand why I have to roll again for mines when is contested{before everyone dies}?
If both sides are eliminated in a battle for any territory with an original controller, the original controller regains control (regardless of who had control last). See the bottom of page 19 in the rulebook. The only exception is when the original controller’s capital is held by the enemy, in which case the liberator assumes control until the capital is liberated.
Austria contests Sevastopol with the Russia. Russia undergoes revolution. Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east? Can Germany and Ottomans do the same, or would they have needed troops in the TT when it became shared?
I assume the answer would be the same if the British were defending Sevastopol when Russia went under, because a Soviet comisar would be added. Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)
Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east?
Yes.
Can Germany and Ottomans do the same, or would they have needed troops in the TT when it became shared?
They can do the same.
I assume the answer would be the same if the British were defending Sevastopol when Russia went under, because a Soviet comisar would be added.
Correct.
Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)
They may not move into original Russian territories.
I should have been more clear on these two.
@Krieghund:
Can Austria continue to build up in Sevastopol without any threat from the British in the middle east?
Yes.
Can Austria also move into Mesopotamia/Persia regardless of their status (Ottoman controlled/British controlled/contested)?
Also, can the British attack into Ukraine/Romania/Tatarstan, or must they retreat to Persia/Mesopotamia? (unless there are no Brits in either, in which case they just go to Siberia?)
They may not move into original Russian territories.
What if the CP controlled all three of these territories? The official errata would seem to imply so.
@Krieghund:
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.
Thank you in advance.
Krieghund, any news on whether the “tournament rules” with the setup changes will be officially installed in a 2nd edition??? I’ve played the last few times with those rules (setup change is better along with the economic/political collaspe etc) and its been a lot better IMHO.
Can Austria also move into Mesopotamia/Persia regardless of their status (Ottoman controlled/British controlled/contested)?
Yes, as long as at least one Central Powers infantry unit remains in Sevastopol.
What if the CP controlled all three of these territories? The official errata would seem to imply so.
I should have been more specific. The British may not move into original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers. If the territory is controlled by the Central powers, they may move there. (For some reason, I assumed they were also contested.)
Krieghund, any news on whether the “tournament rules” with the setup changes will be officially installed in a 2nd edition??? I’ve played the last few times with those rules (setup change is better along with the economic/political collaspe etc) and its been a lot better IMHO.
I have heard nothing yet about the possibility of a second edition.
If UK walks into Portuguese east Africa or Angola, do the territories become french controlled?
No, they become controlled by Britain.
They are not french preferred neutrals then? The color makes that a tad confusing.
They are not french preferred neutrals then? The color makes that a tad confusing.
They are colonies of French-aligned neutrals, hence their coloring. A territory must have a major power’s small emblem on it in order to be aligned. Colonies don’t have them, so they can be controlled by anyone.
They are not french preferred neutrals then?� The color makes that a tad confusing.
They are colonies of French-aligned neutrals, hence their coloring. A territory must have a major power’s small emblem on it in order to be aligned. Colonies don’t have them, so they can be controlled by anyone.
Krieghund, I know how this works w/colonies in the game. I was just wondering while you guy’s were in the development/testing stages if those linked colonies had a different role (simple yes or no will do).
Did the colonies join the ranks when the main aligned neutral (capital) was activated at any time through the process?
Just wondering if this was considered part of the game at some point, but was shelved.
Yes.
AH moves its fleet Round 1 into SZ 17, no mine hits and Austria decides not to attack the italian fleet.
When Italy has its turn it wishes to pick up its Infantry and Art in Libya. Does it always have to conduct Seacombat before offloading units in any tt bordering SZ 17?
Thanks!
Allied powers may not load units onto or offload units from transports in sea zone 17 until it is cleared of Central Powers surface warships.
The kind of scenario that persuades me that hostile fleets should not share a SZ at the end of a turn. At the very least, I think the Italian navy should have had the option of intercepting and battling the Austrians.
hi, a question, the next situation happends: hungary attacks greece with 7 inf and had 2 hits, greece is 2 points so it defendse with 4 units, so 2 units left to defend and my friend made them 2 russian, he had 2 hits so 5 hungary inf stays ,then france want to put 4 inf on greece, so the question, because greece is still neutral can france go help russian to defend ore because its neutral side must france also attack greece and when so does greece then defend again with 4 units ore the two left of the first attack from hungary ore do the hungary 5 units also defends with greece 2 ore 4 units against france and if every country left units on greece what happends in the next turn, does hungary have to fight against only the two russians ore also against the 4 france together with rusian and on france his turn who has he to deal with.
i hope its clear what i am asking :? :? :? :-D
greetings ron
The neutrality of a territory can only be violated once. After that the former neutral power is aligned to the enemies of the invader.
hi, ok so french can reinforce greece against hungary , but lets say hungary is defeated ore retreat ,from who is greece than for the rusian units ore french
greetings ron
