I like that rail movement for The War Game. If you only have 1 or 2 lines going then you can’t send everything at once. If most of territories are worth 1, 2, or 3 then you can only send 1 piece every turn.
Yes I like limits - if you can move anything anywhere you want with rail, you’ve just wrecked the basic movement values of units, and the interesting level of strategy that goes with it. A RR rule should just add a little flavor IMO, not fundamentally change all movement.
Yes I like limits - if you can move anything anywhere you want with rail, you’ve just wrecked the basic movement values of units, and the interesting level of strategy that goes with it. A RR rule should just add a little flavor IMO, not fundamentally change all movement.
Me too, In Europe, only 1 infantry can move 2 territory during non combat move.
Trans Siberian 3.
US rail = 2.
AL
The basic movement values of land units should be wrecked, because it is nonesense.
All thse units moved at the same rate - that of the trains carry them. When they detrained, it probably took the tanks longer to reach the front than the infantry as they’d have to be offloaded, reassembled (too big to ride trains assembled), fueled and maintainanced; the PBI could jump off trains and march strait to the battle zone. As I said, armoured units can be given an extra breakthrough move after combat to balance the loss of movement points inherant in their cost. Although, frankly, I’ve always considered MI a unit too many, while you can do many things to make tanks more powerful.
By interesting level of strategy, I assume you mean Japan building only tanks to send towards Moscow because their infantry and artillery are too slow moving to keep up…
Or, think of it as an interesting new strategic challenge; being able to counter move enemy strategic rail movements with those of your own, and being able to target rail links by bombing at just the point you need to slow down his strategic movements.
You may say this is a different game; I’d say it is a better one, and certainly more realistic.
I’m going to use N scale train track cut in 1 inch pieces to represent rail in each territory and when damaged turn track over and use with or without damaged token.
@SS:
I’m going to use N scale train track cut in 1 inch pieces to represent rail in each territory and when damaged turn track over and use with or without damaged token.
Using actual model railroad track is a neat idea. A friend of mine who’s into model railroading once mentioned to me that there’s an even smaller (than N scale) track size called Z scale. If he’s right, might Z be a better fit for the A&A game map than N, since it would take up less space?
Correct CWO Marc. Be better to use Z scale track for smaller board games. I use the 4 x 8 maps so plenty of room for me.
Yes Z scale is better but harder to find.
I have HO scale but I never thought about track….
Good idea.
I also have a 4 x 8 gameboard and I represented the rail with a pens marker on the map.
I also used different color of marker to represented the cargo route…
AL
Yes Z scale is better but harder to find.
I think my friend mentioned that Z scale is popular in Europe, so I guess it would be easier for European players to get their hands on Z-scale track than North American ones.
You can also try….
In Europe you can travel anywhere so all infantry that didn’t move during combat can move to 2 territories. (One infantry per travel). The only problem is too control the german player. It could be a free for all if the german player change is mind and move the infantry anywhere else.
AL
The basic movement values of land units should be wrecked, because it is nonesense.
All thse units moved at the same rate - that of the trains carry them. When they detrained, it probably took the tanks longer to reach the front than the infantry as they’d have to be offloaded, reassembled (too big to ride trains assembled), fueled and maintainanced; the PBI could jump off trains and march strait to the battle zone. As I said, armoured units can be given an extra breakthrough move after combat to balance the loss of movement points inherant in their cost. Although, frankly, I’ve always considered MI a unit too many, while you can do many things to make tanks more powerful.
I totally agree with the unlimited non combat movement for land units.
Let Tanks absorb two hits like it do with the 1914 rules.
Let Tanks blitz through newly captured territories.
Ex. 4 inf, 1 art, 4 Tanks and 2 Mech start in territory A.
The 4 inf and 1 art capture territory B.
The 4 Tanks and 2 Mechs blitz through newly captured territory B and combat move into territory C.
No more need for another player as can opener. This will be historical correct blitzkrieg.
I was thinking more along the lines that all the units attack then, if the battle is won in a single round, armour can make a 2nd move into hostile tt. This way, defenders have to think about defending 2 tts deep.
