@WILD-BILL Eqqman is correct.
More News! Russia!
-
I believe that if a minor power is attacked, the major power allied to that minor power (an icon is displayed on the minor power’s territory) takes control of the minor power and the major power’s units are used. The minor power thus becomes incorporated into the major power.
I believe it’s also explained in the post on Austria-Hungary’s first turn.
-
Found it! From Larry’s post on Austria-Hungary’s first turn:
“When a major power’s forces are moved into a minor power’s capital territory (Serbia and Romania are minor powers), one of two events occurs. The Minor power either mobilizes to join the entering forces, or it mobilizes to resist the invasion. The reaction depends on the political relationship between the major and minor powers. Only after an aligned minor power becomes mobilized can it generate income for any major power. I should also explain that the number of units that a minor power mobilizes is twice the IPC value of the territory, and that Serbia’s IPC value is 2. That means that 4 units will be placed. Only one of these units can be an artillery unit, and the rest must be infantry. Romania, with an IPC value of 3, gets to place 5 infantry and 1 artillery unit. Russian pieces will be used to represent the newly mobilized Serbian and Romanian forces, and they will be controlled by the Russia player. Hey… I probably don’t have to tell you but this can only happen once per territory.”
-
Ah so minors are the global equivalent of pro-axis or pro-allied neutral with the wrinkle of contested territory thrown in.
-
It appears so, but I guess in AA1914 there are two types of minor powers. Minor Aligned Powers as described above and, as I found from re-reading Larry’s post, Minor Neutral Powers as described below (also from Larry’s post on Austria-Hungary’s first turn):
“Mobilizing a minor neutral power, note that I said “neutral” power, is another matter that we might get into at some point. In a nut shell they are mobilized by the alliance that did not invade it. They too mobilize twice as many military units as their IPC value. Except for which power’s units are used and who takes control of the invaded territory, it is pretty much the same as invading a minor aligned power.”
I wonder how heated arguments will get in multiplayer games of AA1914 over who gets to assume control of a Minor Neutral Power . . .
Summer 2013, in a basement near you, Austria-Hungary has invaded Greece.
Russian Player: “I’ll take control of Greece.”
French Player: “I think I should do it.”
Russian Player: “You can barely keep the Germans out of Paris.”
French Player: “But this gives us a chance to put some French pieces in the Balkans and really mix things up.”
Russian Player: “There’s nothing to stop you from sending help once I’ve beat back the Austrians.”
French Player: “You managed to lose Serbia and Romania to the Austrians.”
Russian Player: “So. I’ve kept the Ottomans out of Russia.”
Austrian Player: “Why don’t the British take control of Greece.”
French Player: “You’d like that, wouldn’t you.”
British Player: “It’s not the craziest idea.”
Russian Player: “Stay out of this.”I hope Larry provides a few guidelines.
-
Enjoyed reading that. Thank you.
It could be said that half the time you are better off without allies! -
I tend to like it if we get set up for a position where allies might squabble. Adds more of a WWI feel.
-
I’ve suggested that the Allies are not permitted to attack or annex neutrals. When they are “liberated” by the Allies, a joint Allied marker is placed there. The tt is friendly to all Allies, but nobody collects income from it. I think its reasonable to assume that local manpower was used up when the tt was mobilized by the CP attack.
This is partly to reflect the good/bad impression of the rival alliances, as well as balance the greater material resources of the Allies (the CPs are free to annex and exploit any captured tt; I suggest dividing up the map into three “spheres of influence” delineating which CP gets to control which tt. -
I am sooo tempted to get some of HBG’s Russia Early War Infantry for use as neutral pieces. I know it wouldn’t make sense in the game to have separate pieces for neutral nations, but I just think they look like they were made for this game. Or maybe use them for the Bolsheviks for Flashman’s Russian Civil War house rule.
I might not be able to stop myself. :evil:
-
I’ve suggested that the Allies are not permitted to attack or annex neutrals. When they are “liberated” by the Allies, a joint Allied marker is placed there. The tt is friendly to all Allies, but nobody collects income from it. I think its reasonable to assume that local manpower was used up when the tt was mobilized by the CP attack.
This is partly to reflect the good/bad impression of the rival alliances, as well as balance the greater material resources of the Allies (the CPs are free to annex and exploit any captured tt; I suggest dividing up the map into three “spheres of influence” delineating which CP gets to control which tt.Well, all the A&A games so far have ignored the good/bad dichotomy of WWII.
And not matter what angle you look at it from, Reich 2 was not Reich 3. -
why is moskow the capital of russia? in ww1 st petersburg was its capital
ice
-
My guess is that they decided it was too close to Germany. Almost certainly this is why they’ve vandalised the map to give East Prussia to Poland. Also Moscow is more central and so, with plodding infantry movement, its needed for Russia to be able to reinforce the southern front with new units.
Suggested Topics
