Unlimited movement

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:53 pm

I've been wondering what effect rail movement would have.

In the average game the Axis tends to buy an awful lot of tanks, simply because it has to use it's piece advantage to attack before the Allies economic strength is brought to play. The Axis cannot rely on infantry, because it cannot move to the front line fast enough. This is completely unhistorical as both infantry and armour was moved overland the same way - by rail.

So, rail movement should benefit the Axis by allowing it to build more infantry to defend it's front line instead of the expensive tanks-only builds it usually has to depend on.

If you don't like rail, consider allowing inf, art and AAs to move two areas by land. Tanks would still get the blitzing ability.

Perhaps in either of these systems unit prices would have to be adjusted accordingly.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Thu May 10, 2007 2:52 pm

How about armoured train pieces?

These would have:
Unlimited non-combat movement along friendly rail lines
No attack value, as they cannot move into combat
A defence value of 1
A carrying capacity equivalent to ship transports
Cost 8?

It should be possible to transport them by sea, so that Japan can build them at home and then use them on the Asian continent.
Germany would start with several trains for rapidly transferring units from front to front, Russia with a few for moving units from Siberia.
Units elsewhere would depend on the number of territories, for example in North America a 2-area USA would not need them!

Rail lines might be printed on the map to illustrate main routes, with mountainous areas lacking tracks. This could also indicate the importance of rail centres such as Moscow.

http://wio.ru/rr/ww2sov.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pibwl/gswreck.htm

TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Thu May 10, 2007 3:59 pm

How about train pieces that don't move but represent that you have built a railroad, kinda like buying a IC.. then have rules for using this newly build rail.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Thu May 10, 2007 4:24 pm

No, railways were already built.

There's no real need to have train pieces as land units are simply moved where you want along connected friendly territories, however:

Train pieces limit the number of pieces a power can move by rail
They would be pretty cool new combat pieces
Printing rails on the board alows you to limit rail transport to realistic routes avoiding difficult terrain, i.e. to historically accurate tracks.

Tank Buster
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:31 pm

Post by Tank Buster » Thu May 17, 2007 2:26 pm

I know this is going to go over like a ton of bricks;

It seems to me you are all trying to fing a way to win the game in one round.
The beauty of the game is that it takes a long time, and a cooler full of diet sodas. if you want a quick game, why not just apply checker rules?

O well, I knew you weren't going to like this one.

Larry, I just bought Battle of the Bulge and D Day. Can't wait to give them a go.

templeton
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:52 am

Post by templeton » Fri May 18, 2007 6:49 am

I think it makes sense for Naval units - but then you need Naval interecept rules...

That way you would most likely get players keeping their fleets close to home, but when they whip them into enemy terrirtory, it is likely that the other side would intercept.

This then creates the historical pressure to keep the Navies grouped - or if you want to seperate them, to at least keep them adjacent so that they can intercept to help each other out.


I do feel convoys take too long... perhaps as playing as the British makes this more apparant!

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Fri May 18, 2007 12:39 pm

Rail movement doesn't mean a shorter game. One of the main reasons I'm in favour is that this is the way ground units were moved at the time, unless moving into enemy territory. Thus, the different movement points for tanks and infantry/artillery makes no sense.
Germany used rail to switch forces from one front to another; this can be used to shore up defences as well as building up for attacks. And since rail is non-combat only it always gives the enemy a chance to counter-move in reaction.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests