Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by pellulo » Mon May 13, 2013 4:59 pm

Axis and Allies 1914 Second Edition is going to be pretty interesting game, thanks, Pellulo

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by WILD BILL » Mon May 06, 2013 1:26 pm

KimRYoung wrote:
WILD BILL wrote:
VonLettowVorbeck1914 wrote:We have barely had a chance to look at the two-move rule, I think it's a little too early to radically change the mechanic again.
Yeah, what he said :!:
Larry was considering going from 2 to 3 in the other thread. I just put this forward as an alternative to that. I'm on board with giving the 2 area move a good look first too.

Kim
I'm not saying your idea, or even Larry's 3 moves aren't good proposals. Its that I (we) haven't had a chance to properly look at the last proposal that Larry put out for 2 moves to see how it effects the game. If you change it up every other day, you're not getting anywhere IMO. We need to run with one proposal at least a couple weeks before making even slight changes to get enough data (1-2 games isn't enough IMO).

I don't have a problem with submitting changes to Larry for future evaluation like you did Kim, but I think Larry needs to keep them on the back burner for now and get us all on the same page for at least a couple weeks. If everyone is testing different proposals the info gained is clouded (leads to chaos) .

I encourage Larry to lay out an a plan to test with the items that he is currently looking at (as he has done), and run with it for a couple weeks.

Like for now lets look at the two move proposal, +1 from a naval base, and a reduction to the French Atlantic sz15 fleet.....

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by KimRYoung » Mon May 06, 2013 8:07 am

WILD BILL wrote:
VonLettowVorbeck1914 wrote:We have barely had a chance to look at the two-move rule, I think it's a little too early to radically change the mechanic again.
Yeah, what he said :!:
Larry was considering going from 2 to 3 in the other thread. I just put this forward as an alternative to that. I'm on board with giving the 2 area move a good look first too.

Kim

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by WILD BILL » Sun May 05, 2013 10:07 pm

VonLettowVorbeck1914 wrote:We have barely had a chance to look at the two-move rule, I think it's a little too early to radically change the mechanic again.
Yeah, what he said :!:

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by VonLettowVorbeck1914 » Sun May 05, 2013 3:54 pm

We have barely had a chance to look at the two-move rule, I think it's a little too early to radically change the mechanic again.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by KimRYoung » Sun May 05, 2013 12:44 pm

Posted this originally on the other thread, but should be here I think:

Perhaps a better idea to get units to the front (and still keep move at 2) is to make a change in the Mobilize New Units Phase:

“Place all your new land new units and fighters on your power’s capital territory and/or on any other friendly original (and uncontested) territories of your power that can trace an unbroken link by land of such territories to the capital"

With this for you can place your new unit’s right on the borders of your country as long as it’s a friendly territory and not contested. The Germans could for example, place their turn one build right in Alsace ready to move into Lorraine turn two.

This could be considered a defacto type of your “strategic movement” idea as you are quickly mobilizing your new unit’s right to your countries borders. From there, the 2 move range gets you to the fight.

The current mobilization of new units is not only too restrictive, but make no sense that the capital is the only place new troops were mustered or guns, planes and tanks manufactured. Placing new units anywhere in your home country’s territories makes sense both historically and more realistic then limited to the capital.

Consider this “mobilization” rule to reflect the use of internal railroads to get these troops quickly positioned near the front you want them to. It is also more comparable to where units get placed in other A&A games in relation to the distance to each others capitals.

With this, the Germans could have newly built units attacking either Paris or Moscow in 3 turns, provided they control the territories right up to the capitals, (i.e., if Germans control Lorraine and Burgundy, build in Alsace, next turn move through those two territories, and in position to attack in to Paris on the third turn) with the two movement rule.

What you think?
Kim

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by Flashman » Sun May 05, 2013 10:32 am

How about allowing each power one SM move a turn but it must be from the capital? If by SM you mean strategic movement, in other words selecting all or part of the unit contents in a specific territory and moving them along any combination of controlled territories etc etc... well that's kind of of yesterday's thinking. Presently the thinking is allowing land units a maximum movement of 2 territories and not allowing any movement into a hostile or contested territory but on the 1st move. I think we are also, as of yesterday, discussing the possibility of not just a 2 territory move but at 3. If you're confused I can understand how you could be.

The best way to keep up with the latest thinking or direction as relates to this discussion is to refer to my page 12 entries of this thread.


Therefore, everyone on the continent would be able to create a super-stack in the capital to SM out to the front on turn one, but they wouldn't be able to go back again so easily.

On subsequent turns, it'll usually be used to move new units built in the capital to the frontline where they're most needed, avoiding the frustratingly slow march to get anywhere from Berlin or Vienna. But you couldn't use it to reinforce more than one front per turn...

Another question is do the British & Americans get to use Paris and/or Rome for SM purposes?

Should they get to use a sea movement SM instead, through unlimited non-hostile sea zones?

Incidentally, using SM, can I build a tank only stack in the capital witht he intention of SMing it out to the front, or is the "must include one infantry" rule enforced after place new units AND after SM?
They must include one infantry in the mix.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

by WILD BILL » Sat May 04, 2013 2:58 pm

Larry wrote:
About to start a new test game.
During the movement phase all land units can be moved into a maximum of 2 territories. However, movement into a hostile or contested territory can only be made during the unit's 1st movement. and such a move ends a unit's movements.

Fighter movement rules remain the same. They can move up to two spaces. When moving two spaces , it doesn't matter what the status of the first space is. It can be a sea zone, a friendly or contested territory, or even a hostile territory. However, a fighter must end its move in a territory containing land units belonging to your power.

Moving out of a contested territory
When moving out of a contested territory units can only be moved to an adjacent territory and that territory must have had at least one of the moving player's units in it or the territory is controlled by moving player at the beginning of the turn.

Ships...
All ship movement, with the exception of cruisers, which can move 3 sea zones, is limited to 2 sea zones. However, all ships beginning their movement from a sea zone with a friendly naval base gain 1 additional point of movement range. Moving into a hostile sea zone will require at lest one round of combat. After at least one round of combat the moving player can withdraw back into a sea zone from which at least one of the withdrawing ships came.


Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
I want to try this out... On the US and then again during the British turn, the Germany player will roll 1 die for each German submarines in sea zones 2, 7, and/or 8. Each die roll of 4 or higher are ignored and all others are totaled. The attacked power (US or Britain) will deduct this totaled amount from the income it collects during the Collect Income phase.

Just wanted to say I like the above proposals for both land and sea much better then their previous counterparts (and I am looking foreword to trying them out).


Larry, just FYI we are playing a game right now and are experimenting with only your capital giving +1 to your ground units in movement. We didn't put any restrictions on this, and allowed you to move 2 spaces into friendly, contested, or enemy controlled territories from your capital (allowing this to lead into attacks might be over the top, I like how you have not allowed the 2nd move to be used for attacks). We took this approach because it keeps the flow of units coming from a central production center that the game established. At this time we didn't allow you to get +1 from a friendly or captured capital, but that could be explored as well (like for US/UK getting +1 out of Paris).

I will say that allowing ground units to move two spaces from your capital, and perform an attack has been a game changer. All 3 CP's can really put a lot of pressure on the Russians because they can attack into Russian soil (or Romania) from their capitals. It has also allowed the CP to keep their supply lines flowing much better, so that part we really liked. Surprisingly enough one of the biggest change of events in this experiment was in the Mideast because the extra movement the Turks got from their capital (ending in attack in this experiment) allows the Turks to counter pretty much any of the UK first round movement/attacks (like TJ and Mesopotamia). In this experimental game the UK India is in quite a bit of trouble, even though they built 8 units (4 inf, 3 art, 1 ftr) there the first turn, an 5 more on turn two. Because of the CP moving much faster on the Russians, the UK is heading north to try to help out, leaving India itself in trouble (Turks coming full tilt being able to move 2 from their capital).

I like how you (Larry) have done your new ground proposal so the extra movement doesn't allow for an attack. It is really like a non combat phase rolled into the single movement phase this game has established (nice job). I would agree with an earlier poster that you might consider allowing the 2nd move into a contested territory as long as you don't perform an attack (of course following the established rules for contested territories movement).



I like the +1 from NB rule much better then the other sea proposals, and am looking forward to see if the CP can find a way to use the retreat option to their advantage. Thinking maybe the Austrians (or Turks) build a sub, slide it past the Italian navy, then attack from two directions to retreat their surviving fleet somewhere unexpected (sneaky CP LOL).


I do need a couple clarifications though.

1) So a cruiser leaving a NB could move 4 spaces now (I know it would have to stop in the first hostel sz) Cruisers leaving a NB can move 4 spaces. This represents a +1 move added to the cruiser's normal movement of 3 sea zones.

2) Just wanted to clarify that with ships you can still move into a hostel sz and elect not to attack right? The going one round of battle would only apply if you do the retreat option. It is not required that you conduct combat when moving into a hostile sea zone but if you do you must do at least one round of combat. After at least one round of combat the moving player can withdraw back into a sea zone from which at least one of the withdrawing ships came. The retreating units must retreat together and the sea zone to which they retreat must have been friendly at the beginning of the turn.




BTW Larry, there has been a lot of talk about a couple other things over at AA.org that should be brought to your attention. With the above options you have put out, some could be remedied (or compounded), but thought I'd run it by you any way. These above proposals are as you said for optional play, and probably won't make it into the base game (or maybe they will?).


I have started a new thread for this topic, hope you will join in (see link below).
WB

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/ ... 44&t=18292


Items of concern:
1) The allied fleets, should they be reduced some. The French in particular, maybe the Russians Black Sea too.

2) UK India having no build limits. Some are seeing the UK using all income in India for 2-3 turns to overwhelm the Turks, or to rescue the Russians.

Top