Yeah, but in reality it wouldn’t make any sense.
Anyhow, it’s good to clarify.
Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
-
The Russian Revolution has the following effects:
-
Russia will no longer have a turn, and will no longer be considered to be either friend or enemy to any other power.
-
Serbia and Romania will be treated as minor neutral powers for the remainder of the game.
-
All Russian units outside of original Russian territories will be immediately removed from the board, and Russia will immediately relinquish control of any non-original territories it may hold, including those of formerly aligned minor neutral powers.�  If units belonging to other Allied powers are in these territories, control will be established using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory (see “Land Unitsâ€, page 15), otherwise these territories will be uncontrolled until another power moves into them and will not mobilize units when entered.
-
Any original Russian territories that are contested at the time of the revolution will be considered to be shared for the remainder of the game. Â Shared territories that have no Russian units in them will each have one Russian infantry added to them to represent Russia’s interest in them.
-
Attacks may no longer be made by either side in original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.
-
The Central Powers may no longer move units into territories controlled by Russia.�  Central Powers forces can move into or out of territories shared between them and Russia at any time, but the Central Powers must maintain at least one infantry unit in each such territory at all times.�  Central Powers do not collect income from shared territories.�  Rules restricting land unit movement out of contested territories (see “Land Unitsâ€, page 15) will not apply to these shared territories.
-
Other Allied powers may no longer move units into original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.�  Any such units remaining in those territories at the end of their next respective turn will be removed from the board at that time.
-
Original Russian territories that are controlled by the Central Powers at the time of the revolution are considered to have no original controller for the remainder of the game.�  If such a territory is captured by an Allied power, that power takes control rather than returning it to Russia.�  If such a territory is left without units in it after a battle due to both sides being eliminated, it will not be controlled by any power (place any national control marker on it face down to denote this status) until a power moves units into it.
I think this situation will be not as rare as we might initially think:
Germany controls Moscow. Later, UK or USA moves in and contests Moscow (quite easy since they can dump in adjacent Karelia). If at least one of those units remains in Moscow at the end of Russia’s next turn (and the 4 territories are controlled of course), then the Revolution will occur. Because of the rule I bolded, at this point the CP can never get Moscow.
The only ways for the CP to avoid this is to either stack enough units in Moscow that it can’t be successfully contested or somehow ensure that they do not control 3 tt’s adjacent to Moscow. The problem with the former is that since combat only lasts 1 round, it is a LOT harder to post an Army that will eradicate the enemy in 1 round than it is to post an army that in other versions of A&A would have held the territory. The problem with the latter is that it encourages the CP to avoid taking certain territories on the way to or after taking Moscow, when any other capital getting taken means its open season on their territories. The CP can’t un-control the revolution triggering territories, and moving out of Moscow (if they even did have a turn to do it before Russia’s) doesn’t prevent the Revolution anyways. Unless the CP nonsensically forces itself to avoid taking the Russian territories (involved in the Revolution) AFTER they have already taken the capital, they are in constant danger of just one little allied unit surviving in Moscow to the next Russian turn away from Moscow, and half of their victory requirements, being gone FOREVER.
The Revolution is still quite abusable by the Allies.
To cut out all of the gamey rubbish with the Allies abusing the Revolution, especially since it seems according to most every report I have read that the CP has it harder in the game, it would be best just to amend the victory conditions to include the CP winning in the case of the Revolution having occurred and Paris or London being under CP control. Even making the Revolution no longer active (able to happen) after a CP controls Moscow would be better for the CP.
-
-
I tend to agree.
I had always assumed that Moscow would still count towards a CP victory after Revolution. When the official ruling stated otherwise, I immediately thought why would the CPs bother driving into Russia if Moscow can be denied to them precisely because they are successful? It practically dictates that they then have to take Paris and Rome, while either one is difficult enough to achieve from distant Berlin and Vienna with the Allies shipping units in by sea.
In addition my own version of Revolution rules splits the Russians into two factions, so control of Moscow is disputed between these AND the two main alliances; I have never been comfortable with the idea of areas of Russia simply being sealed off from the war outside; this is not what happened.
