@hengst yea i read through them again. Some cool ideas. The End Points are interesting. Kind of a Railroad type thing. For Land anyway.
Got a couple other things going, but yea, gonna check it out some more :)
I have thought of something that would make logistics a more important aspect of the game. If ports became more important in the deployment of troops, it would create new aspects of the game that would add realism and a little more strategy.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE CONCEPTS ONLY TAKE PLACE IN THE NON-COMBAT PHASE OF ONE’S TURN.
Port drop offs - If a transport drops off units at territory that contains a friendly port, that transport can continue the rest of its moves plus one more due to the ease of unloading. For example, a transport from Japan could unload in Kwangtung, if it is Axis controlled, and return to Japan in the same move.
Port Refuels - If a transport passes through a seazone that is adjacent to a territory with a port, the transport receives and extra move (could interpret as that specific move doesn’t count towards the transports movement). Can only occur once per move, so passing through multiple sea-zones with multiple ports would has no benefit. For example, American transports from seazone 101 can pick up units from America and unload them in England from seazone 109 by passing through seazone 106, which is adjacent to the port at Nova Scotia.
Over loading - If a transport picks up units in a territory with a port, that transport is able to “over load,” that is it can carry more units then normal. Over loaded transports can carry the following; 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 artillery and 1 tank, or 2 infantry and 1 tank/1 artillery. However, overloaded transports can only be unloaded at territories with friendly ports. Over-loaded transports cannot make amphibious assaults, and would only be used logistically.
With these new rules, I believe the strategic value of many territories would increase, making places like Normandy and Kwangtung more important to player strategies. It could also significantly change the USA strategy, as Gibralter doesn’t become the essential territory it is now. It would also make the Japanese deployment of troops a little easier.
All of this may seem a bit confusing, and whatever feedback you can offer would be great, thanks.
I have thought of something that would make logistics a more important aspect of the game. If ports became more important in the deployment of troops, it would create new aspects of the game that would add realism and a little more strategy.
Port drop offs - If a transport drops off units at territory that contains a friendly port, that transport can continue the rest of its moves plus one more due to the ease of unloading. For example, a transport from Japan could unload in Kwangtung, if it is Axis controlled, and return to Japan in the same move.Port Refuels - If a transport passes through a seazone that is adjacent to a territory with a port, the transport receives and extra move (could interpret as that specific move doesn’t count towards the transports movement). Can only occur once per move, so passing through multiple sea-zones with multiple ports would has no benefit. For example, American transports from seazone 101 can pick up units from America and unload them in England from seazone 109 by passing through seazone 106, which is adjacent to the port at Nova Scotia.
Over loading - If a transport picks up units in a territory with a port, that transport is able to “over load,” that is it can carry more units then normal. Over loaded transports can carry the following; 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 artillery and 1 tank, or 2 infantry and 1 tank/1 artillery. However, overloaded transports can only be unloaded at territories with ports.
With these new rules, I believe the strategic value of many territories would increase, making places like Normandy and Kwangtung more important to player strategies.
All of this may seem a bit confusing, and whatever feedback you can offer would be great, thanks.
Interesting…in my next project board I was going to make the Convoy Routes tie to specific ports of destination for supply intervention (i.e.- La Rochelle in Normandy/Bordeaux, Glascow in Scotland, Liverpool in UK, New York in Eastern US, etc). Your new rules (or a variation) might just make an appearance in my own house rules! :-D
Nice ideas…
KillOFzee,
Interesting ideas, but IMHO adding combat or movement bonuses might be enough to unbalance the gameplay as we know it.
I might suggest you consider a “differrent” way of thinking. That “cargo” ships can only load and unload at friendly ports.
This is somewhat the same logic as the Imperial Leader suggested for the “Air Transport” rules for use with the coming cargo planes.
Cargo Planes providing non-combat “air transport” must start and end their turns in friendly air bases.
It’s something for you to consider. And keep up the good work.
"Tall Paul
@Tall:
KillOFzee,
Interesting ideas, but IMHO adding combat or movement bonuses might be enough to unbalance the gameplay as we know it.
I might suggest you consider a “differrent” way of thinking. That “cargo” ships can only load and unload at friendly ports.
This is somewhat the same logic as the Imperial Leader suggested for the “Air Transport” rules for use with the coming cargo planes.
Cargo Planes providing non-combat “air transport” must start and end their turns in friendly air bases.
It’s something for you to consider. And keep up the good work.
"Tall Paul
You’re 100% correct, Paul. All of these benefits would only be allowed during the Non Combat phase. I have edited just now to clarify. Thank you much.
I like it! It would for sure change up the game, since the American Navy won’t ALWAYS be going to Gibralter. This rule would make England more a centralized location for landings in Europe, which far more realistic than having the Americans go to Gibralter.
Very smart thinking!
Is a “port” simply a territory with a naval base? If so, this means you’re adding to the advantages already given by the naval base?
Is a “port” simply a territory with a naval base? If so, this means you’re adding to the advantages already given by the naval base?
Yes, a port is any territory with a naval base. And the added advantages would primarily affect land operations.