Page 14 of 16

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:41 pm
by VonLettowVorbeck1914
Chacmool wrote: I love this 2 movement rule although I think it should be allowed to move 2 tts into a contested tt that contains your powers units at the beginning of your turn to reinforce them. The trenches are already prepared so it should be easier to get there instead of a hostile zone. I'm going to let this rule stand as is... You certainly stopped me in my tracks but I concluded, at least for now, that movements into a hostile or contested territory can only be made during the units 1st movement.
Chacmool also keep in mind that disallowing the extra move to contested territories encourages powers to be more aggressive in contesting territories to deny their opponents the speedy move.

Your argument is plausible, but think of it this way also: The presence of enemy units would logically slow movement down. Shell holes, destroyed roads/tracks, troops needing to jump off the trucks into a ditch every now and then, all of these would make a coordinated speedy move difficult.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:42 pm
by Striker
Krieghund wrote:One thing to bear in mind when comparing land and sea movement is that sea zones generally tend to be about two or three times as large as territories on this map. As a result, sea movement is already faster than land movement even if land and sea units have the same movement rates.
I full-heartedly agree with that statement. The size scale is very differant between naval and land territories.

I'll see if I can get another game in the next week or so. As it stand though I think the 2nd set of suggested changes give the allies further advantage on top of the OOB game's situation..
Land movement of 2 without the ability to reinforce contested territories is less of a boost then naval unit of 4. There seems to be a growing consensus online that the OOB game is biased towards the allies, and this may unbalance the game further.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:44 pm
by VonLettowVorbeck1914
KimRYoung wrote:
VonLettowVorbeck1914 wrote:
Would you be comfortable if the movement rate was 3 instead of 4?
Personally, I don't think making the 2 movement possible by land units in controlled territories makes ANY naval movement increase necessary for balance between land and sea movement. It's not nearly as drastic as the original idea, so any naval changes should be likewise less drastic IMO.

But yes, given the choice between 3 and 4, 3 would be preferable.

(Aside: 4 movement could be cool and balanced with land if naval units moving more than their normal move were not able to move into hostile SZ's, not able to participate in combat, and not able to unload into hostile or contested territories (or at least not battle that turn if unloaded into contested), but it sounds like you weren't too keen on it before so this is as far as I will take it.)
Or pull another rule from Global 40 (nice with the subs!). Add +1 to all ships movement that begin their move from a friendly port!

The ships are all coaled up, plenty of supplies and can make a longer voyage before haveing to re-coal :D

Kim
Yeah, the coaling argument is one I liked for starting the big moves from Naval bases only. The other plus with that is that you can't exploit SZ's 7 and 14 for threatening a half dozen key territories at once.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:45 pm
by Krieghund
Striker wrote:I also restate the the OOB rules do not mention explicitly how to handle moving into an empty enemy territory(It only talks about moving into an enemy territory that contains there enemy units). I know common sense dictates you take control of it, but "when" was the question due to me not being able to find when you determine the status.
Page 18. Land Combat:
If you moved any land units into hostile territories that are unoccupied you do not have any actual combat to conduct. Simply skip to step 6 (Conclude Combat) for each of these territories.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 pm
by Striker
Krieghund wrote:
Striker wrote:I also restate the the OOB rules do not mention explicitly how to handle moving into an empty enemy territory(It only talks about moving into an enemy territory that contains there enemy units). I know common sense dictates you take control of it, but "when" was the question due to me not being able to find when you determine the status.
Page 18. Land Combat:
If you moved any land units into hostile territories that are unoccupied you do not have any actual combat to conduct. Simply skip to step 6 (Conclude Combat) for each of these territories.
Thanks Krieg, hadn't thought to look in the land "combat" section since, well, no combat was occurring :P.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:19 pm
by Flashman
Does a mined (but empty) SZ count as hostile for ending sea movement purposes? No. Although I guess mines can be pretty hostile.

I agree that if limiting land movement to 2 spaces there is no need to speed up ships, which already have a larger range. I'm not looking at this question in terms water vs. land movements. I'm more concerned about those US transports making all those back and forth trips to Europe.

Yes, the Central Powers benefit more from SM, but this balances the Allies greater mobility by sea.

I have a rule that all ships have to refuel at a friendly port every turn, limiting their range somewhat.


Happy that someone is now considering my suggestion that attacking ships should have the option of retreating; but to balance this allow the defender to pursue, otherwise an all-or-nothing risk becomes a no-risk strafing attack. Consider giving cruisers the ability to pursue giving them their own unique ability. Cruiser pursuing retreating enemy ships... Fun idea :D

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 7:26 pm
by KimRYoung
I agree that if limiting land movement to 2 spaces there is no need to speed up ships, which already have a larger range. I'm not looking at this question in terms water vs. land movements. I'm more concerned about those US transports making all those back and forth trips to Europe.
Then the +1 move bonus from a naval base works perfect. Look at the map:

from SZ 1 (Washington) its one move - 3 SZ's to:

SZ 15 (Brest)
SZ 16 (Marseilles)
SZ 8 (Wales)

You can get to ANY French coast territory in a single move from Port Washington.
2 moves gets you to Karelia or Sevastapol (if SZ 20 is clear).

Since all these territories have naval bases as well, you get the +1 move bonus back home from your allies. Two turns round trip from Washington to France.

These are the areas we expect the US to operate in historically anyway.





Your own map and your own rule from Global 1940 solves what you want. Even if you had unlimited move, it would still take two turns to move from the US and land troops in France then return home. Don't re-invent a wheel YOU made!

Kim

You said:
These are the areas we expect the US to operate in historically anyway.
Great supporting argument to make.

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:49 am
by Krieghund
If any naval movement adjustment is needed at all, I agree that a smaller one is better than a larger one.

I concur...
This then will be the naval rules for my up and coming test game (see my post on page 12 of this thread).
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.
LH