What do you think would be cool Russian Revolution rules for upcoming WWI game?

  • Larry’s statement said there will be special Russian Revolution rules.

    Even though we know little about the details of the game, so it’s hard to see how exactly the rules will fit or if they will be plausible with the map/setup, what do you want to see? What do you think we will see?

    Free air-high five for the person who guesses closest to right!

  • What I want to see at the moment:

    _Russian Revolution.
    Use the IPC chart and the unrest marker (a roundel included with the game) to track Russian unrest.

    Start at 20 on the chart. If, at the start of any Russian turn, the total is equal to or greater than 100 (for example), the Russian Revolution occurs (see details later)

    Add to the unrest:
    2: Each time an originally Russian territory is conquered by a CP.
    1: Each time an originally CP territory under the control of Russia is conquered by a CP
    5: Each time an originally Russian IC is captured by a CP.
    10: Each time Moscow is captured by a CP.
    20: Each time Petrograd is captured by a CP
    3: Each time Russia attacks a territory with a land unit but doesn’t capture the territory in that attack.
    5: Each Russian TURN that ends with Petrograd under CP control.

    Subtract from the unrest:
    2: Each time an originally CP territory is conquered by Russia.
    1: Each time an originally Russian territory under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia.
    5: Each time Moscow under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
    10: Each time Petrograd under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
    10: Each time a CP capital is conquered by Russia.

    These can stack. (So losing Petrograd is a disaster, as it should be)

    Most of these changes in unrest happen when there are changes in the income, so they can be done at the same time; it’s quite convenient.

    Let’s say that the map is about the size of Europe 1940 (which I hear Larry said). It depends on the game, but as you can see, the Revolution could happen in � a few rounds if Russia is tanking the game on purpose, or after many, many rounds or not at all if Russia is doing well. This is a very historical approach because it ties the revolution to the success of the Russian military, which, reading most any history book on the subject will tell you was a huge factor.

    As for what the Revolution results in, that can have a lot of cool possibilities. Flashman’s Red/Black idea  seems pretty solid if there is to be some sort of civil war, but Russia being out of the war and the CP gettting some border territories seems good too._

    What I am guessing we will see:

    Once Russia’s income is below a certain amount on their turn, they have to get it back to a certain level on their next turn or Revolution happens. All Russian units are removed, CP gets certain border territories, CP units in russia outside of those move to the nearest CP territory (or choose if tie for nearest), and no other Russian territories may be entered for rest of game.

  • I bet you without equivity that the Russian revolution will not be allowed before a fixed game turn, unless St. Petersburg falls early.

  • Customizer

    Revolution shouldn’t be linked closely to income. Remember Germany had 3 times the land it started with when it surrendered, and was on the verge of revolution.

    The map being “the size of Europe 40” is pretty meaningless unless you assume it means that, for example, Germany has the same number of areas.

    Larry said America enters the war automatically on turn 4 or was it 3?

    Presumably something similar happens to Russia - it simply drops out on a specific turn, but again the difficulty is determining what happens to the Russian border with Germany.

    I also think the number of casualties suffered needs to be a factor. Perhaps each area has a finite number of infantry it can supply; after that attempts to raise more men from it cause mutinies and pushes the country further towards revolt.

  • @Flashman:

    I also think the number of casualties suffered needs to be a factor. Perhaps each area has a finite number of infantry it can supply; after that attempts to raise more men from it cause mutinies and pushes the country further towards revolt.

    Might be a little work to keep track of, but sounds interesting.

  • I think it’s important to remember that this has been described as a “slightly streamlined” 1942 level game in terms of rules and things to keep track of.  I guarantee you won’t see anything as in depth as vonlettows list above.

    We will probably see something that is dependent on one or two territories, or an IPC count.  Turn # could matter as well.  Definitely not all three of those will be considered together though, it will be one or two. I’m no sure if the fate of something as important as a whole nation will be decided on a dice roll, but we will see.

  • Customizer

    Another factor I’d use - Bombing.

    The effect of having your capital bombed has been described as 20 times more damaging to morale than on material. For WWI this is definitely the case, because bombs did relatively little physical damage.

    The actual effects of German Gothas bombing London were:

    1. It forced Britain to develop its own long range bomber to retaliate against Germany. This was despite the fact that the cost of building them far exceeded any damage they could do, but had to be done because the public demanded revenge.

    2. British worker went absent from working in factories they thought would be targeted by bombers.

    3. Britain was forced to reassign several fighter squadrons to home defence, weakening their air power at the front.

    4. Material damage to industry was negligible.


    The first time your capital is bombed move 3 steps towards revolution

    Any other time a home factory is bombed move 1 step

    This should make “SBR” worthwhile even if the damage to industry is unimportant.

  • Customizer

    Revised my map - derived from an old A&A Europe version.

    Added many VCs, with the idea that capture/loss of these effects national morale, rather than victory conditions as such.

    Each is cited at least 2 spaces apart.

    Several placed in North Africa which might be questioned; but if Turkey gets on a roll it could mop these up, and after all considered them all part of lost provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

  • I have not read it, but what about Crowns in the Gutter

    by Ted Racier, the game designer of Paths of Glory?

    It is published by Decison Games Strategy and Tactics Press

    Has anybody read this?


  • Hmm.  Maybe we’ll see something like a die roll every turn, which has the possibility of adding or subtracting from a cumulative total.  “Revolution points” start at 0.  When they reach 6, revolution occurs.  At the end of each Russian turn, roll a die, and consult the following chart:

    1 or less= subtract 2 points
    2= subtract 1 point
    3-4= no change
    5= add 1 point
    6 or more= add 2 points

    Cumulative points cannot be reduced below 0.  Add 1 to the die roll for each original Russian territory in enemy hands.  Subtract 1 for each original CP territory in Russian hands.

    As for the results of the revolution, I don’ know.  Possibly:

    1.  Maybe Russia just stops fighting.  CPs retain control of any Russian territory they already control.  Russia gives back any original CP territory it controls, and any Russian units in those territories are removed from the map.  Russia stops building, and all Russian units are frozen in place.  If CP attacks any Russian controlled territory after this point, the Revolution is cancelled, and Russia resumes play.


    2.  Maybe it’s a slower death.  Roll two dice each turn and subtract that amount from Russia’s income.  Or maybe roll for each Russian controlled territory to determine if it joins the Revolution. They rebel on a roll of 1-2.  On all subsequent turns, roll again for each territory still controlled by the Tzar.  All units within a territory that rebels are now replaced with neutral units, which are at war with Russia, but not with the CP (unless attacked by the CP).  If at any point the Tzar actually ends his turn with no rebel units on the map, the revolution is considered suppressed.

    I don’t like the second option as much, because it’s more complicated.  But maybe someone out there has some modifications in mind that would streamline it?

  • Customizer

    I prefer option 2, with the following mods:

    The neutrals Bolsheviks “Red” units are controlled by the CPs. They cannot move outside Russia. The loyal Russian units are still part of the Allies, and can be supported by Allied intervention to try to keep an eastern front against Germany going.
    Far from being “frozen in place” these two faction fought out a ferocious civil war.

    I also add “Black” nationalist units to represent local uprisings.

    But for balance I think every main nation should be on the revolution track. So if revolution breaks out in Germany the Allies get to control German “Reds”.

    I also believe there needs to be a 2-stage breakdown:

    1. Disorder, where armies mutiny & fleets refuse to sail; but no rebel units are placed and its still possible for the country to recover.  Arguably France was in this state in 1917:


    2. Revolution, in which “Red” and “Black” units can be placed, and the country breaks down into civil war, stopping production of mechanical units. If all nations of a side are in this stage or have been occupied that alliance has lost the war.

    In fact, its most unlikely that a major nation will be physically occupied before it reaches the revolution stage.

  • Customizer

    I suggest the following in the event of the Revolution occurring:

    A series of small, connected abstract boxes are included to represent the course of the Trans-Siberian railway. This will connect at the western end to Yekaterinburg and thence to Moscow and the wider Russian network.

    At the eastern end is the Vladivostok box, which is of course also a port. Connected to this (i.e. via the Pacific Ocean) are 3 further boxes, representing Allied intervention:

    UK/Canada Box

    US Box

    Japan Box

    The UK & US (when at war) can move units directly from Canada and the US respectively to their own Siberia Box.

    Japan is activated when the Revolution occurs, and can raise units directly into the Japan box, and thence to Vladivostok. Japan might have an IPC value of, say, 8 allowing it to build units up to this value each turn.

    These interventionist forces can be railed directly from Vladivostok to anywhere in Russia, provided all connecting spaces are held by friendly forces (i.e. White Russians are friendly, Reds are not). TTs captured by interventionists revert to “normal” (White) Russian control but must be physically occupied to remain so. If they are evacuated roll as per Revolution to determine local White/Red loyalty.

    If part of the railway is held by hostile forces then interventionists must of course fight their way along it tt by tt. For supply purposes SIV armies are considered in supply by rail via Vladivostok from their own boxes. Bolsheviks and CPs cannot attack the 3 Allied Siberian boxes.

    There were in fact small Italian and French contingents in Siberia, but not worth bothering with here. It can (and will) be said that the SIVs only numbered about 100,000, but against disorganized local Red militias this was considerable. If the Russian Civil War aspect is wanted this can depict the full picture without expanding the map to include the whole of Asia.

    It might be possible to allow SIVs before the Revolution to support Russia, but this is unhistorical (as far as I know) and would harm the game balance.


  • I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

  • Customizer

    In reference to national morale tracking, I’ve suggested that each victory and defeats move a country’s marker up and down.

    This brings to mind the issue of powers sharing a tt. I assume that all versions will allow the Western Allies to share areas on the western front, and therefore defend together. Wouldn’t this create a big problem if, as seems likely, Larry sticks to giving each of 8 nations its own turn?
    That is, France, Britain, USA and if you want Italy can all defend a tt together, but only attack individually. That means that, unless they build an absolutely HUGE multi-national stack in Eastern France, they will never be able to attack a German tt with enough force to win. Conversely, if they do have a big mixed force, they’ll be able to hit Germany with 4 successive attacks without the Germans being able to reinforce the tt, except perhaps with Austrian units.

    So the “All CPs play, then All Allies play” seems the only fair way to set turn order. Yet I can’t see Larry doing this - “that’s the way its always been; that’s the way it always will be”.

    But to get back to morale tracking, if a multi-national force does attack together and win a tt, who gets to control it? Who gets the glory (+ morale)? If its shared, then do Italy get the boost even if they only supply one unit?  Even if mixed attacks are not possible, armies will still defend together and therefore have to share the glory of a winning defence.

    Does every tt have to be put under the nominal command of a single power? Is it down to who has the most units involved?

    I’ve suggested that the Allies never annex tts, they only liberate them; but Germany and Austria might face the problem. One solution to this (ref my map) is that the board is predetermined into spheres of influence - to use this example Russia north of Pripet is assigned to Germany, south of the marshes to Austria.

    Anyhow, if I don’t find an answer to this perhaps the simplest way to reflect morale is simple numbers of losses. Give the game a “Casualties Box” for all destroyed units; whenever a country has 10 units in there reduce its morale by one and return the units to the pool.

  • Customizer

    OK, let me go with this for a bit. Personally, I think the idea of a mandatory Russian Revolution at the end of what, turn 4, is wrong and potentially game-wrecking.

    But lets assume for argument’s sake that it is a set rule, along with America coming in the previous turn.

    The following difficulties occur:

    1. It practically encourages Germany & Austria not to bother fighting on the Eastern Front. As long as they can hold Berlin & Vienna for 4 turns, they know for certain that the Russians will then vanish into thin air, allowing the CPs to simply walk back into any tt they’ve lost, and perhaps even into vacated Russian tt.

    2. What happens to minor powers controlled by Russia - the map suggests this will include Serbia, Montenegro and Romania: do their armies (presumably represented by Russian units) also disappear? Romania would only have 2 turns as an active power before it AUTOMATICALLY becomes, in effect, part of Austria. Or are these minor countries handed over to another Allied player, in which case how do you decide which are their units, and which are vanishing Russians?

    3. I’ll assume that other Allies are not permitted on Russian soil before the revolution, otherwise they’ll be encouraged to move French/British/Italian units into Russia simply to hold the tts after the Russians are gone.

    At the very least, I think Russia should be able to delay the revolution by winning battles, holding/capturing tt and keeping casualties down. But then, I think the same system should be applied to EVERY country; after all it was fear of revolution that forced the CPs to sue for peace.

    I’ve drawn a border on my map reflecting the Brest-Litovsk treaty line. If we assume that the revolution automatically leads to the treaty, then Germany & Austria should be allowed to enter into every Russian tt west of this line; that is Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, White Russia, Ukraine, Crimea; and Turkey into the Trans-Caucasus.
    That’s a lot of tt for the CP to get simply by waiting for an unavoidable Russian collapse. If this is the rule, then I would suggest that the CP must physically occupy each one of these Russian tts with a land unit in order to exploit (collect income) from it.

    In fact, I think this should be a general rule - in a tt not originally your own, you should have to hold it down with units. Consider that all the tts listed above are not ethnically Russian; the inhabitants were more concerned with setting up their own governments than what was happening in Russia. So, if such a tt is vacated by Germany, it becomes independent.

    What I guess the official rule will be is this:

    The CPs get to keep only the Russian tt they hold when Russia collapses. In other words, the revolution is set in stone; the terms of the treaty are ignored. This is as far as I can see the only way of keeping both sides interested in fighting the war in the east on a relatively normal basis before any mandatory Russian drop-out.

    Another treaty condition to consider is that of returning POWs. About 2 million Austrian and 1/4 million Germans returned home under the treaty, many to be redirected into the army depots. Make this a set number, or dependent on the number of casualties suffered? Again, it seems wrong to enforce the exact historical conditions of 1917/18 on a game starting in 1914.


  • @Yavid:

    I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

    Oooooo, I like this, nice and simple.

  • Customizer



    I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

    Oooooo, I like this, nice and simple.

    Just like you.

    Go play Risk.

  • @Flashman:



    I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

    Oooooo, I like this, nice and simple.

    Just like you.

    Go play Risk.

    naw I’ll be cont. to play Axis and Allies seeing as my idea is based loosely on something that has appeared in Axis and Allies game.

  • @Flashman:



    I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

    Oooooo, I like this, nice and simple.

    Just like you.

    Go play Risk.

    Excuse me?

  • @DarthShizNit:


    I think it should be something along the lines like Japan’s Surrender in the Old Pacific game

    Oooooo, I like this, nice and simple.

    Yeah, and the main thing is that the Russian Revolution using that mechanic will almost always be more sensical from a historical viewpoint than if it were scheduled, not to mention the cool fact that the Germans would have to earn the revolution and Russia can do something to avoid it.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 4
  • 2
  • 11
  • 6
  • 24
  • 49
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures