Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

@Chicochico:

That would mean a german transport that survives the mines could park next to britain and ferry units across the channel every turn without any worries, so long it doesn’t moves. Is this correct?

If my understanding of the rule is correct, then yes you could simply leave the ship there.  However every ship you move into the SZ to help defend the tt will be subject to mines when they enter the SZ.

@manstein39:

If they US is neutral, can they attack another neutral such as Spain?

No.  This will be in the FAQ.

@manstein39:

Thinking about this a bit more; what if the US player moves ships including loaded transports into the SZ next to Kiel while still neutral during turn 4.  Then the next turn the US is at war and may amphibiously assault Kiel without having to worry about the mines, because they are not moving into, or through a SZ containing mines.

You need to think about it even more.  The US enters the war at the beginning of its fourth turn, not the end.

So let me get this straight, If Russia captures Mesopotamia from the Ottomans but Germany and Austria activate the Revolution, Russia retains control of Mesopotamia, the Ottomans cannot

attack and retake their original territory back but the British can stack up in Mesopotamia to launch an attack on Ankara or the Syrian Desert? So the Ottomans can do nothing but sit

back and watch the British build up behind the new and improved Bolshevik Force Field Shield Generator before crossing said Force Field to wreck havok on more of Turkey’s original territories?

@Hitlers:

So let me get this straight, If Russia captures Mesopotamia from the Ottomans but Germany and Austria activate the Revolution, Russia retains control of Mesopotamia, the Ottomans cannot

attack and retake their original territory back but the British can stack up in Mesopotamia to launch an attack on Ankara or the Syrian Desert? So the Ottomans can do nothing but sit

back and watch the British build up behind the new and improved Bolshevik Force Field Shield Generator before crossing said Force Field to wreck havok on more of Turkey’s original territories?

Or… just don’t play with Russian Revolution rules until they are changed to make sense.  It IS an optional rule.

@BJCard:

@Hitlers:

So let me get this straight, If Russia captures Mesopotamia from the Ottomans but Germany and Austria activate the Revolution, Russia retains control of Mesopotamia, the Ottomans cannot

attack and retake their original territory back but the British can stack up in Mesopotamia to launch an attack on Ankara or the Syrian Desert? So the Ottomans can do nothing but sit

back and watch the British build up behind the new and improved Bolshevik Force Field Shield Generator before crossing said Force Field to wreck havok on more of Turkey’s original territories?

Or… just don’t play with Russian Revolution rules until they are changed to make sense.  It IS an optional rule.

I probably will house rule my own Russian Revolution rules if I do play with it. Some of the other aspects like SZ 20 are also baffling to me. Your telling me the Allies can sail fleets of their

ships through the Straight of Dardanelles and the Straight of Bosphorus, straights mind you that are only 1.2 km and 700 m wide respectively and the latter runs **directly through the

Ottoman capital** and the only thing the Allied fleets have to worry about are mines?!?!? How can I simulate the Gallipoli Campaign when the Allies don’t even need to have control of the

Straight of Dardanelles OR Istanbul to pass through the Straight of Dardanelles and Istanbul?!?!

A few neutrals questions; hope this covers all eventualities:

1. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany BEFORE Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

2. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany AFTER Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

3. Britain activates Belgium by entering before anyone else - who gets troops/control/money?

4. Britain liberates Belgium from Germany - who gets control/money?

5. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to defeat all the Germans - who gets control/money?

6. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to survive, but the tt is contested. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

7. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, but they are all defeated. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

8. Are colonies of minor allies IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER effected by what happens to their capital tt? Or are they, in effect, independent aligned neutrals with no defence forces.

9. Is Spanish Morocco, in effect, an independent non-aligned neutral with no defences?

10. It seems that neutral US land forces cannot enter non-American land tts, but they can share SZs with Allied ships; can they also share SZs with CP ships?

11. If CP ships attack Allied ships, do neutral US ships in the defending SZ take no part?

12. Wouldn’t it be simpler and more historical to amend the Russian Revolution rule to:

All Russian units and control markers outside of original Russian territories or Russian controlled territories are immediately removed from the board.

13. Can the UK or Italy move into Congo/Angola/PE Africa at any time, and if so who gets control/money?

You’re looking too far into the minor aligned neutrals. Sure if Britain activates Belgium, France gets control and the troops. But there is nothing beyond that relationship between Belgium and France.

