Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

I think this will be a great game, but a couple things leave me wanting :?

The Russian Revolution rules defiantly leave you scratching your head (Flash was right, I didn’t see that one coming).  An allied strat to have the Russians sell out to gain strategic CP territories, or even CP capitals will emerge (forcing the CP to abort the Revolution), and then we are in fantasy land. I will reserve judgement for now, but I can see this being a topic of major concern for some time, not used, or house ruled to death.

With the Turks in the game, I’m really disappointed that there is nothing to incorporate the straight. Both sides courted the Turks to lure them to their side for passage. When they chose the CP (or the CP chose them), the Russians and English really had a bulls-eye on it. Could of /Should of been written in as an optional rule (like in other AA games).

Can allied units in russian territory launch attacks into CP controlled territory after a revolution.

Yes, but the Russkis will just watch.

So an allied army can prowl around in the off limits territories, or walk from India to Finland and attack Sweden?

What if the allies attack and liberate a Russian territory on their way out of Russia.

The allies can leave a chain of units in off limits Russia and march through territory they have units in up to the front.

Or am I misunderstanding.

Beats me.

I’ll need to test the rule out before I can even pretend to understand it.

Krieghund is evidently quite happy with the possibility of Russian Force Fields, personally I can’t see them anywhere outside Russia being anything less than a game breaker.

The simplest way of dealing it is to state that when Russia removes units from outside Russia it also removes control markers.

Kreighund,

Any chance that there will be an official change for the tank- making it a cost of $5 instead of $6???  I don’t wanna get ahead of myself but several here think (and those tested the game already think) that the tank is useless as it stands.  No real purpose of buying it, might as well soak hits with the more powerful infantry or artillery.  The tank as a unit already seems broken.  Can you explain futher???

Suppose France invades Spanish Morocco. Since this isn’t a capital territory, no units are mobilized here correct?
And what about Spain? Does Spain mobilize units in response to this event or would it remain neutral?

Can fighters being transported as cargo participate in amphibious assaults? And if so, can they be hit by defending artillery in the coastal fire?

While neutral, can American ships

Transport Allied units

Share a SZ with Allies

Share a SZ with CP ships

Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies

@Krieghund:

@BJCard:

The only thing is- why wouldn’t the Allies always have Russia take control of any neutral power that the CP’s attack, since in the event that revolution occurs, if said neutral territory is still russian controlled, the CPs cannot ever attack it?�

Let’s use Holland as an example again.  The advantage of having Russia defend it is that if the Central Powers are pushed out and Russia ends up controlling it…

I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.

If a US ship is lost to a German Mine is that considered an act of war against the US?

Thanks for your help with the movement questions, Krieghund! And thanks for the pre-US release clarifications.  :-)

So in post revolution Russia, allied units may still enter and move freely among their territories?
It might sound like there is an echo in here but this rule just seems bizarre.
UK forces can walk from India to the eastern front. Linger under the umbrella of Russian controlled territory, immune from CP attack, and move as they please back and forth through Russian territory.

Might sound pointless, but why does Russia become an allied safe haven?

Would it not have been better to just remove ALL Russian units and from that point forward treat ALL Russian territories as non-aligned neutral territories.

Or divide the Russians into reds and whites and have them fight each other.

Quite frankly, I’m more confused than ever on the neutral countries control/income issue. I must clear my mind and read the rules again from scratch.
It seems bizarre that a friendly neutral gives you no income.

@Flashman:

While neutral, can American ships

Transport Allied units

Share a SZ with Allies

Share a SZ with CP ships

Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies

Flashman, I think: no to Transport question,  as they are not Allied yet and need to be Allied.
Yes to both SZ questions.
As to being attacked: no. They would defend with the other Ally if attacked and they would no longer be Neutral! (All Allies in the same SZ defend together.)

@ossel:

@Krieghund:

@BJCard:

The only thing is- why wouldn’t the Allies always have Russia take control of any neutral power that the CP’s attack, since in the event that revolution occurs, if said neutral territory is still russian controlled, the CPs cannot ever attack it?�Â

Let’s use Holland as an example again.  The advantage of having Russia defend it is that if the Central Powers are pushed out and Russia ends up controlling it…

I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.

Wait, what?  Russia doesn’t get the income from an activated Holland?

Kriegund seems to be saying that you cannot collect money from a neutral unless you take it by force. I had always assumed that if you defend as Holland, and win, you get to control and collect money for it.

They let you control their armies, but don’t pay for their upkeep…

@oztea:

So an allied army can prowl around in the off limits territories, or walk from India to Finland and attack Sweden?

Yes.

@oztea:

What if the allies attack and liberate a Russian territory on their way out of Russia.

It becomes controlled by Russia.

@ch0senfktard:

Suppose France invades Spanish Morocco. Since this isn’t a capital territory, no units are mobilized here correct?

Correct.

@ch0senfktard:

And what about Spain? Does Spain mobilize units in response to this event or would it remain neutral?

It remains neutral.

@Auztria:

Can fighters being transported as cargo participate in amphibious assaults? And if so, can they be hit by defending artillery in the coastal fire?

Yes to both.

@Flashman:

While neutral, can American ships

Transport Allied units

No.  Allied units are not friendly to a neutral power.

@Flashman:

Share a SZ with Allies

Yes.

@Flashman:

Share a SZ with CP ships

Yes.

@Flashman:

Be attacked separately by CP ships while sharing a SZ with other Allies

No.

@ossel:

I think people are missing the fact that when you ‘activate’ a minor power, you don’t ‘own’ it or ‘control’ it…you simply use your units to represent the power’s army. Therefore, the only way Russia could ‘control’ Holland (as you pointed out) would be for the Central Powers to retake it, then have the Allies take it back, nominating Russia to control it.

There are many factors that determine which power controls a territory when it becomes no longer contested.  These are outlined on pages 15, 19, and 20 of the Rulebook.  You don’t always have a choice as to which power it will be, and when you do the choice may be limited.

@oztea:

If a US ship is lost to a German Mine is that considered an act of war against the US?

No.

@Flashman:

Kriegund seems to be saying that you cannot collect money from a neutral unless you take it by force.

I never said that at all.

@Flashman:

I had always assumed that if you defend as Holland, and win, you get to control and collect money for it.

You do.  I’m just saying that the power that ends up controlling it may not be the power that was initially selected to defend it, depending on the circumstances.

Continuing the minor country questions, if the UK activates Albania, who gets the IPCs and are Italian troops still used to represent the Albanians?

Also, can non-infantry move to the capital without infantry if infantry are being purchased?  For example, I want to move an Austrian fighter from the east to the west with a stop in Vienna, but it is the only unit in Vienna at the end of the movement phase.  However, I have infantry that I purchased to be placed in Vienna at the end of the turn.

@Texas:

Continuing the minor country questions, if the UK activates Albania, who gets the IPCs and are Italian troops still used to represent the Albanians?

Italy gets the IPCs and places the units.

@Texas:

Also, can non-infantry move to the capital without infantry if infantry are being purchased?  For example, I want to move an Austrian fighter from the east to the west with a stop in Vienna, but it is the only unit in Vienna at the end of the movement phase.  However, I have infantry that I purchased to be placed in Vienna at the end of the turn.

No.  You must move infantry into a territory that doesn’t already have at least one if you are moving other units there.

Some earlier questions I seem to have missed before:

@Flashman:

What is the status of the US navy before declaring war?

If their ships sail into SZs contested by the warring powers are they able to participate in naval combat, and under what circumstances?

Only if they are attacked.

@Flashman:

Say the US BB shares a tt with a French cruiser. A German cruiser moves in. Can the German ship:

1. Attack the French ship only, ignoring the (neutral) US BB?

2. Attack the US ship only, ignoring the French one (or must we assume that the US is at war the moment it is attacked, therefore the American and French ships defend together?)

The German cruiser may either attack only the French ship or attack both.

@Flashman:

Also, is it correct that if a tt with a SZ is enemy (i.e. not the original side) controlled the mines have no effect on either side?

Yes.