France question

@krieghund

Yeah, but in reality it wouldn’t make any sense.

Anyhow, it’s good to clarify.

@the_good_captain It is only during the pre-emptive artillery strike that tanks don’t cancel hits. Per the following paragraph, the land combat is conducted normally, except for battleship bombardment.

@the_good_captain Yes, that’s correct.

No but you’re close. You can’t move troops and then load them on a transport. You have to wait until next turn to load them onto the transport. You can move a transport, load troops, and then complete your move with the transport and drop off the troops. You can load one troop, move the transport, load another troop, then complete your transport movement, then unload both troops but they have to unload in the same territory. You just can’t move troops to get to a transport or move troops after you unload them.

To support CdeG, although I have played 1914 just twice, both games featured an axis focus on taking out Russia (no Russian Revolution) while Turkey holds on, leading to an axis victory.

@UKcommander:

That does not preclude a player from moving from a friendly territory, into a second friendly territory, and then into a hostile territory two spaces away does it?

That is exactly what the rules prevent. You must use your full movement to enter a hostile territory (one that contains no friendly units); think of this in the same way that you can’t move ground units before loading onto a transport.

You can move units multiple spaces into a contested territory though, and they would participate in an attack in said contested territory if you made one.

That’s exactly right, why should a stupid piece of land come between two best friends who fought each other many times since 1800….previous animosities have no effect on future relationships.

Just like Hitler and Stalin joining together 1939. Neither of them had any suspicion of the other and knew the 10 year pact would be able to be renewed. They must have figured the pact would last into 1979. It was so obvious right?

The point of the sentence I quoted is simply to differentiate “regional territories” from “colonies”.  Regional territories can trace a line through contiguous original territories back to the capital, while colonies are removed from the capital.  The only difference this really makes is that colonies of minor powers are handled a little differently than their capitals.  Since minor powers don’t have regional territories anyway, this sentence is more about “flavor” than anything else.