Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Good, the western front is now going to become very desperate, and britain will have to send to troops to keep france afloat.

Also this helps the ottomans take on india  I also assume this applies to africa? I wonder how that will change things.

Playing a play though right now, and see how this works out.

If the ottomans now have a route to africa, so now that they arnt fighting for their life, they can afford to support a campaign there.

@Flashman:

Strategic Sea Movement (5 spaces is practically unlimited on this board) should also take place at this time, rather than giving ships 5 space movement as standard.

If the Allies can ship pieces 5 spaces into combat it only increases the imbalance we already have.

I think the sea movement actually favors the CPs.  Yes, it only takes one turn for the US to land troops in Europe, but that only happens once during the entire game.  On the other hand, notice that it is exactly 5 spaces between the German home waters to the American shipping lanes (SZ 1, 13, & 14).  With this new mechanic, subs are now a formidable weapon that forces the Allies to build more warships to protect their transports.

hello everyone i’ve been lurking silently on this forum for a while now and I finaly decided to give my 2 cents  :-D I would like your opinions on this, why not simply place a german marker on hannover, call it the germen railway hub and allow movement up to 2 spaces once the german (or other central powers) units are in hannover, they can be on the wetern front in 2-3 turns and to the east in 1 and would allow the germans to help out austrians and would allow austia to help out on the west if austria can get there, this would balance out the insane disparity between the allied and CP navy’s and the fact that the allies’ suply lines (most notibly the french) are much shorter than the central powers are

The problem with that is that rails were all over Europe. Not just Germany.

Usa could just prepare a huge invading fleet and then attack either berlin or constantinople. I think I will try the strategic movement and keep ships as they are.

also very true but I feel like the rest of the powers due to the layout of the map have more or less like larry says, railsystems inbedded in the spirit of the game i feel that this might actualy be an elegant and simple fix altough I must admit that my playgroup and I do not have enough games under our belt (3 all allied wins one was very close for the CP’s though)   :-)

I agree that Germany is at a strategic disadvantage under the current rules. That is why I am against increased ship movement. But if all powers had rail movement, I think it would be fair and historical.

I like the strategic movement idea Larry
This will give the CPs a real fighting chance and will be the allies worse nightmare!
However giving all ships 5 movement is far to much in my opinion. USA could get all the way to constinople or Berlin in 1 turn, and every turn from 4 on out.
Why not use the G40 mechanics for naval bases? Give all ships bonus movement if leaving from a friendly port.
so cruisers could move up to 4 spaces

I agree with flash in that the strategic movement should be before you place new units

Maybe my counting is off, but Berlin and Constantinople are 6 SZs from the US.  Kiel and Smyrna are within range however.

You know, this Strategic Movement is exactly like the one found in RISK.

:-D

Yeah no offense to anyone who was involved in this idea but it’s anything but radical. How many years has this been in Risk? Would it be more appropriate to measure in decades?

Larry just said “try it”.
Its nothing official, its like when he tried those economical warfare ideas and then scrapped them

You are right lol
And I can’t seem to edit my post

Still think 5 is too much

@Uncrustable:

You are right lol
And I can’t seem to edit my post

Still think 5 is too much

After relooking at it, we were both right and wrong, Berlin is 6, Constantinople is 5.

This is a good topic. I’m contemplating the creation of a rail marker that could cost a few IPC’s and placed on a land mass can then connect the adjacent landmasses. What I initially like about a physical marker is that it also gives aircraft a strategic target to knock out as well. As I am thinking this through, the rail marker virtually eliminates the region that it’s in and units can simply jump past it. Theoretically, you could put another rail marker in another adjacent region and jump two regions.

Anyway, just thinking this through in light of this thread. Please give me your thoughts.

Bill

@Flashman:

Thank you, “Mr Krieghund”.

Don’t thank me - all I did was give it a name.  This is Larry’s baby (though I did have a small amount of influence on the direction it took).

My argument is not that there shouldn’t be strategic sea movement, but that it should not be used as a combat move.

By all means allow America to ship armies to a friendly tt or SZ anywhere on the board, but not to land in enemy tt or sail through hostile or mined SZs. The idea is to get units to a position where they can attack next turn, by which time the enemy can use its own SRM or SSM to build up defences.

The essential character of warfare in the period was of attrition, because powers could transport reinforcements to shore up gaps in their line faster than the enemy could exploit said gaps. This had been true from the US civil war onward.

However, in order to effectively balance SSM, SRM would need to be through any friendly tt, not just that owned by an individual power.

I assume the unit(s) left behind in contested tts must include an infantry, and that tts moved to by SRM must also end up with an infantry present.

(Asked Larry this question; the answer was to delete my post. Be warned.)

I think this will help the CP alot. Just think the CP can move thirty units from the Russian Front to the French front in one move. That just does not seem like a good idea to me. I would like to see some more restrictions placed on the move. Like a max of 5 to 10 units per turn.