Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

"Me at least. I’ve long argued for rail movement in non-combat in all Axis and Allies games; it was no less important in WWII.

Now that Larry is beginning to accept the advantages of it, I confidently expect to see it become standard, and the games improved as a result."

Agreed.  Probably the thing that bugs me the most about G40 is the 18 Soviet infantry in the Far East, with no supporting tanks, aircraft, etc.  It should be maybe 6-8 infantry, an artillery or two, plus a tank and a fighter (and maybe a minor factory).  It seems like a cheezy way to keep the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact in effect.  The Soviets don’t have an offensive capability (unless they are willing to take disproportionate casualties) or any way to reinforce quickly.  The Japanese are somewhat deterred because an attack would be an expensive distraction.  If there was rail movement, the forces could be more realistic, and the Soviet player would be able to shift them back and forth (to save Moscow at the last minute) in a reasonably timely manner.  The Japanese would have an incentive to try to cut the rail line.

The problem is figuring out how many units to allow each player to rail move in G40.  I’m toying with a system of maybe dividing total player income by 10, and allowing that many units to rail move.  So if you have 55 IPCs in your hand at the end of combat, you can rail move 5.5 - rounded up to 6 - units.

Edit:  My reason for linking rail movement to income is twofold.  1.  If your economy is doing better, you’d have more money to spend on maintaining rail lines, even though the cost is abstracted into the game.  2.  It might help speed up the game, as it would allow players to maintain the momentum on the offensive, as their lines of supply get extended.

Is the requirement of an infantry in each territory still enforced at the end of place new units, or after Strategic Movement (or both?)

SM is its own phase, so both.

Anyone tried a Russian defence of Italy?

Build a Russian super-stack and rail it west; to Serbia if its available. Assuming Germany is going all-out for Paris, Austria has to either take on the RSS directly, or cover Vienna against it. You can build new Russian forces to take back anything the enemy takes in Russia, and move your stack towards Venice to effectively fork the Austrian army.

This could be a major spoiler of the Central Powers’ new found mobility.

sounds like the long distance move is going to be retired after a short career, 2 moves when through controlled TT’s seem to be the order of the day.

Maybe long “mobilization” moves in round one only to get those troops to the front lines?

sounds like the long distance move is going to be retired after a short career, 2 moves when through controlled TT’s seem to be the order of the day.

As well as +1 move bonus for naval units when beginning their move from a sea zone with a friendly naval base.

Kim

I’m glad the plus one from port is probably going to be standard. Thanks for advocating it, Kim!

@Tavenier:

I’m glad the plus one from port is probably going to be standard. Thanks for advocating it, Kim!

Yep, this and the non-combat double move is going to be our standard for now. I hope this makes the game better long term.

Kim

Perhaps the SM will default to one move per turn from the capital only. This would allow the super-stack moves on round one to get troops to the front; thereafter it would be mainly for railing newly built units to the front lines instead of them stupidly having to march there.

@Flashman:

Perhaps the SM will default to one move per turn from the capital only. This would allow the super-stack moves on round one to get troops to the front; thereafter it would be mainly for railing newly built units to the front lines instead of them stupidly having to march there.

Totally agree, this is the best solution so far

The double move should only be in a nation’s original territories and only if they are not moved into contested territories or hostile territories.  It makes no sense to allow Germans to move from Silesia to Belarus in one turn.  Not only were the roads bad and unfamiliar, but Russia had a completely different gauge rail network (and still does).  By keeping the double move to the original home territories of a nation (and not colonies), it allows the Germans to contemplate a West Front strategy for a change, but it doesn’t radically change the dynamic of the game.

Of course, it still ignores the fact that 9/10 of the German forces were historically on the West Front, and how close the West Front came to collapsing, but it’s better than the way the game is formally set up.

Larry posted this on his site yesterday. Latest clarification to the 2 move concept.

How about this…

All land units (infantry, artillery, and tanks) can move up to two territories. They can move into friendly territories to reinforce them, contested territories to battle for them, or hostile or neutral territories to attack them.

Land units that begin their turn in friendly territories can move up to two territories, but they must end their movement if and when they enter a contested territory. However, they may not move into a hostile or neutral territory unless they began the turn already adjacent to such a territory. In other words, they may move only one space to enter hostile or neutral territories. Such land units can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to any territory within range or remain at sea.

Land units that are moved out of a contested territory can only be moved to an adjacent territory. The adjacent territory being moved into must have been controlled by the moving player at the beginning of his turn or contained units belonging to him. They can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to a territory within range that meets those same requirements or remain at sea.

(if you think this was well written you can thank Krieghund)

Kim