More News! Russia!



  • I think an VP counter like in the original Pacific will probably be my house rule.


  • Customizer

    Well I’ve looked again at the setup photo and I’m pretty sure I’ve got Sevastopol right. I would definitely have added a “Caucasus” tt between this and Turkey.

    Its pretty clear they started with the Diplomacy map and added a few tts here and there. Even the tt names betray this - in Diplomacy, areas with a supply centre are named for a city, other for a region. With only capital cities in this game it makes the arrangement anachronistic - “Budapest” should be Hungary, for example. It makes it look rather slap-dash.

    One change I’ve made is to make Berlin larger so there is no Munich-Silesia border - it looked silly with a “Saxony Corridor”, we’ll see very soon what Larry and co went for.

    @Croesus:

    @Flashman:

    OK, here’s a version based on Diplomacy. So far, the map in essence IS Diplomacy, with minor tweaks.

    I’ve yet to deal with the Atlantic SZs, but this is substantially what I expect given the obviously heavy Diplomacy influence, and of course minus southern Africa.

    Bulgaria might be in fact a German satrapy, can’t quite tell.

    The Turkish tank trek to Tartarstan is definitely on!

    That looks pretty darn good! I’m sure he meant Sevastopol adjacency by sea. If he left it empty, and Ottomans had 1 transport, then his statement makes sense.
    Even if that IS the case, it makes sense to me to have a frontier there that matters, so Russia wants to defend it a lot



  • Well gargantua I think my 3 bullet points are way less harsh than what Larry has.
    Under his rules, the CP needs 3 territories that touch Moscow AND a 4th that doesnt (ottomans)

    My suggestion the CP needs only 3 total territories, only one needs to touvh Moscow, mut all the CPs need their capitals.

    If these conditions occur after turn 8 surrender is automatic if the conditions are met.
    A die roll negates the possibility of the revolution being guaranteed early in the game.

    Then again…if russia lost so fast, and so bad, perhaps they would sue for peace.


  • Customizer

    Slightly updated map:

    Colours are a bit closer (I think - I am colour blind).

    Restored Saxony corridor.

    Three changes I’m guessing they might have made to this:

    Venice borders Switzerland

    Berlin borders Bohemia

    Paris borders Marseilles

    Axis&Allies1914LarryHarrisDiplomacyFreakb.PNG


  • Customizer

    If the Russian Revolution can occur in such a (relatively) simple fashion, why not apply the same principle to everyone else?

    Or is Germany considered so stable politically that it’ll keep fighting if Berlin is the last tt it holds?

    History does not support this.

    I may have missed it, but can I assume that in a Russia that has dropped out of the war, Moscow counts as a captured capital for CP victory purposes?



  • I was trying to follow the Romanian part where Russia considers the Romanian units her own.

    Does that mean if you reinforce a contested location, all allied units participate both offensively and defensively?



  • 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.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    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.


  • Customizer

    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:



  • @Flashman:

    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


  • Customizer

    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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 10
  • 29
  • 20
  • 14
  • 7
  • 3
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

82
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts