Strategic Movements Mechanic

Breaking away from the Second World War and paying a visit and tribute to the First World War. Coming this March, 2013
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by Larry » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:51 pm

Hey Wild Bill

Good stuff!

I like the idea of having a naval SM along with the land SM. They would both take place at the same time as you pointed out. That makes sense. Again, as you pointed out, no combat can result from a Naval SM. Another good point you bring up... Cruiser would still benefit from their normal 3 movement ability.

Here’s a problem I’m having, however. I’m having a hard time getting my head around the how or why some ships can suddenly sail faster and further than other ships.

I have no problem with land units conducting strategic movements and going faster and further than their peers. In my mind’s eye all my nation's extra resources and effort are going into moving this or that group to this or that place. It's a matter of strategic national urgency. It's not business as usual. It's not rail schedules as usual. Its a massive military push. Perhaps there should even be an IPC cost involved here. Such herculean troop movement were made often Some are even famous... Remember when the Taxis of Paris were conscripted to move troops to Marne?

http://www.worldwar1.com/heritage/marnetaxis.htm

So how far can a fleet (selected group of ships), be moved during a naval strategic movement? And what is the storyline rationale behind such a movement? .

VonLettowVorbeck1914
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by VonLettowVorbeck1914 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:28 pm

The one move for navy and one for land was what I liked (and thought was the case because I misread the first post) since the beginning.

To find a plausible argument for why a special naval movement makes sense flavor/historical-wise, it would make more sense if it were required to be from a Naval base. In that case, the ships would be fully coaled and boilers, cleaned etc, and also since there will be no combat their goal would be to get somewhere with haste rather than possibly patrol for enemies (Perhaps not included in the conceptual movement normally is finding and engaging the enemy once you actually get into the sea zone).

Actually, with the second reason, the naval base is not so necessary with that. The goal is to get somewhere fast, avoiding combat. That's good for some extra speed. Maybe not 5, but it's approaching plausibility.

While we're on the topic of needing rationale for a rule, let's not forget the land unit issue where it is easier to move through some territories when there are enemies there than when there are no enemies there.

Vincent
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:38 pm

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by Vincent » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:44 pm

If the concern is making cruisers worthwhile, why not simply double the normal movement instead of everything moving 5? (Cruisers move 6, and all other ships move 4).

Another bizarre thought I had: Maybe have naval combat mimic land combat to some extent. You can get multiple rounds of combat in one battle, but each combat round costs you one movement point. So if you moved a battleship (4 movement points) two sea zones to get to a battle, it can only engage in two rounds of dice throwing. It would mean that transports are not automatically doomed if their last escort is destroyed. And historically, it was rare for one large fleet to entirely wipe out another fleet in a single battle.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by Larry » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:57 pm

Hi KimRYoung,
"During the move phase any land and naval units may move up to double their normal move rate provided they move entirely through Friendly territories or sea zones and do not end the turn in a hostile territory or sea zone. Land units must end there movement when entering any contested territory."
Ok this could work but needs to be somewhat modified and I’m still not sure it’s a better system than the Strategic Movement system I've been talking about. What makes your proposal work is that such units cannot end their turn in a hostile territory or sea zone. I think this restriction should also apply to contested territories. I know... I know...

Take a quick look at Venice, for example, if it can be entered with units moving 2 territories at at time, when it's contested, that means it can be attacked by every Austrian territory on the map with the exception of Galicia. That kind of thing makes me a bit nervous in the service.
There are no quirky situations about the status of an area, there may still be large stacks, as units can consolidate quicker, but no big swings from one front to the other in an instant move.
I’m not worried about big stacks... the problems they might pose have been exaggerated in my opinion, but the verdict is still out on that one.

I would like to address your comment about “big swings from one front to the other in an "instant move” Words like “big swings” and “instant move” are misleading. If you think about it, a German stack in Moscow will require at least two rounds before it can engage a French army in Belgium, for example. On the movement turn the Germans are moved to Belgium, if it is contested, but can’t attack. The French see their arrival and react accordingly... The Germans can’t immediately attack the French forces in Belgium etc... I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t know but I want to make a point here. That big swinging instant moving German army has got to wait till the next round before it can engage. That doesn’t sound “instant” to me.
My idea is to keep it simple with a simple concept and try to still retain the A&A flavor.
And you are doing a good job at keeping it simple – good job! But... and there’s always a “but” in this business, your proposal does not speed up the game as much as my proposal does. It helps ... that’s for sure.

Thanks. Good input.... Lot's of food for thought. Who knows perhaps you've come up with the best solution yet. I've got to play it.

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

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by Flashman » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:23 pm

This is partly why I think attacking fleets should have the option, in addition to remaining in the attacked SZ after a round of combat, of retreating whence they came, with the defending fleet having the option of pursuing them. The defender typically has to decide if its worth the risk of chasing a wounded enemy fleet but leaving its own protected waters, or staying behind and not risking the enemy minefields.
As it stands, naval battles (particularly UK vs G) are an all-or-nothing attack where you win or you die... I hear you... I could live with a rule that permits an attacking fleet to call off the attack and retreat.

Regarding land SM, I'm coming round to the idea of all SMs having to involve a move either to or from the capital. Therefore, you cannot just move a super-stack from one front to the other; it first has to return to the capital - consider this to be exhausted troops being given leave to R&R, and refit with new equipment and supplies. No thanks.

I once suggested a first round of the game which was non-combat only, that is a "mobilization" round in which powers could deploy their units to the front lines, but not attack. Moves would be written down in secret and revealed simultaneously.

To a large extent, allowing a monster round one SM can be seen to absorb this idea, in that (in my example) Austria and Germany were able to attack at the front lines as usual, but use SM for their remaining forces (who'd all moved to the capitals) to get every unit into action, leaving Austria and Germany completely empty. Thereafter SM will usually consist of moving newly built units from the capital out to where they're most needed, but occasionally moving forces from a conquered area back to the capital to regroup before being sent to another front.

The big question remaining for me is if new units should be part of SM out of the capital, or should SM take place before place new units?

Vincent wrote: Another bizarre thought I had: Maybe have naval combat mimic land combat to some extent. You can get multiple rounds of combat in one battle, but each combat round costs you one movement point. So if you moved a battleship (4 movement points) two sea zones to get to a battle, it can only engage in two rounds of dice throwing. It would mean that transports are not automatically doomed if their last escort is destroyed. And historically, it was rare for one large fleet to entirely wipe out another fleet in a single battle.

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by WILD BILL » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:42 pm

Larry wrote:Hey Wild Bill

Good stuff!

I like the idea of having a naval SM along with the land SM. They would both take place at the same time as you pointed out. That makes sense. Again, as you pointed out, no combat can result from a Naval SM. Another good point you bring up... Cruiser would still benefit from their normal 3 movement ability.

Here’s a problem I’m having, however. I’m having a hard time getting my head around the how or why some ships can suddenly sail faster and further than other ships.

I have no problem with land units conducting strategic movements and going faster and further than their peers. In my mind’s eye all my nation's extra resources and effort are going into moving this or that group to this or that place. It's a matter of strategic national urgency. It's not business as usual. It's not rail schedules as usual. Its a massive military push. Perhaps there should even be an IPC cost involved here. Such herculean troop movement were made often Some are even famous... Remember when the Taxis of Paris were conscripted to move troops to Marne?

http://www.worldwar1.com/heritage/marnetaxis.htm

So how far can a fleet (selected group of ships), be moved during a naval strategic movement? And what is the storyline rationale behind such a movement? .
Larry, thanks for listening (it's awesome). My original thought was that SM wouldn't be restricted to just one fleet, because your original proposal for ships to move 5 spaces was for all ships w/o restrictions (although I did mention a single move at the end of my post). I'm not sure that you need to restrict it to just one fleet/sz, like you did for land units from one territory, because w/ships we're talking about far fewer units. Allowing them all to get this SM of 2 additional moves wouldn't be over the top IMO.

In this game (1914), there are far fewer units involved with navy, and many times a power won't have more then one fleet, and a couple stragglers to move, so why not allow them to move more freely (I think that's what you wanted in your original 5 space movement). Really only the English (maybe the French) would have more then one fleet. If this was G40, then yeah for game play you probably don't want to allow all ships to move in the SM phase, but here I think you could open it up.

One of the main differences of splitting ship movement into two phases is that you can't perform long distance attacks or amphibs of over 4-5 sz's. Such attacks need to be done in the combat phase with normal movement, because as you have already established the SM can't have combat.

