Railroad

Considering house rules for China in G40. In the event they capture an industrial complex built in China. Should they be able to produce any unit?

The scale of which A&A G40 is designed to represent must be taken into account.

We assume that the original A&A Classic rules concerning AAA are more or less represented in the A&A G40 version.

We have devolped an Expansion rule for AAA: Flak Tower (see pdf file below).

5. G40 Flak Tower.pdf

You can find more inspiration in the G40 Expansion rulebook: Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion.

Captain

Hi, i searched the forum but failed to find anything about railroads and IC’s.
Has anyone thought about implementing IC’s and railroads? IC’s you perhaps could built for 12 IPC and you can place max amount of stuff onto the zone.

Railroads would be a bit more interesting, idea is to start from your capital buying railroads connecting it to adjacent territory for an x amount of IPC so you can move infantry and artillery 2 zones.

Would these 2 ideas do any good to 1914 version? I know that railroads were a big factor in the war to bring supplies and men to the front.

@Panzerstahl-Helm

The Waffen-SS Panzer General is not included in the number of Panzer General units.

Please see the attached pdf file below

15. Waffen-SS Panzer General.pdf

I just assumed railway movement was considered in the movement. Those are pretty large distances to cover and it was still the era of steam, not bullet trains.

German armor, especially heavies mostly moved by rail since long road marches were hard on equipment.

It is a good point regarding different scales of rail though. Perhaps a movement penalty where armor can only move 1 on foreign soil (excluding Africa). That reflects rail movement.

Personally, I think blitzing is too powerful anyway. Maybe for mech inf as a fast moving scout, but not armor later in the war.

Yes, Blitzkrieg in France, but that was lightly armored fast moving tanks that wouldn’t survive once T-34s were on the battlefields. Bad roads, long distances and formidable opponents cut that out. US was bogged down in Normandy fight through hedgerows and ran into problems after since French rail was decimated in bombing.

My bad, I somehow got Vladivostok and kamkatcha confused. But yes, just rearrange railroad to its ACTUAL spot. Sorry again.

I agree with both responses. Railroad movement should allow greatly extended mobility when not attacking. Troops going from one front to the other should be able to do so fast. But troops should have to actually march to the enemy, not ride on rails. Makes sense both mechanically and in terms of what the game represents.

I agree about the caution in national advantages that cement strategies too rigidly.

It took time to establish and defend railheads in warzones. Hence, it is unrealistic in my view that a power can rail units into combat, or into tts they have just fought over.

I have no problem in being able to rail from Portugal to Moscow in one move if you control all the relevant tts from the start of your turn.