Yeah, but in reality it wouldn’t make any sense.
Anyhow, it’s good to clarify.
Preview 2: The Russian Revolution
-
Neutral in the sense that the CPs cannot enter them. The Allies, as far as the rules quoted by DJensen, are allowed to enter them, thus creating impervious staging grounds in which to build large stacks on the CPs border.
I’m pretty sure that is not in fact the intention, and that once more we’re being quoted from a badly worded rule book.
But the prospect remains that people who play strictly OOB may interpret the rule that way.
-
Neutral in the sense that the CPs cannot enter them. The Allies, as far as the rules quoted by DJensen, are allowed to enter them, thus creating impervious staging grounds in which to build large stacks on the CPs border.
I’m pretty sure that is not in fact the intention, and that once more we’re being quoted from a badly worded rule book.
But the prospect remains that people who play strictly OOB may interpret the rule that way.
To play the Devil’s Advocate here, the odds that Russia will have the resources or the willpower to invade Holland when three of its home tt’s bordering Moscow are in enemy hands is probably minuscule, but I suppose it could possibly happen, especially if the Russian player is purposefully trying to sacrifice itself as you’ve mentioned before in order to give the Allies an advantage.
In the end, if the Allies gain any advantage from the Bolsheviks taking power and signing an armistice with the Central Powers, the rule needs to be reexamined.
-
While we’re on the subject, I’d like to say that the idea that Russia went from an Imperial government to a Communist state overnight is a very Western (if not American) idea, and grossly oversimplifies the actual events.
I’ll be working on house rules that correctly model the Provisional Government, the Bolshevik uprising, and the Civil War in Western Russia.
-
- Russia will no longer have a turn.
- All Russian units outside of original Russian territories or Russian-controlled territories are immediately removed from the board.
- The Central Powers may no longer attack Russian units.
- The Central Powers may no longer move into [uncontested] Russian controlled territories.
- Central Powers forces can move into or out of territories contested between them and Russia at any time (but Russia does not fight).
- Russian units will not participate in any battles.
- Rules restricting land unit movement out of contested territories no longer apply to Russian territories as long as the Central Powers keep at least one infantry in the contested territory.
_8) Central Powers continue to collect income for any Russian territories they control. - Central Powers do not collect income from contested territories.
#2 above says that all Russian units not in orig Russian territories are removed from play. This would include territories outside of orig Russian land that are contested by Russia (shared w/enemy), or in complete control by the Russians. The second part of the statement is somewhat confusing, but backs that up saying that units in Russian controlled territories (not in orig Russian land) are removed. Serbia, Romania, and Holland aren’t orig Russian territories. They were activated by Russia (or in case of Holland may have been given to Russia), but wouldn’t count as orig Russian territories. This would also include any territorial gains by the Russians in Turkey (or elsewhere).
I think the rules need to clarify that once Russian units are removed from a territory outside of the orig Russian territories, that Russia also relinquishes control of said territory. If the Russians are the only units in that territory when their units are removed, then control would be given back to the original owner (CP), or in case of Serbia/Romania would be up for grabs to the the first power to enter it I would assume.
I’m sure this is the intent of the rule, and will be clarified at some point.
-
I’m not suggesting that Russia invades Holland. I’m asking what happens when Germany attacks Holland, and Russia is nominated by the Allies to take control of Holland and its forces. My understanding is that Russian units are placed for the Dutch, and that Russia in effect assumes control of the country and continues to do so if it is Allied held, even if it is liberated from CP occupation and there are no Russian/Dutch units anywhere near the tt. The same thing might apply to Spain or Ethiopia.
Hopefully DJensen is correct and there’s a rule stating clearly that Russia gives up control of tts outside Russia itself. But again, the distinction he quoted between original Russian tts and Russian controlled tts suggests this might not be the case.
And since the CPs may not enter uncontested Russian held tts this means that such are safety zones for the Allies (who have no such restriction) allowing them to build up large forces in complete safety.
I suggested some time ago that sides cannot nominate who controls an invaded neutral; it should be strictly delineated who gets where largely according to proximity, giving us:
Norway: UK - Germany
Sweden: Russia - Germany
Denmark: UK - Germany
Holland: UK - Germany
Switzerland: Italy - Austria
Spain & Colonies: France - Austria
Greece: Italy - Austria
Ethiopia: Italy - Germany
Persia: Russia - Turkey
Afghanistan: UK - TurkeyI would say that if Russia is in Revolution, you must remove all Russian control markers. Then it’s up to the remaining players as to who can establish control of the area to place its marker and start collecting cash. If there are units of only one Ally in the tt when RR occurs then its automatic, if none its the first country of either side to move units in. Until then consider the tt to be in a state of anarchy.
-
@WILD:
I’m sure this is the intent of the rule, and will be clarified at some point.
Some point being, what, the Second Edition?
