Simplified Rail: the land answer to air bases and shipyards

[Black_Elk]

My friends and I feel that G40 would be well served by a land base (that can be purchased and tactically bombed) to match the role of Air bases with air units, and Shipyards with naval units. I think the obvious candidate here is rail!

But rather than create a complex rules dynamic with special territory restrictions, I think it should be a base like the ones for air and ships. Provides a simple movement bonus to units that start their non combat movement phase on a territory with a railroad. Infantry, Artillery, anti aircraft artillery guns, move +1 out of a territory that has “Rail” for its land units, tied it’s operational ability.

This seemed a very simple way to get rail into the game, but also to provide some limit on its combat effectiveness by restricting the advantage to the non combat phase.

Basically the purchase cost and abilities would match the cost of air bases and shipyards, but this Rail system would be for ground units.

The total number of units that can move out of rail territory could be limited to 3 if desired and tied to the operational status of the railway. For example, at full operation, the rail can move at a total of 3 ground units +1 space on non com. If it is Tac bombed -1, it may only move 2 ground. If Tac bombed -2 it can move 1 ground. Tac bombed -3 and it is inoperative and cannot move any ground unless repaired.

Movement could also be restricted if desired, only along territories which have railroad bases connected (so you must both begin your non combat moment and end it at a territory with a rail hub.) Basically rail to rail for movement purposes. Or we could run it just like the other tactical movement bases. Long as you start your non com in the territory you get the +1. Questions might be whether to allow tanks or mechs to move along the rail hubs.

The rail base marker could be the same size as shipyards and airbases, with a similar design aesethetic, but including a simple railway or engine graphic to easily distinguish it from the other two.

So here you have the normal production facility units, which are tied to strat bombers. And the 3 tactical facilities, one for land, air, and sea, tied to tactical bombers.  Starting rail would be limited to just a few locations at the beginning. The transcontinental railroads in North America and Europe. The Trans Siberian across Asia.

Prime candidate territories for a starting Rail base might be places like…

Moscow, Novosibirsk, Yenisey and Buryatia.

Poland, Germany, Western Germany, France.

Ontario, Eastern United States,  Central United States, Western United States etc

[Jennifer]

Seems like it could work.  Would certainly help Russia and Germany more than anyone else early on in the game.

What I never liked was the cost of bases.  I’d like to see bases cost 5 IPC each and strip them of built in AA Guns - rather you can defend them with purchased AA Guns like you do your infantry/artillery, etcetera.  Add that to rails and you could see systems of convoys, air routes and rail lines and really set into motion some economic infrastructure.

Perhaps if you could disable an NO by destroying all routes from where the NO is earned to the capitol as well?  So Germany might have Caucasus but if those units were cut off, with no functioning airbase for instance, then Germany cannot collect the income for it?

[knp7765]

We had a similar idea. HBG sells these markers for rails and rail stations.
The rail stations are like any other facility = cost 15 IPCs, have built in AA defense. 3 damage points render the rail station un-operational. Maximum damage of 6 points. Any units wanting to travel by rail must start in a territory with a rail station. Rail stations must be placed in territories with an IC.

Rail markers are cheap (3 IPCs) and can be placed in any territory as long as it is adjacent to a territory with another rail marker or a rail station. Units boarding at a rail station can travel along the rails as far as you have rail markers. For example, if there is a rail station in Germany and they have rail markers in Poland, E Poland, Belarus and Smolensk, German units in Germany could travel all the way to Smolensk. If there was NO rail marker in Smolensk, then the German units would have to stop in Belarus then move to Smolensk next turn. All rail movement is Non-Combat Movement, of course.
Like with other facilities or landing planes, you can NOT place a rail marker in a territory that you just captured this round.
Rail markers can be bombed by strategic or tactical bombers. 1 point of damage renders a rail marker un-operational, maximum of 3 damage markers allowed. Rail markers do NOT have built in defense. However, if you have an Anti Aircraft Gun in that territory, it can be used to defend the rail marker. Also, if you have fighters in that territory, they can be used as interceptors.

All of the above seemed like a pretty good rule. We got snagged on the rail limits. After all, you can’t have an entire army traveling across half the continent. At first, we thought about limiting the amount of units to the IPC value of the territory with the rail station. But then that would allow Eastern US to send 20 infantry across the country, or even to Alaska if UK puts rail markers in Canada.
One idea would be to keep it to any 3 land units, which would keep in the same idea as airbases that can scramble 3 planes. We could also tie it to the damage points – 0 damage = 3 units can travel, 1 damage = 2 units can travel, 2 damage = 1 unit can travel, 3+ damage = 0 units can travel. Do you think allowing just 3 units to travel from a totally operational rail station is enough? Would it be worth the investment of possibly buying a rail station? Or even using an existing rail station but having to purchase rail markers and repair any bomb damage?
We also thought about making the limit 5 units and still tying them to the damage points: 0 damage = 5 units, 1 damage = 3 units, 2 damage = 1 unit, 3+damage = 0 units.

As for starting setup, we figured the following territories would start with Rail Stations:
Russia, Novgorod (Leningrad), Germany, West Germany, France, N. Italy, E United States, W United States, and possibly India (Calcutta) and Kiangsu (Shanghai). Or would Kwangtung (Hong Kong) be better than Shanghai? Not entirely sure if Rail Stations should be placed in the far east or not.
As for starting setup for rail markers, there wouldn’t be a lot. Perhaps rail links from Moscow to Leningrad, and perhaps some around Germany (Poland, Greater Southern Germany, Slovakia/Hungary and maybe Romania too) Any further rail links would have to be purchased and placed.
Or, do you think there should be NO rail markers at start up, just rail stations?

[EnoughSaid]

Black Elk, I like your first of your two suggestions. Simplicity is good.
Noncombat your ground non-mech movements get +1 movement originating from the space.

Limiting it to 3 units seems too low to me, though. 4 seems better.

I like knp’s version, too. It’s “better” in that it’s more rail-y. But Black Elk’s is simpler, and that goes to making it better, too.

All in all, good suggestions.

[toblerone77]

Just bought a bunch of markers from HBG, some of them are the rail stations. I didn’t bother with all the extra rail pieces and intend to use the stations by themselves just like the air and naval bases.

[Black_Elk]

Do you think allowing just 3 units to travel from a totally operational rail station is enough? Would it be worth the investment of possibly buying a rail station? Or even using an existing rail station but having to purchase rail markers and repair any bomb damage?

It seems pretty sound. When you consider the investment that some players make in factories, just to get a couple ground to the front with a quickness. Or how much people are willing to spend on armor just to get the movement advantage.

When my friends and I were playing we didn’t have any set markers to use, so generic X’s drawn across a grey chip to represent rail crossings, was the method we used. If I had the appropriate HGB materials, we might have tried to go with a more expansive system, but since it was a new thing I just tried to make to come up with a scheme that would mirror the other 2 bases as closely as I could. The idea for 3 units moving was likewise modeled on scrambling. We also had a simplified convoy raiding system that allowed 3 subs to run raids. So the idea of tying 3 units at a go was pretty familiar. But it probably would be just as well at 4 or 5. The thought in my case was that the rail advantage to Germany was the one that needed to be controlled, since it was the most likely to be exploited on a breaker. Originally the thought was that you’d need a contiguous rail line in order to move across, but that proved cost prohibitive at 15, so the idea was that you could have little hubs like waypoints.

Part of the motivation here, beyond just a general desire to get rail into the game, was to give the Tactical bombers more to do, and to make their impact on the games economy a bit more significant.

One thing that become pretty clear after you start using the rail concept is that Russia and Germany are vulnerable to rail bombing in a way that USA isn’t. So while Germany or Russia gain the most out of a movement advantage, they also are at the most risk.

Other candidates for newly purchased rail, were in Asia (Japan obviously, but also UK out of India), Africa, and even toying with the idea of putting one in Sydney.

Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail, whether it should be destroyed or something the enemy could use. An HR we sometimes use is for scorched earth, where a player can elect to damage their own bases or facilities up to the maximum. This was an alternative to auto-destruct, on the principle that it would be too easy otherwise, for the enemy to rush in  destroy all your factories or bases and then immediately withdraw. So this was kind of a compromise, since you could damage your own infrastructure but not totally remove it from play. Seemed to work fairly well. Actually that reminds me, I meant to post that rule. Guess I’ll do it now  :-D

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail

One of the things that might need to be considered is that, if I’m not mistaken, the USSR used a different track gauge than Germany, which created a headache for the use of captured railroads.

[toblerone77]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail

One of the things that might need to be considered is that, if I’m not mistaken, the USSR used a different track gauge than Germany, which created a headache for the use of captured railroads.

I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.

Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in.

[knp7765]

I think if you want to introduce a rail system then you shouldn’t worry about the historic rail gauges. Just make it that all rails are the same in all countries. Otherwise I think it gets too complicated, that is unless you specifically don’t want conquering nations to be able to use the rails of a conquered nation.

Another idea if you wanted to use a different gauge of rail for different countries would be that the conquering nation would have to pay 1 or 2 IPCs to be able to use the captured rails. Then I guess if the original owner liberated that territory, they would also have to pay the 1 or 2 IPCs to change the rails back to their gauge.

Also, what about Allies using each other’s rails? For example, how about some Italian units using Germany’s rail system or visa versa?

[Flashman]

@knp7765:

You can’t have an entire army traveling across half the continent.

Why not?

This is what Germany did in 1941 to build up for the invasion of Russia. The USA would be well able to switch an army from coast to coast in a couple of weeks. As long as this is never into combat, the enemy always has a turn to counter move with his own strategic rail moves.

I’ve always believed that a player should be able to rail his entire army anywhere within friendly tt during non-combat. If this means sending 50 pieces from Cape Town to Vladivostok in one turn then do so - it’s up to the enemy to block such movement by capturing crucial tts.

Unless you believe the myth of Hitler’s autobahns being built so that his panzers could drive faster from front to front, on a map of this scale all land movement in this period was by rail.

[Der Kuenstler]

By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?

[knp7765]

@Der:

By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?

Well, tanks and mechs can also travel by rail. Also, you will still need tanks and mechs for those areas that don’t have any rail links yet or if you use my earlier idea where a capturing power has to pay to change the rail gauges so he/she can’t use those newly captured rails until next turn. In that case, you might have your tanks and mechs speed up to the front using their 2 movement and hold back the infantry and artillery until the rails are open.

@Flashman:

@knp7765:

You can’t have an entire army traveling across half the continent.

Why not?

This is what Germany did in 1941 to build up for the invasion of Russia. The USA would be well able to switch an army from coast to coast in a couple of weeks. As long as this is never into combat, the enemy always has a turn to counter move with his own strategic rail moves.

I’ve always believed that a player should be able to rail his entire army anywhere within friendly tt during non-combat. If this means sending 50 pieces from Cape Town to Vladivostok in one turn then do so - it’s up to the enemy to block such movement by capturing crucial tts.

Unless you believe the myth of Hitler’s autobahns being built so that his panzers could drive faster from front to front, on a map of this scale all land movement in this period was by rail.

Well, I guess you are right there. In fact, Germany moved a lot of it’s army back in WW1 with great efficiency. I guess it would be okay to make unlimited rail movement in the NCM.

[Narvik]

@Der:

By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?

In that case, Tanks and Mechs should be more efficient in combat and blitzing.

[Flashman]

Certainly it would make mech inf as is obsolete. I’ve advocated giving tanks a 2nd “breakthrough” move after combat to replace the basic 2 space move, forcing defenders to think about leaving units behind the front line to block the breakthroughs.

[CWO Marc]

@knp7765:

Well, tanks and mechs can also travel by rail.

Yes, and in fact railroads are, in real life, the best way to move tanks and other heavy tracked vehicles over long distances.  Tanks can travel on their own, of course, but the farther they march the more they break down due to tread breakage and other maintanance issues.  The ideal combination is to move tanks by rail to a point as close to their operational area as possible, and from then onward to have them drive on their own into battle.

If I remember correctly, the Sherman had a rubberized track which helped it move efficiently on paved roads, if any were available for use in a particular operational area.

[toblerone77]

The way I plan to implement my RRs is to simply use them like ABs, gives +1 to movement of land units. Option 2 is to allow NCM to any friendly rail station with a contiguous friendly TT path to an opposite Rail Station. or a combination of both ideas.

[crusaderiv]

_I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.

Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in._

Toblerone…
CWO marc is right.

[Tall Paul]

@crusaderiv:

_I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.

Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in._

––Poof Here I am to save the Day! haha, just joking, TOTALLY.
----I’ve been following this discusion and there are good arguments on both sides of each issue. IMHO I’m not sure that the A&A-G40 map is “Tactical” enough to fully justify/implement the Railroad Rules. And of course by tactical I mean it might be lacking enough territories to implement the RR rules without upsetting the game balance.
––However,…I DO think this would be a very useful and interesting ruleset to be used in when playing HBG’s Global Warfare-1939 as it has several more territories.
––I also understand that most of us have played so many G-40 games we want to change/improve things to keep them from getting ‘stale’. To this I would respond developement of new strategies,…or a new map Global Warfare-1939.
––If there were any Railroad History questions I’d be more than happy to offer my knowledge(if any). I don’t know about a LOT of subjects,…but I do know a LOT about two subjects,…Railroad & Military History.

Tall Paul

[Der Kuenstler]

What capacity could a train carry compared to a transport?

[Imperious Leader]

OK here we go:

All land units starting in a factory space may move double movement only during non-combat movement phase , and this number is limited in quantity to the number of undamaged placement capabilities of that area.

In this way the enemy may interdict and bomb the rail-centers with SBR.

Obviously, minor factories always have less capacity for rail movement.