Is it possible to keep Russia in the war?

@krieghund ok, I think I got it. Thanks a bunch! :+1:

Reading the rules again, I begin to get a bit fussy about the RR rule. We have always run with that Moscow have to be contested in order to RR to occur. I now realize that perhaps thats wrong and that for example  holding Ukraine, Polen, Belarus and Livonia is enough?
IN our games AH have to put enough units in AH% in order for Russia not to be able to kill them all in R5. However if we have been wrong about RR, the 4-7 remaining Germans from G4 is enough since Russia cant advance untill they have been destroyed… And in that scenario AH can have its entire stack moved from Ukraine to Sevastopol in round 5, very much changing Britians advance.

In the west Germany usually have to tactically retreat in r2-r3. However since all buys from G1 and forward will be moved into the west they wont need to retreat further. And even with Belgium and perhaps an orginal German territory gone they will have an income advantage against France alone and therefore push them back r4 and forward.

Same goes for Italy really. AH will use all its income towards Italy (exept 5 planes in r1-3 = 30 IPC). And by r4-5 AH will push Italy out of Trieste/Tyrole for good.

@Auztria:

Yes. If they truly had a historically accurate setup, Russia would have almost as many troops at start as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. The Ottoman Empire would have no fleet, Germany would have extra cruisers in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, Britain would have just 1 infantry, and Africa would be even more barren. Of course they can’t do that, simply for gameplay reasons. If Russia could conquer Galicia and East Prussia effortlessly every game, people would quickly grow bored.

But you see… I went to school to be a historian! I will have to do a little bit of experimenting with the Russian infantry bordering Galicia and East Prussia. Naturally, it raises my hackles that the Russians can’t do much more than poke the CPs on this front. The Russian TTs containing six infantry probably ought to have eight (on the western border). Any attack they make in Prussia or Galicia is going to be bulldozed by a massive A-H or German attack with at least 12 infantry in each case to throw at the hapless Russians.

I have a soft spot for those intrepid Bulgarians c. 1915. This has led to some experimenting on my end to make them a playable country in lieu of a country in the direct Ottoman pale. Instead of collecting income, they would do something like China does in A&A:Pacific 1.0–crank out people or arty (no planes, tanks or ships). I even thought about allowing the Germans to give them a subsidy (1 IPC or something along those lines). Australia is often talked about for its commitment to the war (and justly so), but I was blown away when I read the Bulgarian stats. 1,200,000 mobilized out of about 5 million people!!  If Italy is in this game, surely Bulgars can’t hurt…

So one of the issues here is that a player can leave a single infantry in a contested territory as a rear guard, holding up the advance of, say, 20 infantry and 10 artillery for an entire turn.  Well, here’s a possibility:

If combat takes place in a contested territory, and the player whose turn it is scores enough hits to kill each defending unit at least 3 times, that player can advance any or all of his victorious units into a new enemy controlled territory, initiating a new combat.

@ch0senfktard:

@BJCard:

Flashman, why do you keep saying ‘Turqy’?  Is that what it is supposed to be or is it a British English spelling or what?  Always been ‘Turkey’ to me.

He’s poking fun at the fact that Turkey has the color turquoise in this game.

…the word turquoise, which dates to the 16th century, is derived from an Old French word for ‘Turkish’, because the mineral was first brought to Europe from Turkey, from the mines in historical Khorasan Province of Iran.

BOOOOM! Historical basis for them being turquoise.

Between British India and Russian forces I’m not sure the Porte will have much time to pump out a fleet, a sub or two maybe but the British have a strong fleet down there and they don’t have to ever move out of the red sea.

@ossel:

@BJCard:

Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that.� The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses?� Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics?� Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.�

It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.

I have a scenario I’m working on for Vietnam. It involves helicopter landings, infiltrating Vietnamese troops, and terrain difficulties. I have the map and rules pretty well done, just need to playtest it and refine the rules a bit. Also need to figure out victory conditions (probably use a morale system like you mentioned). I’d be happy to post it on this board if anyone’s interested (would that go in “House Rules,” or “Modifications?”).

FYI Guys, I’ve just posted my Vietnam ruleset and map over in “Other Variants”: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30166.0

Those of you who are interested, let me know what you think.

My guess is that they decided it was too close to Germany. Almost certainly this is why they’ve vandalised the map to give East Prussia to Poland. Also Moscow is more central and so, with plodding infantry movement, its needed for Russia to be able to reinforce the southern front with new units.