Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

No, allow Berlin to Baghdad in one move, but limit the numbers that can move in one SRM.

Yes, the Allies need to be alert but they can already move units by sea quickly enough to balance.

This is about restoring the balance of the game in favour of the CPs, more powerful sea transport may imbalance it back in favour of the Allies, so I’d be cautious about the 5 space sea move.

Would you jump off a cliff if Larry told you to?

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@elrojo33:

I think I am going to play the game as it was published a few times (like 10?) before I clamour for rule changes. It’s too early for me to say anything is necessarily “broken” (with exception to; the number of pieces, the ridiculous National Production chart and absence of IPC’s.)

I did not call for this movement or anything like it, I was pretty neutral, but now that Larry is up for exploring it, I see no reason not to jump on board.

Sounds like it has fun potential. If Larry’s thinking to change the game, I’m happy to help out, especially when it seems like his initial version was too extreme in the seas. I like A&A. I was not saying I was against the movement, I just wasn’t a huge sensationalist saying “OMG the CP don’t have rail movement there is NO possible way in ANY universe they could stand a chance without it!”

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Frontovik:

i still prefer my version: you can only move through your original home territories that way. you can use those of your allies aswell, but you’d need to move to the new railway network. so troops from berlin move from berlin tot munich G1, G2 they move to tyrolia, G3 they can move to budapest (and stop), G5 they move into serbia or romania, even if it’s austrian controlled etc. so it gets troops faster to the front, but not to the battleline (i can imagine quite well there weren’t that many efficient operarating railroads in Western-Flanders by the fall of 1918)….

I am not saying I would be pushing this one over all others, but do you think it would be better to have them stop as soon as they enter a different ally’s territory?

Germany could move through any Grey it controls, and then once it got to Austria, it would stop in that territory. The next turn, it could move through green until it got to a turquoise or back to grey.

Heck, the CP could even do this in Russia without it being too abusive. They could move through as many CP controlled Russian territories as they like, but once they get to a different color tt, they must stop.

It’s a little bit faster than what you posted, since it allows you to take one step in the different colored territory.

indeed, same thing. it sounds better than the ‘original’ strategic movement’
but i would discount enemy territories; sound more fair. you can say the russians used other railroadsystem (they were broader) and the other systems have been FUBAR’ed.

That is pretty plausible that the Russians would mess up their rail systems so the CP could not use, of course, but I just didn’t want to penalize powers for being aggressive and taking enemy territory by making movement through those territories automatically super slow.

Besides the strategic movement ideas, I think something has to be done about the mined seazones.  The mines make it very hard for the CP to deal with the Allies naval forces.

Also, I just love how some of the people on here love Larry Harris sooo much that they would acknowledge he is rushing games out without play testing people outside of his inner circle.

@loki17:

Besides the strategic movement ideas, I think something has to be done about the mined seazones.  The mines make it very hard for the CP to deal with the Allies naval forces.

Also, I just love how some of the people on here love Larry Harris sooo much that they would acknowledge he is rushing games out without play testing people outside of his inner circle.

Rushing the release along with shorting on pieces, crap IPC chart no IPCs are probably more a product of WOTC than Larry Harris

@Flashman:

Would you jump off a cliff if Larry told you to?

http://www.xkcd.com/1170/

@Uncrustable:

@loki17:

Besides the strategic movement ideas, I think something has to be done about the mined seazones.  The mines make it very hard for the CP to deal with the Allies naval forces.

Also, I just love how some of the people on here love Larry Harris sooo much that they would acknowledge he is rushing games out without play testing people outside of his inner circle.

Rushing the release along with shorting on pieces, crap IPC chart no IPCs are probably more a product of WOTC than Larry Harris

Gotta agree there.

@Aristokles:

@Flashman:

Would you jump off a cliff if Larry told you to?

http://www.xkcd.com/1170/

this is great  :lol:

Quick summary of the first couple of turns of a game using this system (if I understand it correctly):

Austria moves in to contest Venice and Poland, the intention being that Germany will also push north to try reaching Karelia before the British. The entire Budapest army hits Serbia, but a single Russian is left contesting it.

A huge stack supplemented by new units is assembled in Vienna and is railed out to create a super-stack in Poland.

Russia withdraws the Polish garrison into Belarus but makes no attacks. An even bigger stack than Austria’s is assembled in Moscow and promptly railed into Serbia, threatening undefended Budapest and Trieste. Serbia is now defended by a Russian army of 26-10-2 units.

Some thoughts:

Despite what LH has said, I do think this system creates super-stacks, and the game is likely to focus on a dance of death between them.

I would much prefer limiting each rail move to 10 units; OR allowing any number of rail moves, but with only 10 units permitted in each tt railed into. Therefore you could reinforce weakened fronts without creating monster-armies.

Railing into contested tts seems over powerful, especially those you’ve just entered to contest.

I would consider modifying the phase order to:

combat moves
non-combat moves (SM)
combat
place new units

banning SM into, through or from contested tt.

I can see no logical reason for excluding rail movement in ally controlled tt.

Most important of all:

When you perform your SM move, you MUST make a noise like a steam train!

Aside: my new chipping system already seems to be speeding up the game. By pooling all the chips from all my A&A games I’ve just got enough chips, and having just one stack per army is a lot more manageable.

The only downside is that stacks have to be mixed old and new styles, which don’t stack too well together, but having some powers using only one type for infantry and artillery makes it workable. So:

grey - infantry
red - artillery
dark blue - fighters
brown - tanks

The super-stacks are rather tall, but less likely to get knocked over because there’s much less messing about swapping chips around.

I’ve even pressed my MB white chips into service to mark contested tts - this is useful in reminding you to adjust the IPC chart when a tt becomes contested, something rather easy to forget otherwise.

Note: other thing I’m trying here: Switzerland is impassable. I think it should be 4 IPCs/8 defenders, but I want to see the effect of it being off-limits.

Flashman,

I had similar fears of how the game might be distorted, but your explanation of super stacks gives a concrete demonstration of what I was afraid of.  I will try a system similar to what you are suggesting.

1.  Allow rail movement through allied terrritories.

2.  No rail movement through contested territories.  However, I think I’ll allow movement into and out of contested territories, provided they were already contested - and the player had at least one unit present - at the beginning of his turn.  The logic being that if they have been fighting there since last turn, they’ve had time to change the gauge of the tracks on their own side of the trenches.

3.  Any unit that moved or engaged in combat earlier in the player’s turn is ineligible for rail movement.

4.  With the restrictions in 2 and 3 above, I think I’ll allow any number of eligible units from as many territories as the player desires to use rail movement.

5.  I’m still up in the air on allowing newly mobilized units to rail move.  I’ll try it both ways.

Edit:  It just occurred to me that I didn’t cover railing into territories the player invaded this turn, but captured them outright instead of just contesting them.  I guess you could say they haven’t yet had time to change the gauge on the tracks.  On the other hand, if they overcame enemy resistance that quickly, maybe they did.  It would also reward players for invading with enough force to win in one round.  If you allow this, I guess you also have to allow rail into minor powers that have just been mobilized to your side (like Russia moving one unit into Rumania at the beginning of its turn, and then reinforcing by rail).

I suppose its reasonable that Romania can be used by Russia since it had not been enemy occupied; the assumption is that the countries as pre-alligned had some sort of “understanding” about the movement of troops.

Less so with Serbia, since it is contested. My original conception of rail movement was to build up forces at railheads behind the front line, not move units straight to the front. No piece should be able to move twice in a turn; it can either move into combat using the standard movement rules, or SM in non-combat; but not both.

I suggested that SM is done before combat exactly so that you do not get confused about which tts you controlled at the start of the turn.

But don’t forget to make those choo-choo noises! Â

Germany moves:

As usual:

Sinks UK home fleet,

Ruhr army moves in to capture Belgium,

Alsace army moves in to contest Lorraine,

Munich army moves in to capture Switzerland (decided to play OOB + SM).

Four African armies capture undefended tts,

THEN

Every other German land unit, having converged on Berlin and being joined by a stack of new units including 2 fighters, jumps on the west bound train to contested Lorraine.

So Germany now has 5-3 in Belgium, 9-3 in Switzerland, and 42-16-3 in Lorraine. Not a single unit remains in Germany, while the big Austrian stack in Poland guards the eastern front.

The Lorraine stack is so tall I’ll have to consider using white chips for 10 infantry.

Like I said on HGD, superstacks were my worry as well. It’s unfortunate they were the result of your game. Definitely something to keep in mind when tweaking.

Well, I deliberately created them to see how far the concept could run. But a totally empty Germany on round one is a pretty drastic change from the old rules, which saw an empire without rail movement having its road network clogged with troops marching to the front.

But being able to rail such a huge stack to a tt you’ve only just made contested seems downright wrong; it should at least have had to stop in tt controlled at the start of the turn such as Alsace.

Also, SM should not be permitted involving Africa, Persia, Arabia or Afghanistan.

Hmm, moving as much as you can to berlin and then SMing to Switzerland seems pretty interesting. France can only build so much.

I’m going to play with whatever rules Flashman proposes, as LH is too busy to correct the many errors.  We as an internet community should come up with our own official rules.

Also please see my rail unit image below.  When we do RR movement we run this guy around the board and whistle the tune to Thomas the Tank Engine.

@loki17:

I’m going to play with whatever rules Flashman proposes, as LH is too busy to correct the many errors.  We as an internet community should come up with our own official rules.

Also please see my rail unit image below.  When we do RR movement we run this guy around the board and whistle the tune to Thomas the Tank Engine.

Really?

Then let’s add the house rule that infantry for Germany roll twice to represent their extensive training. Then Canadians from the start get to roll three times because everybody knows we are awesome eh ;)