I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).
Railway
-
I haven’t heard that, but I LOVE the idea. If it’s not included OoB, it should definitely be a house rule.
-
There is a Trans-Siberian railway represented in Colonial Diplomacy. I highly recommend that game!
-
i saw eagle mention it on larry’s site, but nothing from larry
-
i saw eagle mention it on larry’s site, but nothing from larry
I think Flashman posted his ideas on rail movement somewhere.
-
let me dig something up:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15938.0
“Strategic movement: All land units that do not move until Non-Combat may more one extra territory as long as these are originally controlled territories at the start of the game.”
Flashman is also posted about this need for more land movement.
-
I don’t think it would be that bad as long as you couldn’t rail into newly conquered territories.
-
right that makes sence.
-
@Imperious:
“Strategic movement: All land units that do not move until Non-Combat may move one extra territory as long as these are originally controlled territories at the start of the game.”
No I dont agree. This is 1940 after all, and a lot of places in Africa and Asia didn’t have any railways.
If you pay 15 IPC for a Railway Station, you build railways and trains in that specific territory, that allow for fast travel in that specific territory.
-
Yes, it is vital that rail movement is not into combat. Since I don’t have a NCM phase it also cannot be into newly captured areas.
It can thus be unlimited, as the enemy can counter with his own rail movements before you can use the detrained forces to attack.
-
Rail movement could also be hampered by strategic bombing, similar to air and naval base damage.
-
Rail movement could also be hampered by strategic bombing, similar to air and naval base damage.
Good idea. I think this whole rail movement is gonna’ end up being a house rule though.
-
Rail movement could also be hampered by strategic bombing, similar to air and naval base damage.
Yes, like in the real wars. But then we need a Railway Token to put the damage markers under, just like we do with the NB and AB. Cost 15, and can still work with 3 damage, and take 6 damage total. We cant do this with Flashman’s fantazy rule.
-
me and my friends have been talking bout this for awhile
i say they cost 5 ipcs and are destroyed if that territory is captured -
me and my friends have been talking bout this for awhile
i say they cost 5 ipcs and are destroyed if that territory is capturedNow that might make some sense, but don’t you know that nothing ever got destroyed in WWII except for armies? :-P
-
FMG is talkin’ about making a rail movement piece.
-
thats pretty awesome how many territories would the rail go through?
-
thats pretty awesome how many territories would the rail go through?
I think the idea is that you can move across as many rail linked territories as you control.
-
As the first post state, the Railway Station should work the same way as Naval Base and Airbase, and that is the Station give you one extra move.
Naval Base lets ships move one more space.
Airbase lets aircrafts move one more space.
Train Station lets land units move one more space. If you start from a Train Station, your infantry move 2 and your tanks move 3.But then Frog released a new idea. In non-combat move you may move infantry between two Airbases up to 6 spaces apart, and pretend transport planes did it. So to continue this, lets say in non-combat you may move infantry between two Railway Stations up to 6 spaces apart.
-
How about placement of rail stations at set-up. I would think each victory city would be a good place to start. These are centers of production that would have such infrastructures to adjoining tt.
-
@Brain:
thats pretty awesome how many territories would the rail go through?
I think the idea is that you can move across as many rail linked territories as you control.
I like this to, but this should also be related to the territories IPC value.
Example: Germany has a IPC value of 10, then Germany has a Rail Capacity of example 5, means he rail up to 5 ground units that did’nt move in Combat Movement Phase, in the Non-Combat Movement Phase. And you should also be able to across as many linked territories you control. And maybe the IPC value of territories also should count for how many railed units a territory can receive. Example: East Poland have a IPC value of 4, you can rail up to TWO ground units per turn to East Poland. And you can only rail FROM territories that have a Railway marker!
I dont like the idea of, that a railway marker makes you can move one extra territory/space! Makes no sense, that a armor can be railed 3 territories, and infantry rail 2 territories!
Or maybe we need Railway Station Markers, so we can rail between railway station markers! But this should also be related to IPC value of territories, the railway capacity!
Sorry for my bad english, just my thoughts of this……
Suggested Topics
