Razor, I like your rail station concept (based on AB & NB), but not sure if it should be allowed in combat move. Maybe only non combat. Giving tanks 3 space movement in combat (on non combat for that matter) might just encourage a Jap tank assault on Moscow. This is a path most don’t want to follow. Maybe it should only boost inf/art (tanks/mech already get 2). Either that or rail stations can only be built on 2 ipc tt like IC. This would slow rail down in remote areas like Africa/China.
We have used rail movement limited to a tt ipc value (full value) in AA50, similar to what Supermestizo posted. We allow it only in noncombat and your side has to have control of all 3 tt involved at the beginning of your turn (can’t reinf newly taken tt w/rail). If a tt has an ipc value of 4 it can rail a max of 4 inf or art through it from one adjacent tt to another. We allow all 1 move units to rail (tanks & mech already move 2 spaces), but only one time per turn, and only if they didn’t move in combat. It really just allows your inf/art to keep up on a limited bases. When you look at the map there are a lot of paths you can take to get to the same area/tt. It also gives limited rail to places like Siberia. I don’t think the scope of this game should allow an unlimited # of units to rail through 10 tt from one front to the other, as Flash has posted (although I see the logic behind it). The ipc values show infrastructure IMO and give us a viable tool to limit rail capacity and should play a part.
I like the Xeno rules as a good starting point.
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……
great idea that is what i was geting at and i like it.
For the sake of simplicity a Railway Station token similare to the Naval Base and Airbase, that all cost 15 IPC and add one extra move to any who start from this positions, and act under the same SBR-rules, will IMHO be our best solution, man. All the other suggestions will only add more pages to the rulebook and arreta/FAQ, man. New solutions means new confusions.
KISS
KISS
Its getting to the point where WOTC needs to make a basic and advanced version of A&A.
Dear mr Wild Bill.
Of course we can ride a train right into combat. You do know they had trains with guns ? Anyway, the Railway Station cant act different from Naval Bases nor Airbases, and you sure may sail straight into combat right from a Naval Base, and you may fly into combat from an Airbase too.
In case you fear the Japs will spend most of their money on a railway chain so they can attack and plunder Moscow, wich as you correctly tell us did not happen in the real war, even if it was my granny’s big dream, then you are free to bomb all the jap railway stations straight to the point of no use. Play the game, man.
This is a very cool idea, and i really cannot come up with any reasons that it would not be in AA40E except lazyness. Its a cheap piece that could add alot the the european battlefeild.
Anyways if it was to be included in AA40, then I like Razors rules the best. 15 IPC, land units move one extra space, Max damage 6, and with 3 damage it cant increase movement.
Other people have intersting ideas, yet i think their to complicated and dont add that much detail or accuracy( and I am some one who thinks historical feeling is very important to my enjoyment of the game) or are contradictory to the spirit/play of the game.
Flashman is obviously true in saying that given 3 months a division in france can be transfered too the eastern front with ease. However if strategic land movment was infinite, then sea movement would have to be changed aswell. Flashman often advicates for the corssing of the atlantic too take 2 turns, and while I understand this gives uboats a shot at taking out convoys it makes no sence at all when armies are zippping around europe and siberia.
The limiting of increased movement based on IPC value idea is interesting, however i dont see how it adds more strategy to the game and i dont see how it is going to add a significgant amount of realism to the game compared to the originaly rules proposed by Razor.
some people are complaing the it dosnt make sence that tanks move faster by rails than guns and inf.
Well its never made sence anyways that tanks move faster than infantry. On the strategic scale, all this $%^ is being move by trains or perhapspulled by trucks. Tanks cant drive hundreds of miles with out serious damage being done to them. These weapons are terribly prone to failure if overused or over driven. So this is just one querkery element to AA that we have to deal with or make major revisions to the combat and movement system.
Their is one rule i would like to add, I dont no about liminting the NCM to already controlled tt, but rails should not allow units to attack into tt, so they shouldnt be used in the combat phase. If they were allowed to attack in the combat phase, players might amass used arimes far behind their line, which would look really stupid.
This is a very cool idea, and i really cannot come up with any reasons that it would not be in AA40E except lazyness. Its a cheap peace that could add alot the the european battlefeild.
Cheap is right. They would undoubtedly make it out of cardboard and claim that they did it to save space on the gameboard when you and I know it is because they are a bunch of cheap @$$ chimps trying to save a penny.
right :-D, but a cardboard chit with a trainyard or tracks would be better than having to make one myself.
Whatever the thing is:
it must be able to be increased and damaged
not cost too much compared to what it does
facilitate only NCM bonus
suggestions:
tie it to the SBR damaging capabilities
units move double speed per point
units only move within original controlled territories ( not occupied Soviet Union or China)
UK could use it to reinforce India or Africa
Germany would use it to shuck to eastern front or france
Italy could use it to reinforce Lybia
USA could use it to get stuff to Canada for transport
Japan is out of luck ( or could shuck to Manchuria)
Russia can shuck from east to west or south
Hey, so this is where my thread went ?
An issue in this game is the time. If a turn represent 3 months of real time, then a unit must be allowed to move from a Railway Station straight into combat. There was many cases in both WWI and WWII that units had to off load from trains and fight the same day.
And another issue, is the time versus the distance. If a turn is 3 months, and it will take two turns to cross the Atlantic and three turns to cross the Pacific, then the game dont re-enact the real war, because it took 12 days to cross the Atlantic, and 3 weeks to cross the Pacific, with a tranny at 15 knots. A cruiser at 30 knots fast speed just half the time. In this game a slow tranny move as fast as a fast cruiser, or even a speedboat.
But anyway, I just dont like Flashmans idea that a fast cruiser need two turns to cross the Atlantic, while an infantry unit in South Africa may take the Fantazy Express to any place whereever in one turn.
@Imperious:
Whatever the thing is:
it must be able to be increased and damaged
not cost too much compared to what it does
facilitate only NCM bonus
Army Base
Costs 15, can be built in any territory controlled at the begining of the turn.
In the non-combat phase it increases movement of land units by one
can take 6 damage points and if it takes 3 it does not increase NCM.
That movement increase is pretty powerful, i think 15 per tt is reasonable
But anyway, I just dont like Flashmans idea that a fast cruiser need two turns to cross the Atlantic, while an infantry unit in South Africa may take the Fantazy Express to any place whereever in one turn.
right, that dosnt make and sence.
however, with the railing into combat thing, i feel your taking the game to literally. sure mnay units were railed into combat and fought that week or that day, but the opposing forces would no about that and have time to react. If your saying we should have mech inf and tanks attaking 3 spaces away, your not giving the other side time to respond. The game would just turn into opposing stacks of units flying across the map; all realism and gameplay would be lost under your proposed rules. It takes months to prepared for a major offensive. Just look at the battle of kursk. Panzers didnt zoom in from Warsaw, it took a long period of preperation, and the Soveits had time to respond and essentialy new what was going to hit them.
So for both gameplay and historical realism, what I am going to now call army bases( as general term to describe all the logistical elements of a army) , should only increase movement in the NCM phase.
@Imperious:
Whatever the thing is:
it must be able to be increased and damaged
not cost too much compared to what it does
facilitate only NCM bonus
Army Base
Costs 15, can be built in any territory controlled at the begining of the turn.
In the non-combat phase it increases movement of land units by one
can take 6 damage points and if it takes 3 it does not increase NCM.That movement increase is pretty powerful, i think 15 per tt is reasonable
they should give an other bonus like repairing capital ships and scrambling
Hi
Railway movement should only happen in Non-Combat-Movement Phase in my opinion.
Maybe there should be a limit, of how long/many territories a unit can rail through, example 4-6 territories?
Also, maybe the rail limit should be lower for continent like Africa and Asia then Europe, since there was much more railways in Europe then in any other continent. Just some thoughts.
The easiest way to include this is, no railway marker at all.
You can rail from wherever to wherever you want, it takes part in the non-combat-movement and a unit have a limit distance of 4-6 territories it can rail through.
I developed a Europe game using railroad. The map consisted of 3 inch wide hexagons. Railway movement was unlimited in a chain of contiguous hexes; these hexes had to be friendly controlled at the beginning of the current turn. Railway movement was permitted in Non-combat movement only. I did not use Railroad markers; I had experimented with them and rejected them as too cluttering. I instead used railway damage markers (yes, made of cardboard); units could use rail movement to enter, but not exit a hex with a rail damage marker. Railways could be damaged in three ways: 1) there was an automatic damage of one point for every turn of land combat in a hex, 2) strategic bombing could cause 0-3 damage points, 3) an infantry unit that does not move or combat may cause one point of damage (engineers destroying bridges) per turn. In case of infantry damage, there was a maximum of one point per turn. Repairs were done by paying a repair cost in the Purchase Units phase. I had plans for a fourth means of causing rail damage by partisans, but I haven’t established that rule and I haven’t worked on the game in a number of months. My adult son and I have play tested it a few times. The rail system worked quite well. Oh, maximum damage was set at 3. The rail system was effective because I based the game on a time scale of 1 turn=3 months. I renamed combat movement to tactical movement and non-combat movement to strategic movement. Tactical movement for all unit types was based on the traditional system, although I gave destroyers and cruisers 3 movement points. Strategic movement of all unit types was unlimited, but could be interdicted. However, I will restrict my comments here to railway movement. The key to the whole structure was hexagons, making 1 movement point the same in Africa as it is in Europe or the Atlantic. I only occasionally strayed from geographic scale for game purposes.
I wrote my game version just as a counter point, not necessarily one that would work in AAE40. I like Supermetizo’s idea, which was posted while I was writing my post. In my game, North Africa did not have rail movement except in Egypt which was two hexes, anyway.
@Imperious:
Whatever the thing is:
it must be able to be increased and damaged
not cost too much compared to what it does
facilitate only NCM bonus
Army Base
Costs 15, can be built in any territory controlled at the begining of the turn.
In the non-combat phase it increases movement of land units by one
can take 6 damage points and if it takes 3 it does not increase NCM.That movement increase is pretty powerful, i think 15 per tt is reasonable
they should give an other bonus like repairing capital ships and scrambling
thats a good point, do you have any ideas? land units dont take damage and they dont defend sea zones hmmm….
i cant think of anything good and the increased movement justifies the cost as it is.
I developed a Europe game using railroad. The map consisted of 3 inch wide hexagons. Railway movement was unlimited in a chain of contiguous hexes; these hexes had to be friendly controlled at the beginning of the current turn. Railway movement was permitted in Non-combat movement only. I did not use Railroad markers; I had experimented with them and rejected them as too cluttering. I instead used railway damage markers (yes, made of cardboard); units could use rail movement to enter, but not exit a hex with a rail damage marker. Railways could be damaged in three ways: 1) there was an automatic damage of one point for every turn of land combat in a hex, 2) strategic bombing could cause 0-3 damage points, 3) an infantry unit that does not move or combat may cause one point of damage (engineers destroying bridges) per turn. In case of infantry damage, there was a maximum of one point per turn. Repairs were done by paying a repair cost in the Purchase Units phase. I had plans for a fourth means of causing rail damage by partisans, but I haven’t established that rule and I haven’t worked on the game in a number of months. My adult son and I have play tested it a few times. The rail system worked quite well. Oh, maximum damage was set at 3. The rail system was effective because I based the game on a time scale of 1 turn=3 months. I renamed combat movement to tactical movement and non-combat movement to strategic movement. Tactical movement for all unit types was based on the traditional system, although I gave destroyers and cruisers 3 movement points. Strategic movement of all unit types was unlimited, but could be interdicted. However, I will restrict my comments here to railway movement. The key to the whole structure was hexagons, making 1 movement point the same in Africa as it is in Europe or the Atlantic. I only occasionally strayed from geographic scale for game purposes.
your game sounds pretty awesome. but it seems as though alot of major changes have to take play if rail movement is too be realistic. in regular A&A, unlimted land movement isnt going to make sence or be realistic.
PS: take some pictures of your variation and put them on the site, everyone will love them.