-
I would say that if Russia is in Revolution, you must remove all Russian control markers. Then it’s up to the remaining players as to who can establish control of the area to place its marker and start collecting cash. If there are units of only one Ally in the tt when RR occurs then its automatic, if none its the first country of either side to move units in. Until then consider the tt to be in a state of anarchy.
Not sure if that would be a good idea. The other allies can’t get to Russia easily, so if a revolution is forced, it will ALL become CPs controlled and a rather large IPC boon to them. At least if you weren’t using the optional rule, the CPs would have to take Moscow.
-
@WILD:
I’m sure this is the intent of the rule, and will be clarified at some point.
Some point being, what, the Second Edition?
Maybe we should wait to see the entire rule book before we jump off the deep end. There very well could be a side bar, or more info on the matter at hand. If there are some problems with wording, or intent Krieghund is pretty damn quick at clearing things up once the game is released.
Don’t give me that crap about ppl may not know about a Faq, or play only OOB etc… They will work it out on their own, or know someone on one of these forums. In today’s age they would have to be living in a cave or on a deserted island w/o power to be so narrow minded, or just choose to be that way (and that’s their problem).
Edit, below is how I would see it too (basically said the same thing). Removal of control markers line clears things up nicely. Once Russian units, and control markers are removed most territories would revert back to their orig owner, or be given to a power having units left after the withdraw of Russian forces. There could be some territories up for grabs (first come first served).
I would say that if Russia is in Revolution, you must remove all Russian control markers. Then it’s up to the remaining players as to who can establish control of the area to place its marker and start collecting cash. If there are units of only one Ally in the tt when RR occurs then its automatic, if none its the first country of either side to move units in. Until then consider the tt to be in a state of anarchy.
-
Removing control markers has the nasty problem of respawning neutral armies. If Russia took Sweden, fighting and beating its standing army, then vanishes and leaves no trace Sweden was ever invaded, now their home army is reborn.
-
Removing control markers has the nasty problem of respawning neutral armies. If Russia took Sweden, fighting and beating its standing army, then vanishes and leaves no trace Sweden was ever invaded, now their home army is reborn.
:roll: I doubt that’s the case. Who would play that way anyway?
-
While we’re on the subject, I’d like to say that the idea that Russia went from an Imperial government to a Communist state overnight is a very Western (if not American) idea, and grossly oversimplifies the actual events.
I’ll be working on house rules that correctly model the Provisional Government, the Bolshevik uprising, and the Civil War in Western Russia.
:roll:
-
Another reason the Revolution could be a good thing for the Allies is that it helped bring America further towards the Allies, as Wilson saw the Imperial regime in the same light as those of the Central Powers.
Therefore versions with an American entry track would see the RR move the USA a couple of stages further towards intervention. -
What is your Revolution/Morale tracker based on Flashman (if you’ve posted it in another thread, feel free to direct me there)? If it’s based purely on casualties, I might have a problem with that…
-
Casualties
Loss of territory
Failure to make a major attack in a turn
Having your capital bombed
War fatigue (increases at the end of every year)
Morale can go up as well as down, but the trend for every power should be downwards, giving the game a natural lifespan as successive empires collapse.
I also have a two-stage breakdown; Disorder & Revolution. It’s possible to recover from the first, very difficult to come back from the second. Think of them in terms of the two Russian Revolutions. In disorder a power continues to fight, but with outbreaks of mutiny; in Revolution civil war breaks out. A country in Revolution is considered defeated for game victory purposes.
-
Ok, I like that. There were major propaganda factors at play, and often the casualty statistics were grossly misreported.
I’ve been reading The Myth of the Great War (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War-Military-History/dp/0060084332), and I was surprised to find that up until the last year of the war, Allied losses on the Western Front were consistently double German losses, but they were reported to the general public (and the civilian government) to be grossly lopsided in the other direction.
In the end, it was a combination of factors that caused the revolutions in Europe, and from what you’ve posted here, it seems like you’ve represented that well.
-
Also discussed in this thread:
-
Ossel I recomended that book a while back. Best WW1 book I ever read. Really puts in perspective how close the Germans were to winning the war. His last paragraph in the book is fantastic writing.
-
When I play this game, I’m going to have all unoriginally Russian territories stay under control of Russia but allow them to be occupied by both Allies and CP, like friendly neutrals from Global. My rationale is that everything with a Russian-control marker can’t be occupied, but with a neutral or aligned marker can.
-
Russia should just turn into one giant strict neutral.
Though that ignores the ability of the Allies to help the White Russians, the neutral rule is the most simple.It’s lame that the whole thing turns into one giant Sahara.
-
When I play this game, I’m going to have all unoriginally Russian territories stay under control of Russia but allow them to be occupied by both Allies and CP, like friendly neutrals from Global. My rationale is that everything with a Russian-control marker can’t be occupied, but with a neutral or aligned marker can.
So the CPs can’t attack Holland?
Serbia and Romania are off limits?
You need to remove all Russian control markers otherwise the game is broken.
Suggested Topics
