I’m very tempted to use these rules in my first game.
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis-allies-wwi-1914-preview-the-russian-revolution/
Like the rules. Love the updates keep them coming. thanks Djensen.
All Russian units outside of original Russian territories or Russian-controlled territories are immediately removed from the board.
Say Russia had been successful in the south against Turkey, but been forced to negotiate by Germany and Austria.
Russian units are still in control of Mesopotamia, Syrian desert and Ankara.
Does the above clause mean that Turkey has in effect permanently lost 3 of its home provinces, and there’s nothing it can do to get them back?
What if the Russians had taken control of Constantinople - this would in effect prevent the CPs from liberating the Turksih capital.
I could even see a scenario where Russia takes Constantinople, then deliberately capitulates (by for example evacuating contested tts) in order to trap the Turks into the permanent loss of their capital and all that goes with it, no chance of a comeback.
Say there are also British units in Syria (the tt having been given a Russian control marker when occupied). Evidently the Turks cannot attack these, but the British units can move out to attack the Turks in Smyrna. Life just isn’t fair sometimes.
The Brits could use the tt to build up a massive force on the border of Turkey, without the CPs being able to do anything to attack it. Presumably this also applies if the Russians have long since left the tt, leaving the UK to defend it.
It depends if “original” is modifying both clauses or not.
But if the tts are all original Russian why the distinction?
Does the rule book once more “imply” without being “explicit”?
Too late for a rewrite?
Tanks in Russia thread from the Strelets forum:
http://pub33.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2833323740&frmid=6&msgid=1022941&cmd=show
Another thought on the “Russian Controlled” question:
What happens if Germany had attacked Holland, which had been given to Russia to control. Russian units are placed, but are all eliminated by the German attack. The Allies then liberate it, and presumably it remains Russian controlled despite there being no Russian units in the west.
The CPs cannot attack Holland because it is “Russian Controlled”, but the Allies can build up a mega-stack there to invade Kiel with complete impunity.
Presumably this also applies to Serbia and Romania; if the Allies capture these tts just once post revolution, they must revert to Russian Control and, once more, become immune to CP attacks.
I think they’d better think it out again…
I believe the rules around territory control cover this. When Russia leaves (no units), they lose control.
Another thought on the “Russian Controlled” question:
What happens if Germany had attacked Holland, which had been given to Russia to control. Russian units are placed, but are all eliminated by the German attack. The Allies then liberate it, and presumably it remains Russian controlled despite there being no Russian units in the west.
The CPs cannot attack Holland because it is “Russian Controlled”, but the Allies can build up a mega-stack there to invade Kiel with complete impunity.
Presumably this also applies to Serbia and Romania; if the Allies capture these tts just once post revolution, they must revert to Russian Control and, once more, become immune to CP attacks.
I think they’d better think it out again…
I believe the rules around territory control cover this. When Russia leaves (no units), they lose control.
Another thought on the “Russian Controlled” question:
What happens if Germany had attacked Holland, which had been given to Russia to control. Russian units are placed, but are all eliminated by the German attack. The Allies then liberate it, and presumably it remains Russian controlled despite there being no Russian units in the west.
The CPs cannot attack Holland because it is “Russian Controlled”, but the Allies can build up a mega-stack there to invade Kiel with complete impunity.
Presumably this also applies to Serbia and Romania; if the Allies capture these tts just once post revolution, they must revert to Russian Control and, once more, become immune to CP attacks.
I think they’d better think it out again…
The rules refer to the territories that Russia controlled before the game even started.
Yea, looks like you have to let the Russians keep territories they have taken.
Not sure why the CP has to accept the armistice if they don’t want to….I mean, the CP could wait a turn or two while the Ottomans cleans house.
Guys I think you are getting a little to technical. It’s pretty clear that you can take back the tt’s the Russians have somehow magically managed to capture, otherwise the game is just plaine broken. All Russian units not in original territory go away, pretty sure that means the CP reoccupies any land the Russians presumably have taken outside of Russia.
All Russian units outside of original Russian territories or Russian-controlled territories are immediately removed from the board.
Say Russia had been successful in the south against Turkey, but been forced to negotiate by Germany and Austria.
Russian units are still in control of Mesopotamia, Syrian desert and Ankara.
Does the above clause mean that Turkey has in effect permanently lost 3 of its home provinces, and there’s nothing it can do to get them back?
I think  Russian-controlled territories are Romania and Serbia. So the Russian units in Mesopotamia, Syria and Ankara are immidiately removed. Since they are liberated I figure Tyrkey will get immidiately income from them.
All Russian units outside of original Russian territories or Russian-controlled territories are immediately removed from the board.
Say Russia had been successful in the south against Turkey, but been forced to negotiate by Germany and Austria.
Russian units are still in control of Mesopotamia, Syrian desert and Ankara.
Does the above clause mean that Turkey has in effect permanently lost 3 of its home provinces, and there’s nothing it can do to get them back?
What if the Russians had taken control of Constantinople - this would in effect prevent the CPs from liberating the Turksih capital.
I could even see a scenario where Russia takes Constantinople, then deliberately capitulates (by for example evacuating contested tts) in order to trap the Turks into the permanent loss of their capital and all that goes with it, no chance of a comeback.
Say there are also British units in Syria (the tt having been given a Russian control marker when occupied). Evidently the Turks cannot attack these, but the British units can move out to attack the Turks in Smyrna. Life just isn’t fair sometimes.
The Brits could use the tt to build up a massive force on the border of Turkey, without the CPs being able to do anything to attack it. Presumably this also applies if the Russians have long since left the tt, leaving the UK to defend it.
Doesn’t this mean the exact opposite - that all tts conquered by Russia are returned to their original owners?
As written the rules said nothing about Russia losing control, just that the CPs cannot attack Russian controlled tt.
It also clearly makes a distinction between original Russian tts, and Russian controlled tt, so the inference is that Russia keeps conquered areas.
Another thing, can we assume that if Russian surrenders but keeps Moscow, that that city nevertheless counts towards the CP’s 2 capitals victory requirements.
Or is it implied but not stated…
If it were not the case, that’s another incentive for Russia to deliberately capitulate.
Also: since the Revolution occurs at the end of the Russian turn,
Because the Allies wants to engineer an advantageous surrender, Russia could, for example, move a single infantry into every CP controlled Russian home tt not needed for fulfilling revolution conditions; then engineer a surrender, leaving the said areas contested but with the CPs unable to attack the Russian interloper and regain the IPCs.
I find it hard to believe that the rules would enable a scenario where Russia makes great gains (in other areas than the Eastern Front obviously), then those gains become essentially neutral tt’s immune to attack because Russia decided to take its ball and go home…
I find it hard to believe that the rules would enable a scenario where Russia makes great gains (in other areas than the Eastern Front obviously), then those gains become essentially neutral tt’s immune to attack because Russia decided to take its ball and go home…
Even if the rules allowed this, I wouldn’t play that way. Its dumb. I would advocate that Triplea also not allow this retardedness.
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.
#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 - Turkey
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.
@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?
