Yeah, your right it was 1942 2nd ed (oops)

I'm with Flashman, I kept forgetting about Mines!  Wish they were labeled on the map in some way (other than the NBs) or as an official cardboard/plastic piece.

In our game I though this might be a problem. I placed the green chips (came w/A&A 1942 2nd ed) in all the NB SZ's at set-up just as a reminder, it does help.

If you take control of enemy capital on that enemy's turn due to his attacking you in that territory and losing, any units he purchased are returned to his storage box, and you collect the refunded IPCs.

So to clarify this would mean that the power losing his capital on your turn would hand over any unspent IPCs (saved), and the refunded IPCs from the units he couldn't place as well (all IPCs go to the victor).

If London is taken in this fashion, the units the UK purchased could still be placed in India right (if they still control or contest it). Incidentally in the same situation UK ships could also still be placed off Wales (again if they still have control, or contest it).

Hmmm, maybe you allowing tanks to be bought turn 3 caused your main problem.

When the Germans & A/H go hard core Russia as you did (they obviously can't have tanks with them),  the CP will being be playing def on the western front (as you found out) so won't be buying tanks. By allowing tanks to be purchased earlier in your game you gave the allies a major advantage. They are the aggressor in this situation, have naval dominance in most games, and you allowed them to get tanks to the front lines much faster (which helps them keep front line units alive). Also make sure that your tanks aren't taking hits from first strike art shots (this isn't allowed as I've recently found out).

BTW, now that the US won't be able to load transports until they are at war the game will change most significantly (Krieghund just posted this new change, along with new Rus Rev rules). The US will be delayed from making landings in the Med etc...as they did in your game. For now though I wouldn't move up tank purchases to the 3rd turn, because of the obvious balance issues you encountered. I think both of these new re-rights will help the CP.


PS:
I think it's possible to take Moscow trn 3 if the Russian player just does what they normally do and back peddle to their capital. I think the Russians need to attempt to contest their territories in a fighting retreat style to weaken the CP as they have a hard time bringing up reinforcements fighting two fronts. Maybe this wasn't the case in this game though, and I would like to hear how this front unfolded.

 

Thanks again Krieghund for this timely re-wight of the Rus Rev rules and clarifications to them (this optional rule just simply makes more sense now). The UK will think twice about trying to assist the Russians on Russian soil being they could get trapped there and lose their units (puts some chaos and more urgency into into the situation). The US not being able to load transports as a neutral is also a very welcomed addition (or I guess subtraction lol). Allowing the US navy warships (and empty transports) to move is acceptable.



**PS Krieghund, are you guys looking into making an optional rule for Constantinople controlling ship movement through the Turkish straight (maybe did something in testing, but scrapped it?). Just thinking out loud, but we (I) would like to hear if there might be something down the road on this.


I will say I love what mines do for this area, and also what double mines do in sz 10 & 11 entering/exiting the Baltic while the Germans hold their NB's, or at least contest the territories linked to them (the Russians really get the feeling of being trapped in the Baltic having to go through both mined sz's to get out when the German navy is out to sea, and the western allies also see this as an issue). Back to the Ottomans, I know the Turks can somewhat control movement here by keeping a ship in sz20, but the allies really seem to have naval dominance in this game, and a double hit into sz20 seems pretty easy to pull off (admittedly only a partial game under my belt at this time). The Turks can't afford to buy more cruisers (9 IPCs), and A/H will have a tough time getting their navy past the Italians to be of any assistance here (although it looks like the French might pull out of the Med in most games to claim Portugal, and assist the Brits in the Atlantic) .

I will say though that in our game when the Russians performed the first part of the double hit I rolled snake eyes for the Turk mines. It was awesome to see the look on his face, but I know that was a one out of like 50 shot (not sure of actual odds) that probably won't happen again. Unfortunately my A/H attack on the Italian navy the turn before resulted in no hits for my side, leaving only my BB on its side, although his Italian mines missed their mark (I even bought an Austrian sub, but they off-set this by lending the Italians a Brit cruiser).

Again maybe the mines do enough for this region and it plays out well, and there is no need for a straight rule. I know such a rule could just add complication because sz20 as a single sz would essentially need to be split into sz20a, and 20b to give the controller of Constantinople control over the straight. Just looking for an explanation, or any thoughts for the future (or past testing for that matter).    

The Revolution rules sound much better outside of Russian orig territories, no force fields (the changes for the US also sound very good).

I'm a little concerned about the other allied units needing to be off orig Russian territories by their next respective turn or be removed from the board (although I can see it needs to be done quickly). So just to clarify say the Revolution happens on Russia's 6th turn. UK units would need to be off orig Russian territory by the end of UK's 6th turn or be removed from the board. If UK has units in Tatarstan (up from India), or Belarus they are just removed at the end of UK's turn #6 because it would take them two turns to leave Russian soil.

I know that Russian units don't restrict CP units from leaving a contested territory (Russians don't make the territory contested once they revolt), but it says other allied units in an orig Russian territory would restrict CP movement. I assume that CP units still contesting an original Russian territory could also restrict other allied units from exiting these territories too. This would be short lived though as other allied units will have exited, or been removed from play.

Are the other allies and the CP allowed to fight each other in original Russian territories if they are both in it contesting it at the time of the revolution? Knowing that if the other allies made such an attack they would be removed after the battle not being able to leave Russian soil in time (that turn). Further more can the other allies and the CP attack each other in adjacent original Russian territories. Maybe the UK would rather kill some CP units instead of trying to get out in time (or can't get out in time). It says that other allied powers can no longer enter orig Russian territories, but does that also mean they can't choose to make an attack into another orig Russian territory if they are already in an orig Russian territory when the Revolution happens.

Yea, Flash was right on one point involving all units getting wiped out in contested territories reverting back to the original owner (one of the 8 powers with only their flag on it). This is done mainly for ease (Kiss) because of so many contested territories involved. He was wrong on his other assumption that UK would keep control of Symyna having had control over it before the Turk invasion began (this turn).  As soon as the Turks move in to the territory of Symyna it becomes contested (no one has control). The UK flag would be removed at this point (all though most of us would probably not remove it until the results come in from the battle as we are playing). The results of the battle would decide who ends up with control, and if all units are lost from both sides that would be the Turks in this case being the original owner of it (as the UK flag should have been removed).  

Edit: In the same scenario as above (UK has control of Symyna at the beginning of the Turks turn), but there is also a Russian inf there too. When the Turks move in the territory would be contested (no one has control). Say all the attacking Turk units were killed, and the defenders decided to take all the UK units as casualties leaving the one Russian inf, Russia would gain control.  This could be something to think about in a Revolution scenario?    

I'm just now getting to the fourth turn in our game (got it on Tuesday   ), so obviously we haven't yet seen what effect tanks will have on the battles. I think we should play with them as is for a while before suggesting a change though. From what we've seen this is a different game then we're used to. The way the contested territories work your not generally fighting to the death, so absorbing a few hits to keep your army strong will be beneficial as the aggressor the further you get from your capital.

Its hard to just say a tank is twice the cost of inf, attacks the same, but defends horribly so its not worth it. I get that 2 inf would cost the same and both would get to fire in a battle. The net worth of the tank as the aggressor is if the tank is involved in 3 battles that you have also kept 3 inf or art alive. As the aggressor you are probably pretty far from your capital and if you lose inf/art they could be hard to replace at the front lines.

I can see a problem though if you are buying tanks and the tide is turned, or you attack into a territory and it is contested you don't get the free hit as the defender, and yea it rolls like crap when defending. I will still wait until I've seen it in action before I condemn it though.

The pre-emptive artillery strike is simply inserted before the land battle for assaults only (not reinforcements).  It is not affected by air superiority.  Any and all offloading units are subject to being hit, and are removed immediately.  The land battle ensues normally, with the exception of possible battleship bombardment being included (assaults only).  See page 22 of the Rulebook.

The order of events is:
1) Sea battle
2) Offload units
3) Pre-emptive artillery strike
4) Land battle (including battleship bombardment, if any)

OK thanks Krieghund I got it, so if there is a battle (not just reinforcing via sea) any ftrs the attacker brought via transport could be killed on the beaches and not make it to the dog fight. This would  depend on what the attacker has brought in, and how many kill shots the def art get (at 3 or less).


The actual dog fight (ftrs duel to the death) would be in the beginning of land battle (your #4) to gain air superiority for that land battle. If you gain air support (def or attacker) then in the land battle all your art fire at 4 or less, and your surviving ftr(s) would also roll at 2 or less vs ground units (as normal).

Sorry if this has been asked already. I have some questions about amphibs asssults, air support and the order.

A) In an amphib does the defenders first strike art shot (kill shot) happen before the dog fight, or after the dog fight?

Sorry if there is more in the rule book about this, I very well may have missed it. What I've read about def first strike art don't mention air support (just says fire a kill shot at 3 or less). Plus and an attacking ftr offloading from a transport could be lost to def first strike art fire so there might not be a dog fight (from this thread?). I'm assuming the first strike art shot is done before the dog fight (and that's what I used below), of course if the dog fight was done first, them wouldn't it upgrade you def art for a kill shot @ 4 or less if you won the dog fight?  (I'm so confused).

