Movement in Terrain

@noneshallpass haha yeah I got that your all saying the same thing sorry my wording maybe. Thank you guys

@theveteran
Good additions 👍🏼

@warwick I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi here.

The Example of Romania on page 8 of the rulebook seems to address this too:

“If the roundel is not located in terrain, but you need to cross a terrain type in order to reach the roundel from the border of the land zone, you are subject to “border terrain” rules. Border terrain rules for that terrain type last one round”.

So while that specific example seems to be talking about combat, it does still mention that the terrain rules apply when crossing a mountain border. I just mention that one since it’s using an example just like what you asked, if you cross into a territory with a mountain border, but the roundel isn’t in the mountains.

But also with the rule just being “All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules”, I’d think you have to take that at face value to mean crossing a mountain border reduces movement to 1, even in non-combat movements.

@theveteran No problem.

Ok, now back to mountainous borders. I’m not saying terrain is magically flat if it is friendly. The way you can be certain that I don’t believe that is to scroll back and read where I said if the armor were in Northern Italy and moving through a friendly Southern France, it would not be allowed to continue on to Aquitaine the same turn.

I’m saying that when a land zone is friendly, then border terrain doesn’t start affecting you until the moment you cross the border. And the river rules give a hint that my perspective may be the correct one.

Sidenote on Game Design: There are two ways game designers can approach movement costs: walls or quicksand. With the walls approach, you are not permitted to move unless you have sufficient movement. If I understand Global War’s system, it is a quicksand one. You are allowed to go in, but then get penalized and stuck. This is the way I conceptualize it. I may be wrong, but I know Morten’s approach in general is to give the player choices with consequences. Other game designers forbid players from doing things.

@fdr said in Combat movement question?:

do they have the ability to leave that sea zone without any combat occurring or does England stop them in combat?

Yes, as per .5

Or is there a way that Germany with the intention of war, can avoid that navy yet strike with that same force on the same turn?

Apparently You combat move out of the zone, then declare war.

@delaja While I am neither a game designer or profess to be one, your post does not tell me anything I don’t already know. This “suggested” house rule was only meant to spark some interest in adding minor and major airbases to the game like ports, docks, and shipyards and using planes in a somewhat realistic fashion. The house rule was intended for someone like yourself, a “veteran game designer”, to perhaps add in things that ‘could work’ not theoretical things that might work. So if you want to add value to this post, please rewrite or add suggestions for the house rule for players out there that would like to see minor and major airbases in the game. I appreciate the feedback and encouragement though.

@noneshallpass Thanks for the quick response!

@AlphaAeffchen said in Ship movement in peacetime (36 scenario):

Are my assumptions correct?

I would say they are. I think there are two exceptions though, 1) the US’s movement being restricted by their current income, 2) You cant combat move vs a nation through a canal they own.