Belgium is not an original territory of France. If Britain managed to remove all Central Powers units from Belgium, Britain would gain control of Belgium.

I’m sure the same concept applies to your Russian aligned Holland.

I dont understand why holland should be represented by russian troops. Thats as weird as if norway was represented by turkey.

I think making Russian territories off-limits to both sides would make more sense.

Define “Russian Territories”.

@Flashman:

Define “Russian Territories”.

Anything Russian controlled.  They get to keep what they conquered, but the “shields” would work both ways.

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

@Flashman:

A few neutrals questions; hope this covers all eventualities:

1. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany BEFORE Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

2. Britain captures Belgian Congo from Germany AFTER Belgium is activated - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

3. Britain activates Belgium by entering before anyone else - who gets troops/control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

4. Britain liberates Belgium from Germany - who gets control/money?

Britain.

@Flashman:

5. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to defeat all the Germans - who gets control/money?

Russia.

@Flashman:

6. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, and they manage to survive, but the tt is contested. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

7. Germany attacks Holland. Russia is nominated to control the Dutch forces, but they are all defeated. Later, Holland is entered by France who defeat all the remaining Germans - who gets control/money?

France.

@Flashman:

8. Are colonies of minor allies IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER effected by what happens to their capital tt? Or are they, in effect, independent aligned neutrals with no defence forces.

The latter.

@Flashman:

9. Is Spanish Morocco, in effect, an independent non-aligned neutral with no defences?

Yes.

@Flashman:

10. It seems that neutral US land forces cannot enter non-American land tts, but they can share SZs with Allied ships; can they also share SZs with CP ships?

Yes.

@Flashman:

11. If CP ships attack Allied ships, do neutral US ships in the defending SZ take no part?

That depends on the attacker, who may include the US ships in the attack or not.

@Flashman:

13. Can the UK or Italy move into Congo/Angola/PE Africa at any time, and if so who gets control/money?Â

Yes, and the attacking power would get control.

Thanks, I think I have it now.  :lol:

@Flashman:

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

Would the allies support the whites and CP the reds?  Historically, the reds didn’t get support from the CPs.  Perhaps that is why the allies can still pass through Russia freely, they are supporting the whites, but if they do so they should have to pay a penalty for doing so, such as lose one unit each turn they are in Russia.

Well this FAQ has certainly been helpful. Hopefuly we can have something written out by Friday? (at least the major issues)

Has Krieg answered if battleships can repair at friendly ports? (not just their own)

Oztea: don’t think he has, but the rules suggest not.
They can only be repaired in a SZ that shares a base with a territory they control.
The word “friendly” is not used.

Yes; in effect the Reds become a 4th Cental Power, though they cannot operate outside Russia.
The original Russians continue as the Whites, so you only need a set of WWII Red Russians and Soviet control markers.
I will write up a provisional piece on this soon; the trick is to prevent the Allies from manipulating the revolution by, for example, placing a large Allied garrison in Moscow.

@Texas:

@Flashman:

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

Would the allies support the whites and CP the reds?  Historically, the reds didn’t get support from the CPs.  Perhaps that is why the allies can still pass through Russia freely, they are supporting the whites, but if they do so they should have to pay a penalty for doing so, such as lose one unit each turn they are in Russia.

@oztea:

Well this FAQ has certainly been helpful. Hopefuly we can have something written out by Friday? (at least the major issues)

There will not be anything “official” by Friday, as we like to wait a while before publishing an official FAQ to see what issues pop up.  However, I will summarize the three errors in the Rulebook and the half dozen clarifications that I’ve made so far by then.

@oztea:

Has Krieg answered if battleships can repair at friendly ports? (not just their own)

Yes, they can.  This is one of the errors I mentioned above - battleships can be repaired at any friendly naval base that is capable of mobilizing sea units.  The other two errors are that the US can’t move units into neutral territories while it is neutral, and you must have been in control of a naval base at the beginning of your turn in order to mobilize sea units from it.

Note that control of a naval base is not the same as control of the territory that it’s in.  You control a naval base if you either control the territory it’s in or that territory is one of your original territories and it’s contested.

This came up last night: Italy (on the same turn) took control of Trieste (by an unopposed land movement from Albania) and sailed a fleet into SZ 18.

Does Austria roll for mines against the Italian ships? My presumption is yes, since Trieste is Austrian controlled at the start of the Italian turn.

That is, all combat is considered simultaneous.