Simplified Rail: the land answer to air bases and shipyards

[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Certainly it would make mech inf as is obsolete.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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

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.

4 movement points seems high for Mech Inf and Tank.

Throwing some numbers:
All ground units (including AAA, Tank and Mech Inf) can move 3 territories in Non-Combat Move starting from a Factory.
And can move only 2 territories in Combat Move.
So this give +1 bonus move for slowest ground unit such as Infantry and Artillery. And of no use for the Mech Inf and Tank.

The idea of starting from Factory is great and simple.
It allows to cap the number of unit gaining the bonus move with the actual capacity of the Factory or IC.
Also, if it is damaged, it can also affect this railroad capacity.

---

If 4 moves are acceptable but for very few units,
then I would allow 4 moves in NCM for all ground units (including AAA, Tank and Mech Inf).
And 3 moves in CM for all grounds units. This would represent a +2 bonus for Inf and +1 for Mech Inf.

The bonus move is applied in a simple manner that way.
All units are moving by train after all, there is no difference between putting on board vehicule or people.
They get down the train at the end of the line. That’s it that’s all.

[Imperious Leader]

It cant be any system that gives all units of different ‘speeds’ one and same long movement. That immediately imbalances the game. Infantry are now stronger with triple speed, while tanks get 50% increase.

It has to be a system that can be damaged by bombing

It has to be a ridiculously simple system.

[toblerone77]

@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.

Yeah I knew Marc was right. What I’m not sure about is when before WWII Russia implemented them in case I wanted to use them for 1914 or pre-WWII scenarios and wanted to make rules for the different gauges. As far as fudging it into history I may not take the different gauges into account and let it be an “unseen” mechanic which allows their use universally if captured.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

It cant be any system that gives all units of different ‘speeds’ one and same long movement. That immediately imbalances the game. Infantry are now stronger with triple speed, while tanks get 50% increase.

It has to be a system that can be damaged by bombing

It has to be a ridiculously simple system.

It depends on how many units are allowed.
If it is no more than three of any kind per Factory.
And unrepaired factory have a totally impaired railroad, I think this could still work even if it gives a 3 NCM bonus to all units.
The damaging capacity provides a way to counter this tactics.
Maybe you can increase the price of Factory of 3 to 5 IPCs according to the number of units getting this boost.

[toblerone77]

This HR could go so many ways depending upon what people have as far a physical playing pieces. Personally I have several RR stations from HBG as well as actual Train engines from another game. That said the OP was making his own " land AB/NBs" and calling them rail. Not a bad idea and a good basis of thought.

Trains moved everything in WWII. So you could say that rail is actually already “built-into” the game given the scale of A&A. However, I’m never satisfied with Larry’s creations entirely. So…

IMO basing RRS on their naval and air counterparts seems logical and most compatible with the game. If one were to implement this HR I would use the NB/AB model and adjust accordingly to the OOB set-up to not upset balance.

If you’re going to create an HR be prepared to tinker with set-up. You don’t have to kill the game to do so. If you give Germany RRSs you have to give Russia a counter set-up to maintain balance. This is do-able.

Anyway, just a thought.

[crusaderiv]

_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._

I go with IL…

[Der Kuenstler]

To me the simplest solution is to agree on how much a train can carry compared to a transport. If it is the same amount, then for every rail station you own, you can carry one transport load of land units somewhere during non-combat movement. The rail stations can be bombed and thus rail capacity reduced.

[Flashman]

Really, there is no need to make it so complicated.

Unlimited non-combat land movement for pieces within friendly tt.

That’s all you need. On the scale of an A&A map, all land units moved by rail, and an entire army could be shifted from one front to another in a couple of weeks, easily within any reasonable definition of what a game turn represents.

The relative value of tanks and MI has to be considered, but I prefer in any case to give them a 2nd move after combat anyway, rather than a basic 2 space move into combat.

If you want interdiction, allow bombers to target a tts communications instead of industrial output, and if successful the owner can then pay to repair in the build new units phase.
Retreating armies might also be allowed to sabotage communications for the same effect, delaying the enemy reinforcing by rail for a turn.
Even this only requires simple damage tokens; there’s no need for railway station pieces or locomotive sculpts, nor for tedious “rail points” bean counting.

Armoured trains, however: that’s a different kettle of fish entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_train#World_War_II

This chap so nearly got it right:

http://www.thewargame.com/rules/Mod1 Rail Movement.pdf

[General 6 Stars]

I like that rail movement for The War Game. If you only have 1 or 2 lines going then you can’t send everything at once. If most of territories are worth 1, 2, or 3  then you can only send 1 piece every turn.

[Der Kuenstler]

Yes I like limits - if you can move anything anywhere you want with rail, you’ve just wrecked the basic movement values of units, and the interesting level of strategy that goes with it. A RR rule should just add a little flavor IMO, not fundamentally change all movement.

[crusaderiv]

Yes I like limits - if you can move anything anywhere you want with rail, you’ve just wrecked the basic movement values of units, and the interesting level of strategy that goes with it. A RR rule should just add a little flavor IMO, not fundamentally change all movement.

Me too, In Europe, only 1 infantry can move 2 territory during non combat move.
Trans Siberian 3.
US rail = 2.

AL

[Flashman]

The basic movement values of land units should be wrecked, because it is nonesense.

All thse units moved at the same rate - that of the trains carry them. When they detrained, it probably took the tanks longer to reach the front than the infantry as they’d have to be offloaded, reassembled (too big to ride trains assembled), fueled and maintainanced; the PBI could jump off trains and march strait to the battle zone. As I said, armoured units can be given an extra breakthrough move after combat to balance the loss of movement points inherant in their cost. Although, frankly, I’ve always considered MI a unit too many, while you can do many things to make tanks more powerful.

By interesting level of strategy, I assume you mean Japan building only tanks to send towards Moscow because their infantry and artillery are too slow moving to keep up…

Or, think of it as an interesting new strategic challenge; being able to counter move enemy strategic rail movements with those of your own, and being able to target rail links by bombing at just the point you need to slow down his strategic movements.

You may say this is a different game; I’d say it is a better one, and certainly more realistic.

[General 6 Stars]

I’m going to use N scale train track cut in 1 inch pieces to represent rail in each territory and when damaged turn track over and use with or without damaged token.