By allowing ships to move a second time (if you think about it) it could allow a power that has transports to have two SM's at the end of his turn and move two armies (one by land, one by sea). I think it would be cool to be able to move fleet, fight a battle, then retreat to safer waters, or intimidate the enemy through a SM. I would think that when you SM for ships you couldn't pass through a hostel sz (sz containing an enemy surface ship), but could end movement in a hostel sz.

KimRYoung
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:42 pm

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by KimRYoung » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:02 pm

Greetings Larry,
Thanks. Good input.... Lot's of food for thought. Who knows perhaps you've come up with the best solution yet. I've got to play it.
Thanks. Been playing your game(s) since the early 80's and appreciate your efforts to always improve the franchise.
Ok this could work but needs to be somewhat modified and I’m still not sure it’s a better system than the Strategic Movement system I've been talking about. What makes your proposal work is that such units cannot end their turn in a hostile territory or sea zone. I think this restriction should also apply to contested territories. I know... I know...
I'm not sure my idea is better than yours either, just a bit more conservative I think. My original idea did not allow moving into contested, and I thought it might still work by allowing it, but your point is correct, so going back the original idea sounds right.
I’m not worried about big stacks... the problems they might pose have been exaggerated in my opinion, but the verdict is still out on that one.
Probably true. Even OOB rules, the Russian strategy of massing everything in the Ukraine turn one is giving some fits, so its not creating a new issue.
I would like to address your comment about “big swings from one front to the other in an "instant move” Words like “big swings” and “instant move” are misleading. If you think about it, a German stack in Moscow will require at least two rounds before it can engage a French army in Belgium, for example.
Yep I get that, two turns to get into a battle. But even two turns from Moscow to Alsace and then attack Loraine with an unlimited size army group is a bit much for us history guys who have been suspending reality for so many years. Our view is that 6 infantry and 2 artillery is approximately an organizational army. We just don't see that moving that many men that far that fast as being much like WW I when so many men marched to the front and big guns were pulled by horses. Not saying its not playable or unbalance, just seems to lose the period flavor.
Defined what an organizational army is, marching men, horse drawn artillery...
lose the period flavor... oooh you just hit a soft spot.

And you are doing a good job at keeping it simple – good job! But... and there’s always a “but” in this business, your proposal does not speed up the game as much as my proposal does. It helps ... that’s for sure.


No it does not, but sometimes going at top speed ruins the view of the countryside. If game is close to being decide in a turn or two after the US arrives and the tanks start to roll, then some of the enjoyment is lost. $hit... that's been on my mind. Global 40 is no short game but I love every hour spent playing it. Speeding up the movement is more about getting those new German tanks to attack Paris before turn 9 while the French have been building for 4 turns.

One last thought...I think it was you that also talked about maybe just allowing the SM only if originated from your capital. Don't think that was me. Thinking about that, how about something like during the place new units phase you can Strategic Move units from your capital (new units and those already there) through your friendly territories just as you described.

A bit of a compromise here, but makes sense since there are no production centers, nor can they be built like in WW II.

Getting units pushed to the front (your Taxis of Paris) from your home logistic centers makes more sense then pulling untold numbers of corps and armies out of the trenches to move them completely across Europe without sufficient food, ammo and rest and preparing them for a new offensive. I can buy into that idea, and you don't even have to add a new phase, just place your units and SM them to the front you want them at. One single SM move, and not into contested territories LOL.

Thanks again Larry, I'll twist some arms to try it your way soon.

Kim

KimRYoung
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:42 pm

Re: Strategic Movements Mechanic

Post by KimRYoung » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:35 pm

So how far can a fleet (selected group of ships), be moved during a naval strategic movement? And what is the storyline rationale behind such a movement? .
Larry,

Not WW I, but during the first Balkan War the Germans sent the battlecruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau from Kiel to the central Mediterranean in 11 days.

A true strategic naval move would have been during the Russo-Japanese war (1904-05) where the Russians sent the Second Pacific Squadron from the Baltic 18,000 miles around the Cape of Good Hope to Indochina in 6 months. the following month the fleet sailed to the Tsushima Straights and was destroyed by the Japanese navy.
(long way to go to be defeated lol)

Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest