Here’s our WAW rules.
Mechanized infantry=
Move 2 (units can retreat after one round of combat).
att = 2
def= 2
Cost = 4
(Japan,france and China cannot produce mechanized infantry).
Lets Talk Ports
-
I definitely not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I do understand that in the 1900’s, ships could travel longer distances more quickly than in the 1800’s. I’m just saying that in a wartime situation, if a whole fleet of ships were moving from America to the Phillipines, for example, then Japan would have had some notice, and would have been able to attack the fleet and/or reposition their fleets in response. That’s why in the game, ships are limited to a movement value of 2 so that after one country moves their fleet 2 spaces, then the other country has the option to move their ships.
that is a very good point, but that is only true in certain situations, certainly youdont think it should take britain the whole came to reiforce india or eygpt with transport, becasue with ships moving two or three spaces a turn that is what happens.
How about this system, ships can move from any port to another port in one turn if they can trace a path from from the one port to the other that does not go through a a sea zone that contains enemy ships or is adjacent to them.
THis rule would better simulate the battles in the soloman inlands which if japan controled and had naval forces in would keep US ships from getting to austrailia, just like reality.
That’s definitely a better way to do it, but I can just imagine a situation where the US has a fleet on the west coast which wants to go to Australia, but the Japs anticipated the move, and have blocked it, but the ships decide to circumnavigate the world by way of the Panama Canal and get to Austalia by going through the Atlantic Ocean -> Indian Ocean -> Australia.
Perhaps this would work if you put a limit on the number of zones which could be traversed in this way. Perhaps 6-8?
-
That’s definitely a better way to do it, but I can just imagine a situation where the US has a fleet on the west coast which wants to go to Australia, but the Japs anticipated the move, and have blocked it, but the ships decide to circumnavigate the world by way of the Panama Canal and get to Austalia by going through the Atlantic Ocean -> Indian Ocean -> Australia.
Perhaps this would work if you put a limit on the number of zones which could be traversed in this way. Perhaps 6-8?
:-Dlols, i didn’t think of that!
well yah, how about a limit of eight, same as a heavy bomber and would allow british ships to reiforce egypt and india in one turn if they control the atlantic while also allowing the US to send solderis to austrlia and Burma if the japanese do not control the soloman’s. Or you could have it cost money to move over eight spaces, 2 IPCs for trans and destroyers, 3 IPCs for crusiers and subs, and 6 IPCs for carrier’s and battleships.
and submarines and transports also do not count as blocking port to port movement
-
@Imperious:
no defense bonus, but to simulate the reduced cost of repairs i think the ships should be able to be replaced at 1/2 cost, if you build a factory in that location.
Ports protect against naval attacks, thats the bonus
Also, AA fire occurs, but ships under attack should have reduced defensive capabilities say -1 because they are not mobile and are sitting ducks.
I think this may work for a super advanced game, but for beginners, adding 1 move point is good.
-
huh? its 2 extra sentences. How much harder is it to say: you can only build at a port and only planes can attack it?
-
I must have misunderstood.
When you say ports protect ships, I assumed you meant the ships were “in port.”
For example, in your WWI game (correct me if I’m wrong, again) ships 'in port" are placed on a separate card, not a space on the board. A ship “in port” has all the extra effects you mentioned above.
I consider this much more complicated that simply adding 1 move point. Yes, it’s only a few extra sentences, but you’d be surprises how many times I’ve repeated a sentence to a new player 5 times and still have them either not get it, or claim I never said it.
For most new players, telling the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer is hard enough, much less remembering what they can do.
-
Ships in port are protected from attacking enemy warships but not from warplanes.
But you can assume the AA gun should be able to fire if you got one
AND you can assume that to have a port, must include even a few sentences to explain how it works. Any new idea deserves at least a section on how it is played, or people ask what the heck is the point of this if all i get is a lousy movement point?
-
@Imperious:
or people ask what the heck is the point of this if all i get is a lousy movement point?
good point :-D
-
Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?
-
half a cruiser? :roll:
-
@Imperious:
Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?
1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.
I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice. So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several. But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations, (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports? Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units? This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.
Suggested Topics
