I appreciate your help but what I’m looking for isn’t in those sections. Somewhere, I swear, I found a completely revised color rule book. Everything was formatted to make it look very much like the original rule book. Occasionally, to accommodate the additional text lines, some of the pictures were changed or revised. When I saw it, I printed out a copy and then, rather than saving it, physically cut-and-pasted/taped the changes onto the hard-copy original rule book that came with my game.
RR House Rules
-
Let’s hammer out some pre-release railroad movement rules that we can try out when we feel we’ve grasped OOB. Here’s my post from the House Rules forum:
How about stealing from Risk for a KISS version of rail movement (for those attracted to such simplicity):
“Move as many units as you would like from one, and only one, of your territories into another. The two territories (the one you are moving from and the one you are moving to) need not be adjacent but there must be a safe �path� between them. This means that you must be able to travel from the first territory to the last through territories that you control. If you have to pass through an enemy territory or a neutral territory then you cannot use rail movement between the two territories.”
The question of contested territories arises. Like Flashman, I feel players shouldn’t be able to rail move into battle. I would therefore advocate prohibiting a rail move ending in a contested territory or not allowing a player to attack in a contested territory that has received units via rail movement this turn.
Alternatively, as in Risk, the rail move could come after all combat as been resolved, making it more like the fortifying movement it is in Risk. This way, reinforcements could be brought up to fortify contested areas or prepare for an offensive on a future turn, without worrying about rail movement unleashing sudden offensives with troops from the other side of the board.
The other question that remains is whether to allow rail movement through contested territories. I have no problem with rail movement out of contested territories or into contested territories, but through? My first instinct is yes: rail networks existed behind the front lines.
Thoughts?
-
This idea also crossed my mind.
Problem is a blob of German units could shuck all the way to Egypt if the Ottomans take it and puke forth all over Africa.Rail rules are either going to be too simple, or too complicated.
If you limit the distance too much, or limit the number of units that can be moved too much then it loses any impact.
A limiting factor for rail travel might be the path you send your units through. For instance, imagine a chain of territories running from west to east (IPC values) 6>4>2>3>7
Moving along this path only 2 units could move by rail because there is a rail bottleneck in the middle (the 2 IPC territory)
It isn’t industrialized enough for heavy rail travel, but you can move 2 units by rail from one end to the other.
Imagine per se, if there was a 4 IPC territory beneath the 2 IPC territory (that is adjacent to the 4 and 3)
Controlling it would allow 4 units to move by rail across that chain of territories.……if you follow my rambling.
-
This idea also crossed my mind.
Problem is a blob of German units could shuck all the way to Egypt if the Ottomans take it and puke forth all over Africa.That was what I thought, too. My idea is that rails should be limited to Europe, like they were in real life, so no French troops railing from Tunisia clear to Togoland in one turn. Also, the second part of my idea was that troops can only rail across originally owned or allied-owned territories, including pro-side neutrals. The problem with this, of course, is that the Rumanian-Serbian border keeps the two Triple Allies from resupplying the Ottomans at all.
-
It will need some serious play testing other wise I’m pretty sure France doesn’t stand a chance given that Germany starts off with 63 Infantry and 23 artillery, Germany might have to lose units or France gets more. Also Russia’s railway system wasn’t that developed which is why Nicholas couldn’t call off mobilization even if he wanted too.
-
I say rail any amount of units anywhere you like within Europe and Ottoman starting tts, but only through CONTROLLED friendly areas. You can rail into contested areas, but only if you stop there and conduct no combat in that tt this turn.
Yes, theoretically you could rail units straight from Lisbon to Baghdad, but if the enemy allow you to control that big a stretch of tt they’re really not trying.
This gives the enemy ample opportunity to disrupt your network, other house rules might allow bombers to target rail connections.
-
This idea also crossed my mind.
Problem is a blob of German units could shuck all the way to Egypt if the Ottomans take it and puke forth all over Africa.That was what I thought, too. My idea is that rails should be limited to Europe, like they were in real life, so no French troops railing from Tunisia clear to Togoland in one turn. Also, the second part of my idea was that troops can only rail across originally owned or allied-owned territories, including pro-side neutrals. The problem with this, of course, is that the Rumanian-Serbian border keeps the two Triple Allies from resupplying the Ottomans at all.
Serbian/Romania did block AH/German aid to Otto in the war once they were defeated their RR were used to open
supply lines. -
Rails are going to get too messy.
The simple version is (roll a die, that many land units this turn can move 4 spaces amongst territories friendly to your faction) -
I believe German supplied the Turks through Romania before it entered the war; perhaps neutrals stay open for rail transit, rather like my suggestion that the country closest to a non-aligned neutral picks up its money representing trade, i.e. Germany collect Dutch income as long as that country is neutral.
-
Personally, rails will make the game be much longer. If the allies and or CPs have to account for where the other team may ‘rail’ units, offensive operations may be less likely.
-
Thats a risk anyway, hence my suggestion that every player must make at least one mandatory attck each turn of no less than 5 units (if able).
-
Thats a risk anyway, hence my suggestion that every player must make at least one mandatory attck each turn of no less than 5 units (if able).
That’s a pretty good idea and it plays into your morale system- you lose morale every turn right?
-
Rails are going to get too messy.
The simple version is (roll a die, that many land units this turn can move 4 spaces amongst territories friendly to your faction)This I like. Maximum of four spaces. Perhaps not having to roll a dice for number of units transported. Make it five units maximum a turn to one or more spaces along the route.
-
That’s the idea - people at home are going without to pay for this vast army, and its just sitting there doing nothing.
Also, troops and sailors sitting in barracks getting bored are a breeding ground for mutiny and revolt.
Thats a risk anyway, hence my suggestion that every player must make at least one mandatory attck each turn of no less than 5 units (if able).
That’s a pretty good idea and it plays into your morale system- you lose morale every turn right?
Suggested Topics
