I was searching around here for a thread on railways and came across this one;
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34455.0
I would have posted there but the thread went off the rails (pun intended) so I’m going to start a new one.
I have 20 of those railway markers and 5 damaged rail markers from HBG and I’ve been pondering how to use them so I’ll bounce this off the forum and see if any good ideas come out.
I was thinking that perhaps one way to add a little flavour to the game would be to not have a particular initial setup in which the markers are placed the same way every game. I did a bit of research and found that there were railways all around the world in 1940 (although with different gauges in some cases). It seems to me that you could put them just about anywhere you wanted and it would be plausible if you ignored the different gauges in the interest of playability.
Rather than give the markers to each nation to begin with I think it would be cool to give them to the players sitting around the table to place on the board before the game begins. They could put them in any land territory they want, including those belonging to the opposition. An example of that is the axis player may want to place markers in French territories or Chinese territories. Either side my want to place markers connecting neutral territories they plan on annexing or invading in the first or second round. The only place I can’t see wanting to place one is connecting to a strict neutral territory.
I would give 8 markers to each side to place before the game begins. After that any nation could purchase one of the remaining 4 markers for 3 IPC’s to place on a territory which they control (only 1 per turn so others have a chance to purchase a marker). I would limit it to those 20 markers because I don’t want to litter the whole board with them.
The nation controlling the territories where the markers are located and their allies can use the railway to move 3 land units up to the entire length of the railway on non-combat movement only. These units do not have to begin or end in the same territory. Units that have a movement ability of 1 (infantry, artillery, AAA) have to be in the territory to jump on the train. Units with a movement ability of 2 (tanks, mechanized infantry) may move one space to get on the train or non-combat move 1 space after getting off train. This is so that there is still a difference in movement ability between land units to respect the mechanics of A&A. There are no rail stations, it is assumed that there is one in each territory the railway passes through.
You can only use a tactical bomber to damage a railway (1 die per bomber at 2 or less).The marker is on the border between 2 territories so the bomber can attack it from either of the territories. The only defence against a bombing raid on a railway is an anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) so it might be a good idea to place one in territories containing a railway. It costs 2 IPC’s to repair a damaged rail marker on the controlling nation’s place units phase during their next turn. The reason they have to wait for that phase is so they can’t use a damaged railway for 1 turn. Why else would you even bother bombing one if there is no effect other than making your opponent pay a couple of IPC’s?
What do you think of those those ideas? Do you have any to improve upon that?
Rather than give the markers to each nation to begin with I think it would be cool to give them to the players sitting around the table to place on the board before the game begins. They could put them in any land territory they want, including those belonging to the opposition. An example of that is the axis player may want to place markers in French territories or Chinese territories. Either side my want to place markers connecting neutral territories they plan on annexing or invading in the first or second round.
One potential side-effect is that such placement would be a pretty clear advance signal to the opposing players that you intend to invade such-and-such a territory, which would allow your opponents to take this into account when making their own plans. This might not matter much in the case of “must have” territories that any sensible player would invade anyway, but it might matter in situations where a player plans to do something unexpected because it would give away his intentions or at least strongly suggest what he has in mind. Unless, of course, the railway markers are used as a kind of decoy to trick the opposition into reinforcing Territory X even though the player’s real intention is to invade Territory Y.
I like the idea of this. A con might be that Germany would not have to spend the additional 1 IPC for Mech infantry when invading Russia. Straight leg infantry would probably do just fine.
I see this mostly benefiting the Axis side. UK could of course have a railway in the Mid East…so maybe it would balance out.
Would have to hear some war game reports.
I would be interested to hear a report as this really changes the game play.
I will do a video of how it works out but I wanted to get some input first on how to go about implementing the railways. One key feature that I’m not willing to compromise on is limiting the number of markers on the board, other than that I’m open to suggestions.
As far as being too obvious about what your strategy will be, due to the limited nature I see these probably being used in more no-brainer type of way such as building a railway from one side of Europe to the other through German territory so Germany can move troops easily from one front to another. Of course you’re not limited to using them like that, that’s the beauty of not having a specific setup. You can totally dick with your opponent by placing them in a place where you have no intention of attacking.
It could be fun if you use your imagination.
I like the idea of a trans-siberian railway, stretching from moscow to the pacific, that gives all Russian ground troops a ncm movement of 2.
I made a video of the final product as well as Hospitals and “The Spy”. You can view the video here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSz5Il0CRyE&t=3s
I like the railway for the most part, not a fan of the hospital (im not a fan of anything to prolong the game, same with the spy, more rolling, more waiting for players to decide/do things). Railways I believe could speed up the game, which I am a fan of. Though I would make several changes, but your rules work for you, and that’s whats important.
Another take on this subject…
Railroad Deployments:
Land unit mobilizations can occur in any of your controlled territories that can trace a contiguous chain of controlled territories back to an industrial complex. However, this adds to the cost of the unit; +1 IPC and +1 IPC if goes through captured territory(ies). They cannot be built in territories captured on the current turn. This build is part of the industrial complex build capacity. Placement changes can be done at the time of build, unspent IPCs will be refunded.
@Carolina:
Another take on this subject…
Railroad Deployments:
Land unit mobilizations can occur in any of your controlled territories that can trace a contiguous chain of controlled territories back to an industrial complex. However, this adds to the cost of the unit;
+1 IPC per originally controlled territory traveled; +2 IPC per captured territory. They cannot be built in territories captured on the current turn. This build is part of the industrial complex build capacity. During the build phase, you specify units being built (as normal), but must have some remaining for railroad deployments.