But the 1914 “absorb a hit” idea is interesting; would this apply for attack and defence for WWII? Would this be a reason to introduce heavy tank units, with 2 hit points but without the blitz move? i.e. Tiger, KV1 etc.
Mech inf/light tank: cost-4, move-1/ul, attack-2, defence-2, blitz
Medium/standard Tank: 6, 1/ul, 3, 3, blitz
Heavy tank: 8, 1/ul, 4, 4, absorb 1 hit, no blitz
Heavies would be a tech unit, but USSR would start with it:
I believe the two hits in attack are to model the Panzer attack where Tanks breakthrough the line as a shock wave, surround the enemy and cut the supply line, and make the defending enemy surrender. This way of maneuver warfare would give less casualties to the attacker, compared to the classic infantry charge and artillery barrage, which was a real meat grinder to the attacker.
But when that is said, dug in Tiger tanks defending were in fact hard targets, they were bunkers on wheels with a big gun, so maybe the two hits should be when defending too ?
My experience with house rules are that some people have difficult to accept new abilities to classic units. So maybe the only way is to introduce new units, and keep the old ones at the current system. In that case, the current Tank cost 6, A3 D3 move 2 and Blitz. Then a new heavy Tank cost 8, A4 D4 move 2 and take two hits to kill. This make sense
Next issue.
No Flash, I don’t think Tanks that just were in combat in the first territory got enough power to continue into next territory and keep on fighting. Most of them would have broke down and need to spend some time in the workshop to be fit for next battle. They could need to change tracks for sure. Refuel. Reload. etc.
In the real war, the battle would start with infantry and artillery that engaged the defenders, and make them stuck in combat. Then, when the weak spot was identified, fresh Panzer units that had been kept in reserve, would smash trough as a shock wave and take the fight to the next territory. That is how I imagine it.
Bottom line, Tanks and Mechs that were not used so far, can blitz through newly captured territory and attack the next one. Smooth and don’t violate the classic A&A engine too much.
Thinking again, heavy tanks might have the “absorb a hit” ability on defence only. Â Using the KV1 example, these machines’ heavy armour stopped the German advance, but they were not mobile enough to be effective in attack.
A stack of heavies with absorb could be devastating in attack, especially if it can be used (unlike 1914) in multiple rounds of combat. This is where you have to be careful importing mechanics from 1914.
This somehow has to be balanced against the new blitz ability of standard armour units.
Also, forgot that France (as well as USSR) should start with heavies; though this is a further obstacle to people who want France in the game but easily defeated by Germany…
Yes, I think the cost of 8 IPC is wrong for a A4 D4 take two hits to kill unit. It will turn the fighter obsolete in territory defense for sure. Who will pay 10 IPC for a unit that is not allowed to land in newly captured territories, when you can pay 8 for a unit that defend on 4 and even take two hits to kill
Looks like the train ran off the track.
Looks like the train ran off the track.
:-D
Yes, I think the cost of 8 IPC is wrong for a A4 D4 take two hits to kill unit. It will turn the fighter obsolete in territory defense for sure. Who will pay 10 IPC for a unit that is not allowed to land in newly captured territories, when you can pay 8 for a unit that defend on 4 and even take two hits to kill
Hi Narvik,
here is a few posts on that matter of 2 hits Tanks and their combat value, in a far far away thread.
HBG units “Custom” Rules question (Global game)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31368.msg1206393#msg1206393
@Baron:
@Baron:
However,
if I try to input this one (since there is a 1941 sculpt for it.)
Slow Heavy Tank (Tiger) A4D4M1C7, 2 hits, no blitz, give +1A to TcB when paired with.Raise the question:
7 OOB tank A3D3M2, 1 hit are they better than 6 Tiger A4D4M1, 2 hits ?A21D21M2, 7 hits vs A24D24M1, 12 hits
(or vs 6 Inf+ 6 Art= A24D24M1, 12 hits = 5% for OOB tank vs 95% survival for the Inf+Art).Is it a real balance match?
Without the 2 hits: it is 49% for OOB vs 45 % for Tiger chance of survivalMaybe the 2 hits for ground units required to destroy a damaged unit before damaging another instead of the regular take 6 damage on 6 Tiger before loosing 1 (as we will do with 3 or 4 BB in the same SZ).