So you would do
1) Navy battle (if applicable).

2) Bombardment (if applicable).

3) Off load attackers units from transport

4) Defenders first strike art shot @ 3 or less (kill shot) if def has art.

5) Remove attackers causalities from units transported by sea from #4 , and they don't get to return fire (an attacking inf participating from adjacent land territory would suffice for "must have inf last man standing")

6) Dog fight to the death (if both sides have ftrs) determine air superiority.

7) Fight remaining land battle as normal (upgrading art if one side gains air support)

If the above order is wrong please set me straight


B) In an amphib (sea battle was won by attacker, or nonexistent) if attacker has a ftr on a transport it does it participate in the dog fight as if it flew over right (subject to defending first strike art from above).

So would I, but I think the official rule is otherwise.

Yea, I'm pretty sure that your right flash. The neutral colonies (not the colonies of the major powers) aren't aligned like some of the neutral parent countries (no major power flags on colonies) so whom ever moves in to them to activate it gains control (places their own units, and control marker). Afterwords ownership of the neutral colonies will transfer to the new owner as they are captured/liberated. Capturing a colony has no effect on the parent country either, and colonies don't have a standing army based on IPCs.


BTW, I think that income from Belgium would go to France wouldn't it. The UK would be liberating it for the French because it is aligned to France (French flag on it)  ?

Very entertaining Flash, I guess the legend of the Red Baron has been born

I think this will be a great game, but a couple things leave me wanting

The Russian Revolution rules defiantly leave you scratching your head (Flash was right, I didn't see that one coming).  An allied strat to have the Russians sell out to gain strategic CP territories, or even CP capitals will emerge (forcing the CP to abort the Revolution), and then we are in fantasy land. I will reserve judgement for now, but I can see this being a topic of major concern for some time, not used, or house ruled to death.

With the Turks in the game, I'm really disappointed that there is nothing to incorporate the straight. Both sides courted the Turks to lure them to their side for passage. When they chose the CP (or the CP chose them), the Russians and English really had a bulls-eye on it. Could of /Should of been written in as an optional rule (like in other AA games).  

Your right, but if your intent is to go hard for Russia then you would be def two territories on the Italian front instead of one territory that you can dig in (Venice). Now they can contest your A/H lands where you hold the line there instead of the strangle point on Italian land. You would be giving up income instead of the Italians IMO. IDK, maybe I'm off here, but I would rather dig in on the enemy lands on my terms as the CP, and force them to bulk up to overwhelm me (where I could just retreat back if I want to). It isn't going to be easy for the Italians to come up with the power to take me out in Venice (just looking to keep it contested), and I'm not sure the French will be able to help them out.

I think the A/H could go either way, as long as they don't try to go both ways turn 1. To me it just seems more advantageous to hit Venice over Romania on the first turn, I can't wait to try it out. It very well could prove to be a worthy strat to hit Romania first, not having the ability to try stuff out yet. That part is coming though hopefully Mon or Tues.  

Yeah, as the Flash report showed Austria has to attack south by rule (Serbia), it doesn't have the strength to mount and sustain attacks to both the east (Romania) and the west (Venice) on its first turn. If they do (as Flash did) they just have two very weak fronts going that will halt the CP advances because they are spread to thin. They have to pick which side to go offensive round one, and Italy is the better strategic target (as Oz has pointed out). It cuts down that front to one territory, they can get German reinforcements if needed, and Italy gets less income. Romania (east) will still be there turn two. If the Russians stack it you can double hit them making it much easier for the Germans to gain advantage over the Russians. If they activate Romania with a nominal force you can crush it w/Austria, and reinforce w/Turks. Russia will be hesitant to counter attack w/Germans coming across from the north (could get cut off).


In the bigger picture I think the CP as a whole must come up w/strat early on to dig in on one front to set-up defenses at strangle points (in enemy territory if possible), and go offensive on the other. If they don't then the CP as a whole will see the same thing as A/H did, two weak fronts collapsing. I think they need to pick a side, and roll with it, but also take advantage of tactical errors on the other side if they get a chance.


It makes sense for A/H to gain ground in Venice round one to dig in. Then being patient waiting for the Turks to catch up to triple hit the Russians starting on the second turn (Germany will probably have a foot hold in Poland). The way the game is set up it is much harder to attack when multiple powers are def together. Russia is pretty much alone w/only minimal English support that may not come in time (there won't be 10 English ftrs def Moscow in this game LOL). I like how Flash attacked the Brit navy to attempt to slow down British reinforcements coming into France, or the Russian north through Scandinavia BTW.