Interesting mechanic.
I just find the cost is too high, eventhough it needs some limitations.
IDK what can be better.
I have a first turn run through uploading right now so you can see how it’s working out with all of the house rules. It takes forever to upload a 2+ hour video so it will take quite awhile. The hospitals haven’t saved very many infantry so far in the first 2 rounds, I think only 3 or 4 in total from all nations and it doesn’t take very long if you have a few 12 sided dice. The spy is adding a lot to the game in the first 2 rounds. So far ANZAC has managed to develop improved shipyards and Japan has developed jet fighters. The choices are limited so it doesn’t prolong it that much. U.S. got the spy in the 3rd round but I haven’t started it yet.
One of the interesting things I’m finding out with the railways is I’m constantly thinking " I should’ve put them here instead". That’s what I was hoping for though, a way to change them every game instead of having them the same every time.
One of the interesting things I’m finding out with the railways is I’m constantly thinking " I should’ve put them here instead". That’s what I was hoping for though, a way to change them every game instead of having them the same every time.
That’s the best part about this, im pretty sure ill be taking this mod as I truly think it could speed up attacks and get the ball rolling in some slow areas…. one difference though, ill be making/casting train units to act as the transports.
Good work, I love how players can customize their railways. All around great idea, thanks for sharing.
I liked the idea of using trains as well but I decided against it for no other reason than to keep it simple. After I get used to using the rails maybe I’ll have a good idea on how to incorporate trains on them. If you were able to purchase trains then you could increase your capacity to move more units.
I uploaded a first turn run through with all 10 of my house rules. It’s a long one (almost 2.5 hours) so if you’re bored and have nothing to do check it out;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWCCiFYgzA&t=1s
Like the idea of having a train unit that you could purchase to increase the number of units that can be moved.
Also, would like the option for Tac Bombers to attack train units. Then you would have to make a choice to unload units before a territory the enemy can attack or take the risk by going in.
Some neat ideas in here. I like that your house rule gets units to the front faster, and that players have some control over where they need to speed up movement. Not sure about assuming that all railways are the same gauge – that turned out to be of enormous, maybe even decisive significance on the eastern front; the Germans had to retool the Soviet railways as they advanced, but the tanks drove on much faster than the engineers could retool the railways, so after a couple of months of combat there were hundreds of miles with no rail service at all, just horses hauling gasoline through the mud. If you wanted to simulate that, you could say that every time you conquer a territory, it damages all incoming and outgoing railroads in that territory.
Shouldn’t it be the strategic bomber that can attack railroads, rather than the tactical bomber? I thought strategic bombers were used to destroy large, static, industrial targets like railyards, and tactical bombers were used for pinpoint strikes on fast-moving targets like, e.g., enemy tank concentrations. Maybe the strategic bomber hits on a 3 or less, and the tactical bomber hits on a 1?
If I were using rail stations then certainly you would be using strategic bombers to damage them as they would be representing the rail yards as well. I really tried to keep this rule simple by only putting tracks on the board and not accompanying them with trains or stations. That could be something for down the road. My reason for using tactical bombers was that they would be dive bombing a single line and not a yard, and also to give them something that would differentiate them from fighters (fighters escort and intercept bombers, tac bombers damage air/naval bases and railways).
For someone that wants to add a lot of complicated rules you could add a great deal to railways, including having different gauges. I could play a game like that but I find that most people are intimidated by the number of rules already associated with the game and would be put off by adding too much more. If this was my only house rule then sure add a bunch, but I have 10 house rules and so I try to keep them as simple as possible.
I use a locomotive to move my pieces in game . My rule is only 2 pieces [ inf, art ] can only be loaded on train can only move 2 spaces. It took to long to transport mechs tanks etc. loading time. You could increase move and pieces to 3 total and I like were locomotive can be attacked more on the line instead of each end of line. This gives tacs more attacking chances eiither at ends or middle of lines. So cost would be like 3 icps to repair loco and 1 icp for rail damage.
So locomotives u either give so many to countries and or they can buy them and have to start at a capital and or any factory.
This will favor the axis so adjustments need to be made.
Gen.,
I think you might want to consider moving up to playing HBG’s Global 1936/1939. (Same board, just two game scenarios). Their new map, rules, and game pieces add additional dynamics similar to your many posts on house rules you want to change or add. This map for instance, already has rail roads printed on it where they really went during that time.
Young Grasshopper has a short video on youtube regarding the map, as does HBG themselves.
Ichabod
Thanks for the suggestion Ichabod. I have been thinking seriously about doing just that. I’ve been checking it out for some time now but I think I would like to find other players locally who would be willing to learn and play a game that is that extensive first. For now I’m having fun making videos and improving my A&A skills.
That sure is the challenge. GW39 is a custom built game, with optional or advanced rules to cover almost every tweak that has been discussed for AxA House Rules.
Unf, GW is expensive and complex, adding more to an already 10 hour game. If one version is going to be complex and the other, hypercomplex, I don’t think adding more complexity to the simple (lol) AxA G40 game is a good idea, just go up the learning curve, buy D12 dice, and drop the $300+ to get going on GW.
The problem is about adoption; most of my friends aren’t open minded to other games such as Fortress America or Twilight Imperium, and while they are probably more openminded to an AxA spin off, the learning/convincing curve is pretty big