Ultimately, my own version actually proves the simpler to implement - even though it requires adding a new power and unit set to the game.
If the Revolution works broadly in favour of the Central Powers (which it should since it is the successes of their armies that bring it about), then I think it may have to be moved so that it occurs at the end of a Central Powers turn; then if they get too many units trapped in Russia it is largely their own lookout.
But somehow the mechanism whereby the CPs might decide it is against their interests to capture a tt, and therefore decide not to attack it, should be removed.
-
If you are moving units into a territory both by land and amphibiously, one infantry unit must move in by land, unless you already have one there.
Does “already” in this case mean at the start of the turn like it usually does, or does it mean that if you unload unopposed into a TT during your move phase, your artillery can move in without an inf from an adjacent territory?
-
I tend to agree.
I had always assumed that Moscow would still count towards a CP victory after Revolution. When the official ruling stated otherwise, I immediately thought why would the CPs bother driving into Russia if Moscow can be denied to them precisely because they are successful? It practically dictates that they then have to take Paris and Rome, while either one is difficult enough to achieve from distant Berlin and Vienna with the Allies shipping units in by sea.
If the Revolution works broadly in favour of the Central Powers (which it should since it is the successes of their armies that bring it about), then I think it may have to be moved so that it occurs at the end of a Central Powers turn; then if they get too many units trapped in Russia it is largely their own lookout.
But somehow the mechanism whereby the CPs might decide it is against their interests to capture a tt, and therefore decide not to attack it, should be removed.
Agreed. Until the Revolution is worth the effort, we will be playing without the RR rules. Moscow will be just another capital.
-
I thought the Revolution rules would help Germany, but it would seem to be the opposite.
As the CPs I am better playing without. You expend all that effort to move slowly East, to be denied most of the income, then the war is going on elsewhere and you cannot reach it! -
I think one CP advantage of forcing the revolution is that you basically seal off the east. If you capture Moscow, you still need to defend it from the British. If Moscow is captured, the British player should be making an effort to liberate by pumping in forces through Kazakhstan or Karelia. Once a revolution is triggered, these avenues should be closed and the British would have to go through the Ottomans if they want to get to the Germans and Austrians from the east. With the revolution, you can push everything west, with a capture of Moscow, you have to devote forces to keep it. I am not sure if that is worth the trade off of a victory city or not, but the revised rules do make it more worthwhile for the CP than the OOB rules did.
-
@Texas:
I think one CP advantage of forcing the revolution is that you basically seal off the east. If you capture Moscow, you still need to defend it from the British. If Moscow is captured, the British player should be making an effort to liberate by pumping in forces through Kazakhstan or Karelia. Once a revolution is triggered, these avenues should be closed and the British would have to go through the Ottomans if they want to get to the Germans and Austrians from the east. With the revolution, you can push everything west, with a capture of Moscow, you have to devote forces to keep it. I am not sure if that is worth the trade off of a victory city or not, but the revised rules do make it more worthwhile for the CP than the OOB rules did.
That might be an advantage, but wittman’s post above convinces me that the drawbacks outweigh the advantages.
-
@wittmann:
I thought the Revolution rules would help Germany, but it would seem to be the opposite.
As the CPs I am better playing without. You expend all that effort to move slowly East, to be denied most of the income, then the war is going on elsewhere and you cannot reach it!Agreed. I will play without Russian Revolution rules until this has been worked out. It is optional after all.
-
My game was stalled for a day or two while I clarified the RR rules, so now I can proceed on the assumption that the following effect of revolution are correct:
1. Moscow was contested R & A. It is now shared. Austria can move out some units, but must leave at least one infantry there at all times.
The UK units in Livonia can attack the Austrians here in the one turn they get; any surviving Brits vanish into thin air (labour camps) at the end of the UK turn. If they defeat the Austrians, control of Moscow reverts to Russia.2. Finland and Kazakhstan were Russian controlled but empty. They are now no-go areas for both sides.
3. Livonia was contested B & G. A Soviet Commisar unit must be placed here to supervise local authority. The enemies are free to attack each other, but the Brits must leave at the end of their turn. If the Germans win the tt becomes shared, but the CPs cannot take control. If the Brits win, it immediately reverts to Russian control. If it remains contested between G & B, the Germans must subsequently leave an infantry unit there even though they have no chance of controlling the tt even when the Brits have all been marched off to Siberia.
4. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine & Tartarstan were CP controlled. They may leave these areas empty, but still collect income from them. The Allies can attack them in their one turn in Russia.
5. Sevastopol is Russian controlled but occupied by the British Indian army. That army may:
1. Attack the Turks in Mesopotamia
2. Stay where they are and vanish at the end of the turn
3. Attack the Turks in Tartarstan or the Austrians in Ukraine, then vanish at the end of the turn
4. Attack the Turks in Romania and, if they survive, remain there
Since Sevastopol is Russian controlled, the CP forces may not attack the UK forces there and take control of the tt
-
If you are moving units into a territory both by land and amphibiously, one infantry unit must move in by land, unless you already have one there.
Does “already” in this case mean at the start of the turn like it usually does?
Yes.
-
1. Moscow was contested R & A. It is now shared. Austria can move out some units, but must leave at least one infantry there at all times.
Correct.
The UK units in Livonia can attack the Austrians [in Moscow] in the one turn they get; any surviving Brits vanish into thin air (labour camps) at the end of the UK turn. If they defeat the Austrians, control of Moscow reverts to Russia.
Nope. “Attacks may no longer be made by either side in original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.”
2. Finland and Kazakhstan were Russian controlled but empty. They are now no-go areas for both sides.
Correct.
3. Livonia was contested B & G. A Soviet Commisar unit must be placed here to supervise local authority.
Correct.
The enemies are free to attack each other [in Livonia]
Nope. “Attacks may no longer be made by either side in original Russian territories that are either controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.”
but the Brits must leave at the end of their turn.
Correct. Well, actually they must either leave during their turn or be removed at the end of it.
4. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine & Tartarstan were CP controlled. They may leave these areas empty, but still collect income from them. The Allies can attack them in their one turn in Russia.
The Allies can attack them there any time that they want. The prohibition against Allied occupation only applies to original Russian territories controlled by Russia or shared between Russia and the Central Powers.
5. Sevastopol is Russian controlled but occupied by the British Indian army. That army may:
1. Attack the Turks in Mesopotamia
2. Stay where they are and vanish at the end of the turn
Correct.
3. Attack the Turks in Tartarstan or the Austrians in Ukraine, then vanish at the end of the turn
They can attack, but they won’t vanish at the end of the turn, as these territories are CP-controlled and will remain in play.
4. Attack the Turks in Romania and, if they survive, remain there
Correct.
Since Sevastopol is Russian controlled, the CP forces may not attack the UK forces there and take control of the tt
Correct.
-
Hey Krieg can fighters stay in a contested territory as long as you have units there?
-
Hey Krieg can fighters stay in a contested territory as long as you have units there?
Yes
-
I thought so BJ just wanted to be sure. Thanks
-
-
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
-
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.
-
Hey Krieg, I’m 90% sure on something, but I wanted to confirm:
Are units that move into an enemy tt to contest it required to enter combat? Or can you initially contest a tt without entering combat? I’m pretty sure according to the rules, the latter is true, because ‘combat occurs when …. you decide to commit your units to an attack.’
Thanks
The way I found it simplest to think of it is that if your movement changes the status of the territory from not contested to contested, you must attack. If it was already contested, you can choose. Haven’t yet got a one line mantra for this, but maybe someone has something to share. It’s a rule that I think is one of the easier ones to forget.
Where in the rules does it say this? Anyway, I’ll wait for the official answer.
-
I don’t think you can avoid combat in a contested tt……if so…evryone will want to defend and not to attack…In D-day…i think…you could not avoid combat in a contested tt
-
Yes if on your turn you contest a territory, you don’t have to order your troops out of the trenches into no man’s land; you can hunker down if you want.
Suggested Topics
