Railway

@Brain:

@idk_iam_swiss:

thats pretty awesome how many territories would the rail go through?

I think the idea is that you can move across as many rail linked territories as you control.

I like this to, but this should also be related to the territories IPC value.
Example: Germany has a IPC value of 10, then Germany has a Rail Capacity of example 5, means he rail up to 5 ground units that did’nt move in Combat Movement Phase, in the Non-Combat Movement Phase. And you should also be able to across as many linked territories you control. And maybe the IPC value of territories also should count for how many railed units a territory can receive. Example: East Poland have a IPC value of 4, you can rail up to TWO ground units per turn to East Poland. And you can only rail FROM territories that have a Railway marker!
I dont like the idea of, that a railway marker makes you can move one extra territory/space! Makes no sense, that a armor can be railed 3 territories, and infantry rail 2 territories!
Or maybe we need Railway Station Markers, so we can rail between railway station markers! But this should also be related to IPC value of territories, the railway capacity!
Sorry for my bad english, just my thoughts of this……

The total number of possible placements should reflect the Redeployment capacity of the nation.

So Germany has a factory and can place 10 units, they get 10 rail points. The can be bombed. When SBR happens the capacity of the factory to place is reduced, so as these rail points.

Redeployment points can be increased by building factories!

each point gets you to move a land unit one extra space. If you got 6 points, you can move one tank six spaces or six tanks one space extra in NCM.

Obviously, you cant move units that were in combat

Rail capacity is another good idea. Is it going to be like transport ships, ie 5 tanks or 10 infantry for 10 rail capacity?

@Razor:

For the sake of simplicity a Railway Station token similare to the Naval Base and Airbase, that all cost 15 IPC and add one extra move to any who start from this positions, and act under the same SBR-rules, will IMHO be our best solution, man. All the other suggestions will only add more pages to the rulebook and arreta/FAQ, man. New solutions means new confusions.

Hi

I dont like that at all, makes no sense in my opinion to add one extra move! I think we should be able to move/rail as long/many territories as we want. Example: Russia should be able to rail units from Soviet Far East to Russia in ONE TURN!
I think Xeno game World At War have a good solution to this.
That more I think about this, the best solution would be Railway Station Markers, That you can rail from one Railway Station Marker to another Railway Station Marker/or from a Railway Station Marker to any own hold territory, as long as they link, this would also make cities starting with Railway Station Marker very strategic and important. Also very important that this also is related to territories IPC value, if the territory have a IPC value of 10 you can Rail 5 ground units from that territory.

Another way is to give each continent a specific Rail Capacity that each nation can use in their Non-Combat-Movement.

Anyway, below the railway rules in Xeno Game, World At War, I think they are good.

11.0 STRATEGIC RAIL MOVEMENT

Strategic movement is in the form of rail capacity with each nation having its own rail capacity. Strategic movement takes place during the Non-Combat Movement portion of a player’s turn. This rail movement of land based units is unlimited in distance, provided that the player can trace a line through friendly held land areas that is un-interrupted by any enemy areas, does not cross a neutral border, and does not cross a sea area. The Suez Canal and Panama Canals do not block rail movement.

Only units that did not move during combat movement are eligible to use rail movement.

Germany has a rail capacity of 4 usable in Europe and Asia.
Japan has a rail capacity of 2 usable in Asia.
Britain has a rail capacity of 2 usable in Asia, Africa and Europe.
U.S. has a rail capacity of 6 usable in the Western Hemisphere.
China has a rail capacity of 2, limited to Chinese areas only.
Russia has a rail capacity of 3, usable in Russia. 1 of the 3 can also be used in Europe.
France uses British rails.

The U.S. and Britain/France may use one another’s rails. The rail capacity of a country is the amount usable for that player’s turn only, which means that during the same game turn Britain could use up to 2 rail movement, and the U.S. could also use the British rails on its turn and rail 2 U.S. units.

Europe consists of Poland, Rumania and everything West of those areas. Africa is all of the African continent up to Egypt. Asia is all of Russia, as well as everything east of Trans Jordan, all the way to Malaya and up to Kamchatka. China is included in Asia, and refers to all original Chinese owned areas. The Western Hemisphere is North and South America.

Razor, I like your rail station concept (based on AB & NB), but not sure if it should be allowed in combat move. Maybe only non combat. Giving tanks 3 space movement in combat (on non combat for that matter) might just encourage a Jap tank assault on Moscow. This is a path most don’t want to follow. Maybe it should only boost inf/art (tanks/mech already get 2). Either that or rail stations can only be built on 2 ipc tt like IC. This would slow rail down in remote areas like Africa/China.

We have used rail movement limited to a tt ipc value (full value) in AA50, similar to what Supermestizo posted. We allow it only in noncombat and your side has to have control of all 3 tt involved at the beginning of your turn (can’t reinf newly taken tt w/rail). If a tt has an ipc value of 4 it can rail a max of 4 inf or art through it from one adjacent tt to another. We allow all 1 move units to rail (tanks & mech already move 2 spaces), but only one time per turn, and only if they didn’t move in combat. It really just allows your inf/art to keep up on a limited bases. When you look at the map there are a lot of paths you can take to get to the same area/tt. It also gives limited rail to places like Siberia. I don’t think the scope of this game should allow an unlimited # of units to rail through 10 tt from one front to the other, as Flash has posted (although I see the logic behind it). The ipc values show infrastructure IMO and give us a viable tool to limit rail capacity and should play a part.

I like the Xeno rules as a good starting point.

I like this to, but this should also be related to the territories IPC value.
Example: Germany has a IPC value of 10, then Germany has a Rail Capacity of example 5, means he rail up to 5 ground units that did’nt move in Combat Movement Phase, in the Non-Combat Movement Phase. And you should also be able to across as many linked territories you control. And maybe the IPC value of territories also should count for how many railed units a territory can receive. Example: East Poland have a IPC value of 4, you can rail up to TWO ground units per turn to East Poland. And you can only rail FROM territories that have a Railway marker!
I dont like the idea of, that a railway marker makes you can move one extra territory/space! Makes no sense, that a armor can be railed 3 territories, and infantry rail 2 territories!
Or maybe we need Railway Station Markers, so we can rail between railway station markers! But this should also be related to IPC value of territories, the railway capacity!
Sorry for my bad english, just my thoughts of this……

great idea that is what i was geting at and i like it.

@Razor:

For the sake of simplicity a Railway Station token similare to the Naval Base and Airbase, that all cost 15 IPC and add one extra move to any who start from this positions, and act under the same SBR-rules, will IMHO be our best solution, man. All the other suggestions will only add more pages to the rulebook and arreta/FAQ, man. New solutions means new confusions.

KISS

@SilverAngelSurfer:

KISS

Its getting to the point where WOTC needs to make a basic and advanced version of A&A.

This is a very cool idea, and i really cannot come up with any reasons that it would not be in AA40E except lazyness. Its a cheap piece that could add alot the the european battlefeild.

Anyways if it was to be included in AA40, then I like Razors rules the best. 15 IPC, land units move one extra space, Max damage 6, and with 3 damage it cant increase movement.

Other people have intersting ideas, yet i think their to complicated and dont add that much detail or accuracy( and I am some one who thinks historical feeling is very important to my enjoyment of the game) or are contradictory to the spirit/play of the game.

Flashman is obviously true in saying that given 3 months a division in france can be transfered too the eastern front with ease. However if strategic land movment was infinite, then sea movement would have to be changed aswell. Flashman often advicates for the corssing of the atlantic too take 2 turns, and while I understand this gives uboats a shot at taking out convoys it makes no sence at all when armies are zippping around europe and siberia.

The limiting of increased  movement based on IPC value idea is interesting, however i dont see how it adds more strategy to the game and i dont see how it is going to add a significgant amount of realism to the game compared to the originaly rules proposed by Razor.

some people are complaing the it dosnt make sence that tanks move faster by rails than guns and inf.
Well its never made sence anyways that tanks move faster than infantry. On the strategic scale, all this $%^ is being move by trains or perhapspulled by trucks. Tanks cant drive hundreds of miles with out serious damage being done to them. These weapons are terribly prone to failure if overused or over driven. So this is just one querkery element to AA that we have to deal with or make major revisions to the combat and movement system.

Their is one rule i would like to add, I dont no about liminting the NCM to already controlled tt, but rails should not allow units to attack into tt, so they shouldnt be used in the combat phase. If they were allowed to attack in the combat phase, players might amass used arimes far behind their line, which would look really stupid.

@Emperor_Taiki:

This is a very cool idea, and i really cannot come up with any reasons that it would not be in AA40E except lazyness. Its a cheap peace that could add alot the the european battlefeild.

Cheap is right. They would undoubtedly make it out of cardboard and claim that they did it to save space on the gameboard when you and I know it is because they are a bunch of cheap @$$ chimps trying to save a penny.

right :-D, but a cardboard chit with a trainyard or tracks would be better than having to make one myself.

Whatever the thing is:

1. it must be able to be increased and damaged

2. not cost too much compared to what it does

3. facilitate only NCM bonus

suggestions:

tie it to the SBR damaging capabilities

units move double speed per point

units only move within original controlled territories ( not occupied Soviet Union or China)

UK could use it to reinforce India or Africa

Germany would use it to shuck to eastern front or france

Italy could use it to reinforce Lybia

USA could use it to get stuff to Canada for transport

Japan is out of luck ( or could shuck to Manchuria)

Russia can shuck from east to west or south

@Imperious:

Whatever the thing is:

1. it must be able to be increased and damaged

2. not cost too much compared to what it does

3. facilitate only NCM bonus

Army Base
Costs 15, can be built in any territory controlled at the begining of the turn.
In the non-combat phase it increases movement of land units by one
can take 6 damage points and if it takes 3 it does not increase NCM.

That movement increase is pretty powerful, i think 15 per tt is reasonable

@Razor:

But anyway, I just dont like Flashmans idea that a fast cruiser need two turns to cross the Atlantic, while an infantry unit in South Africa may take the Fantazy Express to any place whereever in one turn.

right, that dosnt make and sence.

however, with the railing into combat thing, i feel your taking the game to literally. sure mnay units were railed into combat and fought that week or that day, but the opposing forces would no about that and have time to react. If your saying we should have mech inf and tanks attaking 3 spaces away, your not giving the other side time to respond. The game would just turn into opposing stacks of units flying across the map; all realism and gameplay would be lost under your proposed rules. It takes months to prepared for a major offensive. Just look at the battle of kursk. Panzers didnt zoom in from Warsaw, it took a long period of preperation, and the Soveits had time to respond and essentialy new what was going to hit them.

So for both gameplay and historical realism,  what I am going to now call army bases( as general term to describe all the logistical elements of a army) , should only increase movement in the NCM phase.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Imperious:

Whatever the thing is:

1. it must be able to be increased and damaged

2. not cost too much compared to what it does

3. facilitate only NCM bonus

Army Base
Costs 15, can be built in any territory controlled at the begining of the turn.
In the non-combat phase it increases movement of land units by one
can take 6 damage points and if it takes 3 it does not increase NCM.

That movement increase is pretty powerful, i think 15 per tt is reasonable

they should give an other bonus like repairing capital ships and scrambling