Yet another 1914 game report



  • I DEFINITELY like this. I’ve played on the Allies side twice now (though not as Russia, per se), and both times my teammates and I figured out the best way to “kamikaze” Russia’s army and still trigger the revolution, destroying a large CP stack and denying them a a victory city in one fell swoop!

    @Krieghund:

    It means that when the revolution conditions (as per the Rulebook) are met for the first time (once per game), the Central Powers have a choice.  If they all agree to an armistice, it goes down exactly as indicated on page 14 of the FAQ thread.  If any Central Powers player refuses the armistice, everything continues on as normal - Russia has a new government, but it has no effect on the game.

    Try it out and let me know what you think.



  • @Krieghund:

    It means that when the revolution conditions (as per the Rulebook) are met for the first time (once per game), the Central Powers have a choice.  If they all agree to an armistice, it goes down exactly as indicated on page 14 of the FAQ thread.  If any Central Powers player refuses the armistice, everything continues on as normal - Russia has a new government, but it has no effect on the game.

    Try it out and let me know what you think.

    Two thumbs up for me…i will be using RR rules now!



  • @wittmann:

    BJCard have I missed something?
    Thought it was not necessary to contest Moscow; Russia could control it or contest it.
    I will check p14 of FAQs again.

    Going back a few post, you guys got it right (in later posts). You can either contest Moscow, or it can be Russian controlled. You (as CP) would contest Moscow to trap the Russian army in Moscow if you have the 3+1 territories you need to force the Revolution. If Moscow is contested when Russia’s turn comes up, they  won’t be able to attack the adjacent territories that are in CP control (Walla Revolution). The UK can be the spoiler here though if it is the Germans that force the Revolution, by ampib landings, or by killing off your CP army that is contesting Moscow (coming up from India) before the Russians turn comes up. The turn order is huge when trying to force a Revolution.

    BTW I think it should be up to the CP to decide if the Revolution happens, so the allies can’t use it to their advantage. I’m on-board with it being a one time deal if the CP refuse too.

    I also think that we should look into the CP taking full control of Moscow could also forces a Revolution, and the CP could refuse the deal here as well if it was in their best interest (still can only refuse it once per game). If it is in the best interest for the CP to take Moscow (for VC) then so be it. If it is in the best interest for the CP to force a Revolution to remove the Russian army from the game to preserve thier own resources then cool.

    We had one game were the Russians left Moscow nearly unprotected (only their new builds), so that if the CP took it they would only get a handful of IPCs, but it would preserve their huge Russian army, and the Revolution would be off the table as long as the CP held Moscow. This felt kinda wrong that the Russians would give up Moscow, then have the opportunity destroy the CP army once help arrived (if they even need help). Just my 2 cents.


  • Customizer

    The Russian Civil War is the solution. Logical, historical and in practice easier to implement.



  • @Flashman:

    The Russian Civil War is the solution. Logical, historical and in practice easier to implement.

    Seems more complex than the Revolution actually.


  • Customizer

    Honestly, it isn’t. Once you’ve set it up you have two Russian powers ready to go at each other. Thats it.

    A lot less to remember, like the CPs having to keep a unit in shared tt (whatever the logic for that is).



  • but now you have two powers fighting in Russia; do they act as normal allied to the entente and CPs?  Where do they build units?  What territories are ‘home’ territories?  How many units do they start with?  What order are they played in?


  • Customizer

    They are allied to their respective sides; the only restriction is that the Reds cannot operate outside ORT.

    Whichever side controls Moscow at the end of its turn builds units there.
    Otherwise, each side can place one new infantry in each ORT it controls at the end of its turn.

    I’ve also considered making Karelia/Petrograd a production centre, so its possible both sides may control a capital.

    Regarding cash, only a faction controlling the capital collects and spends; the other is, in effect, treated like any other power that has lost control of its capital. If Moscow is contested neither can collect and build there.

    All ORT are “home” for Russian factions.

    At the time of the Revolution, those units in Moscow, Karelia & Tartarstan become Reds, other Russian units remain Allied.

    Both factions remain in the game until the end; even if one is eliminated its tt can be liberated by its allies.

    Moscow counts as CP victory objective if the Reds control it.



  • How is this “a lot less to remember,” Flashman?  :?
    No, thanks.

    @Flashman:

    They are allied to their respective sides; the only restriction is that the Reds cannot operate outside ORT.

    Whichever side controls Moscow at the end of its turn builds units there.
    Otherwise, each side can place one new infantry in each ORT it controls at the end of its turn.

    I’ve also considered making Karelia/Petrograd a production centre, so its possible both sides may control a capital.

    Regarding cash, only a faction controlling the capital collects and spends; the other is, in effect, treated like any other power that has lost control of its capital. If Moscow is contested neither can collect and build there.

    All ORT are “home” for Russian factions.

    At the time of the Revolution, those units in Moscow, Karelia & Tartarstan become Reds, other Russian units remain Allied.

    Both factions remain in the game until the end; even if one is eliminated its tt can be liberated by its allies.

    Moscow counts as CP victory objective if the Reds control it.


  • Customizer

    Compare it to RR rules as of now.

    Its simpler and more intuitive.

    Of course you need to import Bolshevik units and control markers, but you knew that.



  • I must respectfully disagree.  Adding a ninth playable power (the Communists) is neither simple, nor intuitive.

    @Flashman:

    Of course you need to import Bolshevik units and control markers, but you knew that.

    I did know that; you’ve mentioned it once or twice, I believe.  😃


  • Customizer

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however prejudiced and misguided.



  • @Flashman:

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however prejudiced and misguided.

    No it is not. The Russian Revolution had no connection to the war anymore, this was a totally separate conflict and when the Revolution occurs, the Russians are no longer concerned with what the outcome is for the remaining powers.

    Put this in your house rules if that’s your preference, but the rest of us have no use for adding additional units, control markers, an additional power to the turn sequence. Larry isn’t going to even consider this idea. Kreigs latest modifier to having the CP accept the terms of the revolution effect or decline its effects pretty much makes this optional rule workable if you chose to play with it.

    Kim


  • Customizer

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but that is only your interpretation of events. The Allies considered intervention in the RCW vital to open up the eastern front again and draw CP units away from the west.

    WWII was essentially 3 conflicts which happened to take place at the same time, yet we constantly talk about it as though it were a single event.

    The conflict in Russia after 1917 was part of the same event as WWI to a much greater extent than the European, Pacific and Chinese conflicts were a single “World War II”.

    Regarding latest official RRR: yes it is a big improvement, but I still think the CPs need an extra incentive to accept.

    I would also replace -

    The Central Powers must keep a unit in “shared” OR tt at all times.

    with -

    The Central Powers must keep a unit in controlled OR tts at all times in order to collect income from them.



  • I’m sorry Flash, I agree w/others that the Russian CW is beyond the scope of this game, and shouldn’t be represented. They aren’t even going to consider such a thing because the units/control markers don’t come with the game. Nor do I think creating two Russian factions would make things easier, after a revolution occurs. Revolution is already messy enough, w/o creating two Russian armies, and dividing it up. If Russia goes into revolution then they pull out of the war, and you follow the rules set forth. The minor tweaks that have been done, and the new proposal to have the CP agree on the deal makes it better IMO. There could be some other minor tweaks, but not something on the scale you are suggesting.

    I do think you (Flash) have a valid point about having to keep CP units on the shared ORT though (could be several units left idle). You don’t have to keep a CP inf on an ORT that you control, so why do you need to tie-up valuable units in these shared territories when a CP control marker would suffice. There really is no reason to have a CP inf left there, those inf are needed elsewhere.

    You could do a couple different things to indicate it is a shared territory, and not tie-up valuable CP inf.

