I know that people have talked about this as being unlikely, but in our second game Russia voluntarily didn’t attack a German force in Belarus in order to trigger the revolution at the end of its turn on Turn 5. Belarus, Livonia and Tatarstan were occupied (the first two by Germans, the last by a massive Ottoman force). Ukraine was contested but Russia would win, sooner or later. Germany also held Poland outright. However, the Ottoman force had come up through Romania (Ottomans controlled that and Sevastopol), and the Russians had sent a force into Mesopotamia (Russian-controlled), Syrian Desert (Russian-controlled) and Ankara (contested).
At the end of the Russian turn, the criteria were met: 3 territories adjacent to Moscow were CP-controlled (Livonia, Belarus, Tatarstan), Moscow was in Russian hands and 1 other province (2, actually) were controlled by the CPs (Sevastopol and Poland). Ukraine was contested, Ankara was contested.
So what happens? The way I read the rules, this is what happens:
1. Moscow, Kazakhstan, Karelia and Finland become impassable for the rest of the game (goodbye British land route from India through conquered Afghanistan)
2. Mesopotamia and Syrian Desert are also impassable because they were Russian-controlled
3. The forces in Ankara are removed from the game.
4. The forces in Ukraine remain and essentially, CP forces can move through but cannot get money from Ukraine or fight Ukraine (though they could fight Allied Powers in Ukraine).
However, for some reason one infantry needs to remain in Ukraine from the CPs (what happens if Allied units want to attack it?)
5. Because Moscow is in revolution the CPs will not be able to count it toward their victory conditions
Is this right? If it is, then the CPs were right to essentially assume that they were finished (Austria had nothing left and Italy was going to probably take Vienna that same turn, Germany had troops but the British and French were in Alsace and Belgium and about to invade the Ruhr, and a massive American force was making its way across the Atlantic; the Ottomans had sent so many troops up into Russia that the British were in Smyrna and, with Italian help, were probably going to take Constantinople).
Sounds right according to OOB rules, but if you check the sticky FAQ thread, things have changed:
After the Russian Revolution, Russia has no friends or enemies. All Russian units outside of original Russian territories are immediately removed from the board. Russia will immediately relinquish control of any non-original territories it may hold, including aligned minor neutrals. If units belonging to other Allied powers are in these territories, control will be established based on the rules for moving all units out of a contested territory on page on page 15 of the Rulebook; otherwise these territories will remain uncontrolled until another power moves into them and will not mobilize units when entered. Serbia and Romania will be treated as minor neutral powers for the remainder of the game. Units belonging to other Allied powers that are outside of original Russian territories may no longer move into them, and any such units remaining in those territories at the end of their next respective turn will be removed from the board at that time. Central Powers units are treated as stated in the Rulebook. Rules restricting land unit movement out of contested territories (see page 15 of the Rulebook) will not apply to territories shared between Russia and the Central Powers unless another Allied power is also present.
And that is when you look skeptically at the Russian player and decide to quietly leave him out of future game nights. Voluntarily self-destructing like that leaves a bad taste on everyone’s mouth. I understand why he did it, but that is one way to make yourself unpopular.
My vote is to raise your glass to the fellow and tell him, “Well done. Punk.” And then play settlers or something where you can passive-aggressively retaliate.
Uh, Hello…we had two players. I don’t know who among you guys can find six or seven people to play, but we had one player for the Allies and one for the Central Powers. Neither of us thought it was wrong to do it, and the point of this post wasn’t to solicit opinions about game etiquette. The question was about the rules. Apparently, they have already modified the extremely poorly written rules in the book. Thanks to wove100 for the on-point response.
And that is when you look skeptically at the Russian player and decide to quietly leave him out of future game nights.
Sounds like they should have made the rule such that a neutral Russia still counted for CP victory progress.
@Eggman:
And that is when you look skeptically at the Russian player and decide to quietly leave him out of future game nights.
Sounds like they should have made the rule such that a neutral Russia still counted for CP victory progress.
Yeah. The way it stands now, the CPs can spend the in-game equivalent of several years knocking one of their main enemies out, but when the country suffers a revolution and is forced to capitulate they don’t count it towards victory, but capturing the capital, even if the enemy has a completely intact army left, counts. It’s not like Russia is a minor power like Belgium or Serbia. When the Bolsheviks took over the government and declared a ceasefire, the Western Allies were horrified.
They probably should have, but they didn’t, so as the rules read right now (and even as they read in the book) there are plenty of situations when the Russian player might voluntarily choose not to counterattack a province because the Revolution is preferable to the capture of Moscow from an Allied standpoint.
At least they fixed the other problems with the Russian Revolution as written in the rulebook.
