Fighters moving out of contested zones and attacking

@TheVeteran

Awesome!

@krieghund

Really? Crap, I was wrong the whole time. Thanks for clarifying.

@Carolina:

Just adding to clarifications, and please check out the FAQ and errata.

Combat on land is just one round and mandatory.  However in a territory that is contested, combat is optional (for all players - even to players that just moved into that territory).
Combat at sea is optional and can be multiple rounds (active player’s choice). 
Air units are free to move to any territory, unlike land units that have movement restrictions when starting in a contested territory.

The Russian Revolution procedure may not be entirely clear - please check out other posts - or feel free to ask any questions.  (BTW - Big fan here too).

Thanks.
If Germany and France are in a contested territory and Great Britain enters that territory for the 1st time I thought they HAD TO FIGHT.?

EDIT: I reread that part in the manual and it’s clear you are right. I gotta slow down when reading

@Flashman:

I don’t think it matters a damn.

The whole problem with this game is that the Allies are so much more mobile (they can virtually teleport by sea, and can feed units into the East via India) that whatever the CPs do the Allies can immediately and effectively counter-move.

Only by allowing the CPs unlimited land movement by rail do they stand a chance of winning.

i don’t agree, i have played 6 games against the same people and won 5 out of 6 games. You can win as the Central Powers. We opted for different opening moves which stunned the Allies every time. You can’t go for a total victory but you can hang on so they give up. Taking Russia and moving all west is critical.

There is no such thing as a contested sea zone.

Personally, I don’t think this should even occur. One round of sea combat only; if the defender survives the attacker must retreat (and can still do so even after a victory).

I can understand the logic behind a land force not being allowed to retreat after a victory - they have to consolidate their hold over the conquered tt.

But why would ships remain behind in an empty sea zone, especially if they can retreat back into a friendly port for repairs and/or reinforcements from newly launched ships? Unless they wish to launch amphibious assault or enact USW why should they be obliged to remain behind and quite possibly become sitting ducks for enemy fleets? A case of being punished for success?

The anomaly occurs when a player places new ships into a sea zone occupied by enemy fleet. Should a battle immediately occur? Or should the new ships only be “launched” in his next movement/combat cycle?

Hypothetical question: If the attack resolution rules for 1914 were the same as the other A&A games, which current first moves would you change and why…for example, I would change my opening moves by AH to build up forces to attack Italy first and just build up a force in Galicia rather than attack Venice and Poland…I would still have to attack Serbia, but I would hold off on Albania…

I thought he meant that both sides are wiped out.

The point of the sentence I quoted is simply to differentiate “regional territories” from “colonies”.  Regional territories can trace a line through contiguous original territories back to the capital, while colonies are removed from the capital.  The only difference this really makes is that colonies of minor powers are handled a little differently than their capitals.  Since minor powers don’t have regional territories anyway, this sentence is more about “flavor” than anything else.