    1. Instead of units just place a CP and Russian control marker on a shared ORT (easy enough).

    2. Place a Russian inf on top of a CP control marker to show the interests of both parties.



  • I’ll just throw my quick little first game report here. Not nearly as one sided as some people have made it sound, up until turn 3 it was completely up in the air and frankly Austria Hungary looks terrifying. The Germans sent the Munich army to join up with the Austrians and they mega pushed to Rome and would have taken it if the French Portugese troops hadn’t saved the day and then some epic die rolls (the Austrian player killed 9 guys…mine killed all 24!). Russia went total beast mode turn 2 and 3 and killed 3 massive stacks of AH and German troops, but it looked like Germany would get the revolution to hit by the end of Russia’s 5th turn. France was able to push deep into Germany but with 52 money to spend on turn 5 Germany would have pushed em back since their navy kept the British out of Europe the whole game.

    In the end the number one thing I noticed is that air supremacy is the key. Russia bought two fighters her first turn and with those my massive Russian stack was able to just wreck anything the Centrals could throw at it. Italy’s single fighter bought on Turn 1 also ended up saving the day, as during the big battle my 10 artillery rolled and got nine 4’s lol, would’ve been a total fail without the air supremacy.



  • Nice write up! Aerial supremacy is definitely all kinds of win. It’s probably my favorite mechanic in this edition.


  • Customizer

    Furthermore, in my first game a large Austrian army got trapped in Moscow, unable to move because it had only one infantry left (with a large stack of artillery and a fighter).

    My suggestion that the CPs have to keep a unit in controlled OR tt reflects the fact that the Germans had to keep over a million men in the occupied tts to stop them defaulting to nationalist control.

    I would consider extending this condition to ALL controlled occupied tts.

    @WILD:

    You don’t have to keep a CP inf on an ORT that you control, so why do you need to tie-up valuable units in these shared territories when a CP control marker would suffice. There really is no reason to have a CP inf left there, those inf are needed elsewhere.



  • @Flashman:

    Furthermore, in my first game a large Austrian army got trapped in Moscow, unable to move because it had only one infantry left (with a large stack of artillery and a fighter).

    My suggestion that the CPs have to keep a unit in controlled OR tt reflects the fact that the Germans had to keep over a million men in the occupied tts to stop them defaulting to nationalist control.

    I would consider extending this condition to ALL controlled occupied tts.

    @WILD:

    You don’t have to keep a CP inf on an ORT that you control, so why do you need to tie-up valuable units in these shared territories when a CP control marker would suffice. There really is no reason to have a CP inf left there, those inf are needed elsewhere.

    then i would like the same rule for allies aswell, and for entire africa too if you want to make it a proper rule –> can’t be done. but i have to say the germans and such should have the choice to withdraw all men from these contested territories



  • You don’t have to garrison any territories that you control (Africa or elsewhere) and you are allowed to completely withdraw from contested territories throughout the game. After Rus Rev the CP must garrison a shared territory is unprecedented in the game, so it is really just a special rule (unneeded?). Flash showed how this could hurt the CP in his above statement when the Austrian army got trapped in one of these shared Russian territories and couldn’t move because he only had one inf left (granted that of coarse was an error on his part by killing off all his inf first lol).

    My concern is that the CP already have a really hard time moving units and keeping its supply lines going, but the allies generally move freely through the sea (Karelia/Finland, and even Sevastopol if they want too). If the CP end up with several shared territories in Russia it could hamper their efforts in consolidating their resources. It effects how they defend Russian land they control, or their ability to mount an attack against the UK who very well could be attempting to take back CP controlled territory in Russia after a revolution. IMO it is a double standard, and yet another slap in the face to what has been a struggling CP (in our games anyway).


  • Customizer

    Kreighund never explained why this was introduced, when it appears to benefit the CPs only in limited movement through such tts. They would surely be better off being able to withdraw from them.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts