Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

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.

The new phase would have to be before place new units.
Also it should have a limit (10?) else it could get really out of hand.
5 movement for ships is too much too, USA could amphib assault constinople turn 4 with 12 units plus BB and CA

Agree that this shouldn’t apply to ships.

As far as the US, how about wording this proposed change so that it is only available on the first turn AFTER your nation has been at war.  Applies then to the neutrals, etc.

There’s no way a nation is not at war on one turn, and the next is conducting an attack around the globe the next.  Not at least with WWI technology.

EDIT This also means nations that start the game at war can not use this movement until their individual turn 2.

Got pretty far with a game with these rules, and this has made the two powers pretty much equal.

I dont have time to write a playthrough but here is a couple things i have noted.

The westernfront is up in the air. France is on its heels the first couple turns as germany moves in. If germany has adverage rolls, france can hold out till other french and british troops move in. If france gets wiped out in picardy, the first or second turn, paris will fall. France holds, the western front becomes a stalemate and each side will have a hard time winning. As time progresses and germany still cant make a break through, it will lose ground due to the allies superior income. By this time russia will be in revolution or dead. India will probably will have fallen too depending on how many troops that briatian put there. The ottomans will also will be just setting foot into Africa.

The Italians are fielding a slightly larger army, as austria went heavy russia and suffered many casualties.  When the americans come, they need to make a choice.

Italy can hold out, but will eventually lose. Germans are returning there troops from other fronts to come help but the allies can still push into germany but it will be slow.

So, either place troops in austia and try to smash to vienna(risky move), or break the western front and take berlin.

That is where we are stopping and it looks very close to me.

Some more things.

Germany will need to invest in a navy or else britain will crush them. America can move more troops to the front faster with the movement points and the central powers still wont be able to compete in the naval compartment. Britain could also pull some interesting land invasions but they are risky and probably wont go very far.

Made probably too many grammer mistakes due to me typing on my phone but oh well. Ill see how this game goes.

I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?

@loki17:

I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?

This made me laugh. Seriously, though, I think ships would HAVE to have increased movement in order for America to help the Entente keep up with the CPs railroading all over the map. Turn one, Germany will be able to cart a massive amount of troops to the contested territory of their choice (40+ troops?)