Visiting the Battlefields

@Barca1984 said in Can fighters be taken as casualties in a land battle?:

Hey, just wondering if fighters can be taken as hits in a wider land battle as I’m wondering if I can use them as extra units to defend my capital? If so, what is the relevant page if someone knows?

Yes, they can. See page 19.

Also curious if you can move out of an initiated or contested battle after you have attacked as a fighter?

Yes. See page 15.

Finally, can a fighter join a battle immediately if it is landed from a transport in amphibious assault or sea reinforcement?

Yes, as there are no exceptions for such fighters mentioned in the corresponding rules on page 22.

@Krieghund Damn… well maybe he won’t use all his money to build just enough units to save India.

Thanks Krieghund!

@Running-Away It depends. From page 15 of the Rulebook:

Land units that begin your turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that at the beginning of your turn were either controlled by your power or contained units belonging to your power. If they are moved by transport, they may also remain at sea.

If the destination territory is already contested and already contains units belonging to your power, you can move your units there to do an amphibious reinforcement, and then attack (or not). If the territory is enemy-controlled, or if it’s contested but doesn’t already contain your units, you can’t move them there.

Of course, if the units remain at sea until your next turn, these restrictions are lifted.

Could a moderator please move this topic to the proper forum? Thanks.

@The_Good_Captain No.

@CentralCommando
It seems you missed a critical line in my first post: “The Russian player tried to trap those troops by provoking the Revolution with a withdrawal from Livonia and the Liberation of Ukraine.”

My question relates to this very special scenario Russia trying to trap the Austrian troops AND provoking the revolution.

Question is: Would you accept the armistice in these special circumstances described above or not? yay or nay?

@Screamer Yes, it’s possible. The only way the fighters could get out would be through Persia (if not still neutral), as they can’t fly over a neutral territory.

@Central-Powers-boss said in CP strategy:

Otoman Empire: Don’t buy troops… ever… just buy battleships because if Italy’s navy gets destroyed then you can go after Brittons fleet. You can hold out with the troops you have already until your fleet is ready. also I chose to attack Serbia with the Bulgarian troops I got but it’s kinda up to you.

What did UK do, out of curiosity? Based on this they should have just been able to buy in India and roll up the Ottomans within a few turns.

@AdmirlScuttlebut

Yes for history I like this idea. I also like the idea of a Caucasus territory to separate Sevastopol from Mesopotamia, though I would make it a low value starting Russian territory. I think from a historical narrative standpoint its frustrating that the main UK offensive always comes from India, rather than from Egypt as historical.

However this would be a pretty big balance hit in favor of the Central Powers. The UK does start with a transport/BB/CA off India in both the OOB and tournament setups, but no naval base to repair or build more naval units. There is one more transport in Eastern Med that is available. This starting naval force would probably have to be increased or the Ottoman starting setup weakened to make this viable.

I would personally say Switzerland should get the same permanent neutral treatment as well… in fact you could make a case that none of the true neutral nations were ever seriously considered as invasion targets during the war.

If I’m honest though… even if someone came up with a pretty good set of rules for this I probably would keep playing with the regular tournament rules. I just like the flow and balance, even if the history is pretty imperfect.