Considering house rules for China in G40. In the event they capture an industrial complex built in China. Should they be able to produce any unit?
Raillroads
-
I’ve changed my mind a bit. RR damage is limited to equal the IPC value of that territory. RR movement is only obstructed when half maximim damage is taken (rounded up).
-
Hi Turtle, I’m new to this forum. I’ve used a similar rail system as a house rule. All nations would get rail movement in any territory their side controls, anywhere except inland China. They can rail inf, art, or AA gun. The # of units a country can rail is capped at its ipc value. Example say Italy has 2 inf & 1 art on Rome. It could rail these 3 units through Balkans(3 ipc’s) and into Bulgaria in non combat only, as long as they haven’t moved earlier. The Axis would have to had controlled of all 3 territories since the beginning of Italy’s turn. I have allowed rail into a newly captured territories also capped at its ipc value. In this example Bulgaria (2 ipc) would only be able at except 2 units, but the 3rd unit could go to Czec/Hung. I would also give the 1 ipc Soviet territories east of Moscow a +1 rail capability to get your Siberians home quicker. I like rail being damaged by SBR & Rockets, up to that territories ipc value. Say if Balkans had 1 dam marker on it it could only rail 2 units. Maybe pay 1/2 for dam markers with Increased Factory Tech. I think rail would allow the axis to be at Moscow’s door much sooner. You might want to think about a Non Aggression Pact with Japan or mobile IC’s for Russia to offset.
-
Yes, mobile industry I feel is a must for Russia in AA50. It use to be that Allies had the advantage. Now the axis are unbeatable w/o optional rules.
I’m not sure I want to limit the # of rail-able units, and I’m not sure about where exactly to have them. It will probably be similar to your rules. No rail through china. Middle East, maybe. I have to look up some of the historical RR to be sure.
-
I have tried to find info on rail in the 1940’s in the past with some luck. Europe, Russia, and US as we know had good rail systems, well what wasn’t bombed anyway. The Middle East (Iran) expanded rail in the early 1900’s, mostly because of oil I think. I never found much on Africa except near the Suez (Egypt). I went to IPC value caps because in my mind these values show infrastructure to some point. Your also moving an entire inf or art division not just 1 or 2 units. If you don’t use some kind of limits your really just turning 1 movement units into 2 movement units making getting mech inf not so helpful. I didn’t want Germany & Italy to be able to move 6 or 10 units quickly through Europe, because Russia might fall before the 3rd round is over. In Africa allowing just 1 unit to rail isn’t so bad, i figured if they didn’t have rail, some units would have had trucks or other means of getting around. With most of Africa & Middle East only able to rail 1 unit throws some strategy in, do you split your units leaving some behind etc. I haven’t play test this much, just some thoughts hope it helps. WB
-
I say give each player a fixed Strategic movement that can be bombed.
Units that moved are not eligible for SR
each nation can SR units equal to its total IPC divided by 10 rounded up
This value can be bombed by SBR ( he must declare this)
Example: Germany has 37 UPC and can SR 4 units or 4 points and this is the limit of what can be bombed.
SR must be contiguous line of controlled territories, except for each transport you have in one sea zone between two land territories can SR at double cost.
Example: Italy has 2 SR points and can send ONE land unit to Lybia if it has one transport. This takes up 2 SR points since its over water.
Example: UK has 46, which is 5 SR points and owns france and has two transports in the channel to allow 2 units to make it, the last point would have to be by land.
-
Hi IL glad you dropped in, you always have a good perspective. I see what your saying about how each nation gets SR points based on their income like Germany w/4 SR. So Germany could have 4 inf +1, or 2 inf +2, or 1 inf +4? With the 1 inf+4 SR that inf would move 5 spaces? That sounds cool. I guess it would work with a tank too. A tank +4 SR could really move 6 spaces? You could split it with 2 tanks +2SR, where each tank would move 4 spaces etc. You kinda lost me crossing a sz. I see the 2x cost. Would the SR pts be in addition to the transports 2 unit capacity? I was also wondering, could you some how use the SR pts to ferry units across 1 sz w/o a transport.
-
@Imperious:
I say give each player a fixed Strategic movement that can be bombed.
Units that moved are not eligible for SR
each nation can SR units equal to its total IPC divided by 10 rounded up
This value can be bombed by SBR ( he must declare this)
Example: Germany has 37 UPC and can SR 4 units or 4 points and this is the limit of what can be bombed.
SR must be contiguous line of controlled territories, except for each transport you have in one sea zone between two land territories can SR at double cost.
Example: Italy has 2 SR points and can send ONE land unit to Lybia if it has one transport. This takes up 2 SR points since its over water.
Example: UK has 46, which is 5 SR points and owns france and has two transports in the channel to allow 2 units to make it, the last point would have to be by land.
I’m trying to use the Revised Siberian RR as a baseline, and there was no limit to SR-able units. I also think rail should somehow be connected to individual space IPC value as factories are. IPC values signify industrial capacity. A space w/ more IPC points is more industrialized and/or has more resources, thus has more RRs, as is characteristic of industrialization in general.
-
It should be noted that in essence all land units moved mainly by rail within friendly territories. This is why it is so wrong for tanks to have 2 movement points while inf and art have only one, since they would have moved over large distances by the same means.
German infantry and artillery would have taken exactly the same time to move from Berlin to the eastern front as the panzers; only blitzing should allow a 2 point tank movement. In combat tanks could outpaced the infantry, but on the strategic scale this is unrealistic.
The GIs would not have walked from LA to Washington, any more than the Shermans would have driven there… -
Flashman has a good point, especially with tracked veh.
Problem I find with Strategic movement is that it opens the Can of Worms labelled “Elastic scale of map” which, generally, contracts the size of interior lines (Russia and US) and expands conflict zones - so you essentially get more road for your movement point when far from the Forward Edge.
However you guys with your own personalized maps would have far more insight on this….
-
Flash has a great point. I guess you could say tanks are using a rail system already and now your allowing inf, art & AA’s to use it too with some limits.
-
To clarify the rule:
All land units are limited to one movement point in combat movement, including tanks (unless they’re using my tank breakthrough rule). After cm but BEFORE combat, all other land units can use unlimited rail movement through friendly territories, but cannot rail into combat zones. I abolish the ncm phase altogether.
This simulates the build-up of materials at railheads just behind the front lines, a more realistic depiction of military logistics. A by-product is that it makes it much easier to keep track of which units have moved (i.e they are still in combat zones), while ncm is unlimited and therefore needs no remembering.
It also creates the dynamic of forces being kept in supply, or of supply being cut off as a deliberate tactic.
Suggested Topics