This 2 options are clearly different:
A) after 2 hits, only 5 Tigers fire.
Maybe it is around 15% chance of survival for regular OOB Tanks.B) after 6 hits, still 6 Tigers fire.
And it is .2% chance of survival for regular OOB Tanks.It is clear now that introducing this Tiger will be unbalancing.
Maybe this can be balance:
Tiger A4D4M1C8, 2 hits, no blitz, +1A to TcB.
At least it will cost 4 IPCs/hit for this tank.The battle between OOB vs Tiger come like this:
4 Tanks A3D3M2C6, 1 hit vs 3 Tigers A4D4M1C8, 2 hits
A12D12C24, 4 hits vs A12D12M1C24, 6 hits for 3 units.
6% of survival vs 91% of survival (taking hits like BB)
Are the odds too unbalance for OOB?We must not forget however that OOB tank are M2, and mobility is a great advantage.
6 OOB Artillery A2D2M1= A12D12M1C24, 6 hits for 6 units.
Which type of unit will prevail?
Any guess?72% of survival for 3 Tigers A4 (taking hit as BB) vs 25% for the 6 Artillery D2.
I still maintain the special rule for 2 hits ground units that :
the 2 hits for ground units required to destroy a damaged unit before damaging another.
However, any damage ground unit which survived is repaired at the beginning of the next owner’s turn.In this way,
OOB 4 tank will survive around 36% vs 60% for Tiger (aprox. with AACalc).
And
OOB 6 Art will survive around 60% vs 35% for Tiger (aprox. with AACalc).Which both seems more acceptable to me than preceding Tiger at 7 IPCs cost.
Where do the trains pick up these tiger’s ?
OK OK.
I will be back on track. :wink:
But rather than create a complex rules dynamic with special territory restrictions, I think it should be a base like the ones for air and ships. Provides a simple movement bonus to units that start their non combat movement phase on a territory with a railroad. Infantry, Artillery, anti aircraft artillery guns, move +1 out of a territory that has “Rail” for its land units, tied it’s operational ability.
This seemed a very simple way to get rail into the game, but also to provide some limit on its combat effectiveness by restricting the advantage to the non combat phase.
Basically the purchase cost and abilities would match the cost of air bases and shipyards, but this Rail system would be for ground units.The total number of units that can move out of rail territory could be limited to 3 if desired and tied to the operational status of the railway. For example, at full operation, the rail can move at a total of 3 ground units +1 space on non com. If it is Tac bombed -1, it may only move 2 ground. If Tac bombed -2 it can move 1 ground. Tac bombed -3 and it is inoperative and cannot move any ground unless repaired.
Movement could also be restricted if desired, only along territories which have railroad bases connected (so you must both begin your non combat moment and end it at a territory with a rail hub.) Basically rail to rail for movement purposes. Or we could run it just like the other tactical movement bases. Long as you start your non com in the territory you get the +1. Questions might be whether to allow tanks or mechs to move along the rail hubs.
I like the “3” symbolism already associated with Air Base.
Instead of limiting the number of units while damaged, maybe limit the number of additional spaces to move allowed.
Trains stations are put on IC territories.
Gives a bonus to 3 grounds units of any kind.
Gives +2 NCM bonus move to any ground units (up to 3 territories move max).
Gives +1 CM bonus move to any ground units (up to 3 territories move max.)
So Tank and Mech can reach for combat a territory usually 1 space too far away.
All Infantry or Artillery units can move as if they were Mechanized (M2).
Can be damaged as any Air Base or Naval Base, by Tactical or Strategical Bombers.
1-2-3 damage points reduced 1 movement point for NCM and forbid any move using trains during CM phase.
So, Tank and MechInf can still move in NCM 3 spaces while Inf and Art will move only 2 spaces.
4-5-6 damage points reduced 2 movement points for NCM, which make this trains station unusable until repaired.
This way, it will have more tactical impact for the owner to not repair trains stations and gives more incentive to risk precious bombers to damage them.
Fast troops deployment will be radically impaired if not repaired.
