Do you think allowing just 3 units to travel from a totally operational rail station is enough? Would it be worth the investment of possibly buying a rail station? Or even using an existing rail station but having to purchase rail markers and repair any bomb damage?
It seems pretty sound. When you consider the investment that some players make in factories, just to get a couple ground to the front with a quickness. Or how much people are willing to spend on armor just to get the movement advantage.
When my friends and I were playing we didn’t have any set markers to use, so generic X’s drawn across a grey chip to represent rail crossings, was the method we used. If I had the appropriate HGB materials, we might have tried to go with a more expansive system, but since it was a new thing I just tried to make to come up with a scheme that would mirror the other 2 bases as closely as I could. The idea for 3 units moving was likewise modeled on scrambling. We also had a simplified convoy raiding system that allowed 3 subs to run raids. So the idea of tying 3 units at a go was pretty familiar. But it probably would be just as well at 4 or 5. The thought in my case was that the rail advantage to Germany was the one that needed to be controlled, since it was the most likely to be exploited on a breaker. Originally the thought was that you’d need a contiguous rail line in order to move across, but that proved cost prohibitive at 15, so the idea was that you could have little hubs like waypoints.
Part of the motivation here, beyond just a general desire to get rail into the game, was to give the Tactical bombers more to do, and to make their impact on the games economy a bit more significant.
One thing that become pretty clear after you start using the rail concept is that Russia and Germany are vulnerable to rail bombing in a way that USA isn’t. So while Germany or Russia gain the most out of a movement advantage, they also are at the most risk.
Other candidates for newly purchased rail, were in Asia (Japan obviously, but also UK out of India), Africa, and even toying with the idea of putting one in Sydney.
Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail, whether it should be destroyed or something the enemy could use. An HR we sometimes use is for scorched earth, where a player can elect to damage their own bases or facilities up to the maximum. This was an alternative to auto-destruct, on the principle that it would be too easy otherwise, for the enemy to rush in destroy all your factories or bases and then immediately withdraw. So this was kind of a compromise, since you could damage your own infrastructure but not totally remove it from play. Seemed to work fairly well. Actually that reminds me, I meant to post that rule. Guess I’ll do it now :-D
Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail
One of the things that might need to be considered is that, if I’m not mistaken, the USSR used a different track gauge than Germany, which created a headache for the use of captured railroads.
@CWO:
Another idea we considered was how to deal with captured rail
One of the things that might need to be considered is that, if I’m not mistaken, the USSR used a different track gauge than Germany, which created a headache for the use of captured railroads.
I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.
Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in.
I think if you want to introduce a rail system then you shouldn’t worry about the historic rail gauges. Just make it that all rails are the same in all countries. Otherwise I think it gets too complicated, that is unless you specifically don’t want conquering nations to be able to use the rails of a conquered nation.
Another idea if you wanted to use a different gauge of rail for different countries would be that the conquering nation would have to pay 1 or 2 IPCs to be able to use the captured rails. Then I guess if the original owner liberated that territory, they would also have to pay the 1 or 2 IPCs to change the rails back to their gauge.
Also, what about Allies using each other’s rails? For example, how about some Italian units using Germany’s rail system or visa versa?
You can’t have an entire army traveling across half the continent.
Why not?
This is what Germany did in 1941 to build up for the invasion of Russia. The USA would be well able to switch an army from coast to coast in a couple of weeks. As long as this is never into combat, the enemy always has a turn to counter move with his own strategic rail moves.
I’ve always believed that a player should be able to rail his entire army anywhere within friendly tt during non-combat. If this means sending 50 pieces from Cape Town to Vladivostok in one turn then do so - it’s up to the enemy to block such movement by capturing crucial tts.
Unless you believe the myth of Hitler’s autobahns being built so that his panzers could drive faster from front to front, on a map of this scale all land movement in this period was by rail.
By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?
@Der:
By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?
Well, tanks and mechs can also travel by rail. Also, you will still need tanks and mechs for those areas that don’t have any rail links yet or if you use my earlier idea where a capturing power has to pay to change the rail gauges so he/she can’t use those newly captured rails until next turn. In that case, you might have your tanks and mechs speed up to the front using their 2 movement and hold back the infantry and artillery until the rails are open.
You can’t have an entire army traveling across half the continent.
Why not?
This is what Germany did in 1941 to build up for the invasion of Russia. The USA would be well able to switch an army from coast to coast in a couple of weeks. As long as this is never into combat, the enemy always has a turn to counter move with his own strategic rail moves.
I’ve always believed that a player should be able to rail his entire army anywhere within friendly tt during non-combat. If this means sending 50 pieces from Cape Town to Vladivostok in one turn then do so - it’s up to the enemy to block such movement by capturing crucial tts.
Unless you believe the myth of Hitler’s autobahns being built so that his panzers could drive faster from front to front, on a map of this scale all land movement in this period was by rail.
Well, I guess you are right there. In fact, Germany moved a lot of it’s army back in WW1 with great efficiency. I guess it would be okay to make unlimited rail movement in the NCM.
@Der:
By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?
In that case, Tanks and Mechs should be more efficient in combat and blitzing.
Certainly it would make mech inf as is obsolete. I’ve advocated giving tanks a 2nd “breakthrough” move after combat to replace the basic 2 space move, forcing defenders to think about leaving units behind the front line to block the breakthroughs.
Well, tanks and mechs can also travel by rail.
Yes, and in fact railroads are, in real life, the best way to move tanks and other heavy tracked vehicles over long distances. Tanks can travel on their own, of course, but the farther they march the more they break down due to tread breakage and other maintanance issues. The ideal combination is to move tanks by rail to a point as close to their operational area as possible, and from then onward to have them drive on their own into battle.
If I remember correctly, the Sherman had a rubberized track which helped it move efficiently on paved roads, if any were available for use in a particular operational area.
The way I plan to implement my RRs is to simply use them like ABs, gives +1 to movement of land units. Option 2 is to allow NCM to any friendly rail station with a contiguous friendly TT path to an opposite Rail Station. or a combination of both ideas.
_I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.
Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in._
Toblerone…
CWO marc is right.
_I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.
Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in._
––Poof Here I am to save the Day! haha, just joking, TOTALLY.
----I’ve been following this discusion and there are good arguments on both sides of each issue. IMHO I’m not sure that the A&A-G40 map is “Tactical” enough to fully justify/implement the Railroad Rules. And of course by tactical I mean it might be lacking enough territories to implement the RR rules without upsetting the game balance.
––However,…I DO think this would be a very useful and interesting ruleset to be used in when playing HBG’s Global Warfare-1939 as it has several more territories.
––I also understand that most of us have played so many G-40 games we want to change/improve things to keep them from getting ‘stale’. To this I would respond developement of new strategies,…or a new map Global Warfare-1939.
––If there were any Railroad History questions I’d be more than happy to offer my knowledge(if any). I don’t know about a LOT of subjects,…but I do know a LOT about two subjects,…Railroad & