Larry Harris: 2-Space-Movement & other ideas

It feels simple, which I like. Much easier to explain to new players than Strategic Movement.

The sub rules would be better if the die roll was 1-4 in a sea territory with an Allie  port, 1-2 in an sea zone with no port and no roll if they are in a sea zone with a CP controlled port.

Also,for historical accuracy, Germany needs to be able to build about 9 sub a turn to match the number of subs they produced during the war.

@Chacmool:

Declaring USW should be something that you as Germany really have to consider,
and has to be worth bringing the mighty US earlier than R4 into war.

I’ll go a step more realistic, the US shouldn’t be allowed to declare war until it has been hit by unrestricted sub warfare at least once, if not twice.

I believe it is assumed the Zimmerman note is what is triggering American entry; under your rules, the US could plausibly be kept out of the war indefinitely. This would cause some serious balance issues…

@Grognard:

@Chacmool:

Declaring USW should be something that you as Germany really have to consider,
and has to be worth bringing the mighty US earlier than R4 into war.

I’ll go a step more realistic, the US shouldn’t be allowed to declare war until it has been hit by unrestricted sub warfare at least once, if not twice.

This issue of unit movement has bugged me and there do seem to be good ideas on how to fix it. What about taking each power’s industrial/railroad capacity into account when allowing strategic movement through a powers’ controlled territories? Divide current IPC value by 4 during the movement phase, round to the nearest integer, and that will give you the number of units that can be transported to the front.

So the Ottomans could move up to 4 units to the front on the first round, The Germans up to 9, the Russians 6, etc. Naturally this number would be modified as territories are gained or lost.

It seems like a good way to balance out movement without going overboard.

Just a thought.

This issue of unit movement has bugged me and there do seem to be good ideas on how to fix it. What about taking each power’s industrial/railroad capacity into account when allowing strategic movement through a powers’ controlled territories? Divide current IPC value by 4 during the movement phase, round to the nearest integer, and that will give you the number of units that can be transported to the front.

So the Ottomans could move up to 4 units to the front on the first round, The Germans up to 9, the Russians 6, etc. Naturally this number would be modified as territories are gained or lost.

It seems like a good way to balance out movement without going overboard.

Just a thought.

Ok Flashman…

Welcome to the forums, Harry.  :-)

It should be clear though that an idea more in line with the original strategic movement idea is not totally out and the 2-space move is the only possibility. Trying to preserve some of the ambition of the original idea, I came up with this:

_At the end of your move phase, you may choose ONE of the following Strategic Movement options.

1. You may move as many of your units as you want from your capital (if under your control) to any one other territory you control, provided none of the units have already moved this turn and every territory through which (and to which) you move has been under your control since the start of your turn. You must be able to draw a continuous line of such territories from the starting territory to the destination to perform this move.

2. You may move as many of your units as you want from any capital your side controls to your capital, provided none of the units have already moved this turn and every territory through which you move has been under your side’s control since the start of your turn. You must be able to draw a continuous line of such territories from the starting territory to the destination to perform this move._

Let me know what you think concept-wise, and hopefully I will be able to get the time for a physical test soon.

Starting playing using the 2-move idea (along with naval changes) and though we are still playing, first impressions from the early turns were very favorable.

The best was on the western front we actually had a “Battle of the Marne”, with the Germans taking Belgium turn one, while massing all other troops in Alsace with the 2 move rule. The French defended Lorraine strong to counter this threat.

Turn 2, the Germans captured Picardy and contested Lorraine, while again reserves move up to be in position to move in to contested Lorraine or follow the strong right hook.

Austrians have already taken Veince and moving to contest Tuscany and capture Piedmont. Getting support to the front much quicker now makes this a threat.

Eastern front is very much alive with the Russians able to consolidate and support her efforts. the CP is trying a strategy of holding firm while trying to take Paris and Rome. Not sure how this will play out, but the action has been very dynamic compared to OOB games we played.

The war in the Middle East is developing into a grueling fight for Mesopotamia with both the Turks and UK able to get troops there with the 2 move from their placement at Constantinople and India in to a contested battle.

Hope to pick up play later to see this to conclusion.

Kim

Kim:

If you are playing as Larry and Krieg wrote it, you can’t move 2 spaces into a contested territory like it sounds is happening in Mesopotamia.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Kim:

If you are playing as Larry and Krieg wrote it, you can’t move 2 spaces into a contested territory like it sounds is happening in Mesopotamia.

Not sure what you are referring to, and I know this changed from the original proposal at some point to allow the 2nd move into contested territories (if you meet the requirements). You can move two spaces into a contested territory as the final destination to reinforce/attack as long as the territory you started in, and the first territory you moved through are both friendly when your turn started. From India the UK can get to Meso through Persia, as long as both India & Persia are friendly (UK or Russian controlled). The Turks can do the same moving from Const to a contested Meso, as long as both Const & Ank are in Turk control.

This would also work if say the Russians are contesting Meso with the Turks (no UK units in Meso). If the English are in control of India, and either the UK or Russia has control of Persia, the UK can move ground units from India through Persia to attack the Turks, or to reinforce the Russians.

Ah ok I didn’t realize it was changed.

I thought about something else that would be rare, but possible on Russia’s first turn if the Austrians don’t attack/contest the Romanians, or Ukrainian and Serbia is left contested. Romania as a minor aligned power (to Russia), and by rule it is considered a friendly territory (pg 11). The Russians could move from Ukrainian, through friendly Romania to attack/reinforce a contested Serbia by rule (although it could be a suiside mission). I don’t think you could take the newly activated Romanians into Serbia, with you, because they weren’t on the board when the Russians turn started. The one guy in our group has left Serbia contested A1 in every game he has played as Austria either by not taking in enough, or just bad dice, would like to spring that on him if it comes up LOL.

That’s a good point, and a loophole I think we need to plug.  As with activating friendly neutrals in AA42, land units should have to stop upon entering an unmobilized aligned minor power’s territory.

I’m not sure it needs a fix, and the above scenario could very well be a suicide mission. Was also thinking on the Turks first turn they could also move from Const through friendly Bulgaria (as they activate it) to attack/reinforce a contested Romania or Serbia. I kinda like how these things could play out in the Balkans though, and think you should let it run for a while before making any changes (other then maybe reinforce that fact that you can’t move just activated troops, although the rules are clear that mobilizing these forces happens at the end of the movement phase, after all movement is complete).

It would be possible for the French to move through a friendly Belgium F1, to attack/reinforce a contested Holland, but I don’t see that as a potential problem either, and any of these moves would be in the first round of play for the most part.

Krieg,

The rule is worded correctly as it states clearly can only move ONE space into a hostile or Neutral territory. Romania is neutral at the start of the game I thought(as is Portugal, Belgium, etc.) much like AA 1940 neutrals so you could not move in two to activate it, nor move through it as the rule is written. At least that is how we interpetted it. Still might be helpful to clarifiy. maybe I’m wrong.

Von, in the original proposal, there was no movement of two territories into a contested battle, but further suggestions that this was a workable idea (particlarly how Krieg worded it) went forward.

Actully being able to move 2 areas into a contested area really made for some dynamic moves in our game we’re still playing. in one case, a decision to launch an attack that was 50/50 to end up controlled or contested was not made due to opponents large reserves sitting two areas away that could move in and counter attack unless the area was captured and controlled. Now you have to really consider who all could counter attack or throw in reserves if you are trying to make a stand.

Kim

Actually Kim, the territories that are in question aren’t by rule neutral territories (see page 12 of the rule book), they are “Minor Aligned Powers”. Furthermore these territories by rule (middle of page 11) fall under “Friendly” one of the four conditions that exist for the territories (although, after the optional Russian Rev Rule revision I guess there is now a 5th condition, shared).

I personally don’t think this is a loop hole though (although it wasn’t originally considered when the proposal emerged). In this game these territories are considered friendly, not neutrals, so is it worth the effort to make a change that would basically change the classification of these territories from friendly to neutral?

For the most part it really only effects the first round of play (maybe the second) as far as if you can pass through these friendly territories with the 2-move rule on the first turn. After that they are generally activated, and their status is subject to change like all other territories. Plus the destination territory would have to be contested as well for it to even happen. It isn’t much different then if Russia attacks, and takes control of neutral Persia R1 (making it friendly), and also contests Meso (which could happen). This would allow the UK to pass through the now friendly Persia, to attack Meso if they want too (friendly is friendly, doesn’t matter what happened before your turn, or if that’s the way the board is set-up at the start of the game).

Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

Probably only an issue if Austria avoids Romania turn one, which they might, so needs to be clarified. Thanks for pointing that situation out for us.

Kim

This actually happened in my first game using the SM suggestion; Austria had a huge stack in Poland, Germany had all its units on the western Front.

Then Russia railed its main stack into contested Serbia, threatening Vienna OR a massive reinforcement of Italy by attacking the Austians in Italy and defending Venice, the idea being to stop the Austrians there, leaving the main Austrian force trapped between staying within range of defending Vienna or overrunning lightly defended Russia.

Of course this was a SM after standard moves had activated Romania to create the corridor.