Is it possible to keep Russia in the war?

Keep in mind every time you buy transports for UK in round 1 or 2, it means less boots on the ground. It’s a trade off. I think it’s better to use French transports for moving UK troops to western front. Granted, using the French transports is slower.

I think the best time for Russia to buy fighters is if the RR is not being used and when they have giant stacks of infantry (mostly in the late game) then they buy artillery and fighters to start giving them fire power to go offense against the CP but this only happens in rare cases where Russia can go offense. Or you should buy fighters and artillery when the CPs go west instead of east (that’s the best thing to see :-D) because you are going to need them to really annoy the CPs!

Reading the rules again, I begin to get a bit fussy about the RR rule. We have always run with that Moscow have to be contested in order to RR to occur. I now realize that perhaps thats wrong and that for example  holding Ukraine, Polen, Belarus and Livonia is enough?
IN our games AH have to put enough units in AH% in order for Russia not to be able to kill them all in R5. However if we have been wrong about RR, the 4-7 remaining Germans from G4 is enough since Russia cant advance untill they have been destroyed… And in that scenario AH can have its entire stack moved from Ukraine to Sevastopol in round 5, very much changing Britians advance.

In the west Germany usually have to tactically retreat in r2-r3. However since all buys from G1 and forward will be moved into the west they wont need to retreat further. And even with Belgium and perhaps an orginal German territory gone they will have an income advantage against France alone and therefore push them back r4 and forward.

Same goes for Italy really. AH will use all its income towards Italy (exept 5 planes in r1-3 = 30 IPC). And by r4-5 AH will push Italy out of Trieste/Tyrole for good.

A couple of friends and I are organizing a 1914 tournament. Not on jst one day, but numerous days, starting June 28. Four players at a time, 2 vs 2. We want every player to rotate countries, so that he has played every country.
We are not sure yet how to calculate points. Maybe a point for every enemy country forced into political collapse, or something.

@Auztria:

Yes. If they truly had a historically accurate setup, Russia would have almost as many troops at start as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. The Ottoman Empire would have no fleet, Germany would have extra cruisers in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, Britain would have just 1 infantry, and Africa would be even more barren. Of course they can’t do that, simply for gameplay reasons. If Russia could conquer Galicia and East Prussia effortlessly every game, people would quickly grow bored.

But you see… I went to school to be a historian! I will have to do a little bit of experimenting with the Russian infantry bordering Galicia and East Prussia. Naturally, it raises my hackles that the Russians can’t do much more than poke the CPs on this front. The Russian TTs containing six infantry probably ought to have eight (on the western border). Any attack they make in Prussia or Galicia is going to be bulldozed by a massive A-H or German attack with at least 12 infantry in each case to throw at the hapless Russians.

I have a soft spot for those intrepid Bulgarians c. 1915. This has led to some experimenting on my end to make them a playable country in lieu of a country in the direct Ottoman pale. Instead of collecting income, they would do something like China does in A&A:Pacific 1.0–crank out people or arty (no planes, tanks or ships). I even thought about allowing the Germans to give them a subsidy (1 IPC or something along those lines). Australia is often talked about for its commitment to the war (and justly so), but I was blown away when I read the Bulgarian stats. 1,200,000 mobilized out of about 5 million people!!  If Italy is in this game, surely Bulgars can’t hurt…

@DarthShizNit:

I want a Spanish Civil War one, then Axis and Allies would have covered my two favorite military conflicts.

Hehe… reminds me of a bit from Frasier where Niles and Daphe are arguing in the coffee house about whether the US or English Civil Wars were better.  Then Frasier walks in and when they solicit his opinion, he says Spanish!  But I don't have time to prove it...

Nothing to do with the OP but just a random thought popping into my head.

@ossel:

@BJCard:

Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that.� The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses?� Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics?� Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.�

It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.

I have a scenario I’m working on for Vietnam. It involves helicopter landings, infiltrating Vietnamese troops, and terrain difficulties. I have the map and rules pretty well done, just need to playtest it and refine the rules a bit. Also need to figure out victory conditions (probably use a morale system like you mentioned). I’d be happy to post it on this board if anyone’s interested (would that go in “House Rules,” or “Modifications?”).

FYI Guys, I’ve just posted my Vietnam ruleset and map over in “Other Variants”: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30166.0

Those of you who are interested, let me know what you think.

And the Konigsburg off German East Africa.

I like the idea of BBs and Cruisers being able to either shell coastal regions to reduce income, or put landing parties ashore in undefended areas to take control. These forces would have no combat value vs regular troops, but would be of nuisance value to players wanting to leave areas without a garrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Königsberg_(1905)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Emden_(1906)