That’s an interesting idea. Indeed, the actual history justifies fighting for specific islands and this would help to reinforce that as well as promote action in the Pacific. Something to ponder….
Simplified Rail: the land answer to air bases and shipyards
-
@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. -
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.
-
_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.
-
@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. -
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.
-
_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…
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
@SS:
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.
Using actual model railroad track is a neat idea. A friend of mine who’s into model railroading once mentioned to me that there’s an even smaller (than N scale) track size called Z scale. If he’s right, might Z be a better fit for the A&A game map than N, since it would take up less space?
-
Correct CWO Marc. Be better to use Z scale track for smaller board games. I use the 4 x 8 maps so plenty of room for me.
-
Yes Z scale is better but harder to find.
I have HO scale but I never thought about track….
Good idea.
I also have a 4 x 8 gameboard and I represented the rail with a pens marker on the map.
I also used different color of marker to represented the cargo route…AL
-
Yes Z scale is better but harder to find.
I think my friend mentioned that Z scale is popular in Europe, so I guess it would be easier for European players to get their hands on Z-scale track than North American ones.
-
You can also try….
In Europe you can travel anywhere so all infantry that didn’t move during combat can move to 2 territories. (One infantry per travel). The only problem is too control the german player. It could be a free for all if the german player change is mind and move the infantry anywhere else.AL
-
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.
I totally agree with the unlimited non combat movement for land units.
Let Tanks absorb two hits like it do with the 1914 rules.
Let Tanks blitz through newly captured territories.Ex. 4 inf, 1 art, 4 Tanks and 2 Mech start in territory A.
The 4 inf and 1 art capture territory B.
The 4 Tanks and 2 Mechs blitz through newly captured territory B and combat move into territory C.
No more need for another player as can opener. This will be historical correct blitzkrieg. -
I was thinking more along the lines that all the units attack then, if the battle is won in a single round, armour can make a 2nd move into hostile tt. This way, defenders have to think about defending 2 tts deep.
But the 1914 “absorb a hit” idea is interesting; would this apply for attack and defence for WWII? Would this be a reason to introduce heavy tank units, with 2 hit points but without the blitz move? i.e. Tiger, KV1 etc.
Mech inf/light tank: cost-4, move-1/ul, attack-2, defence-2, blitz
Medium/standard Tank: 6, 1/ul, 3, 3, blitz
Heavy tank: 8, 1/ul, 4, 4, absorb 1 hit, no blitzHeavies would be a tech unit, but USSR would start with it:
Suggested Topics
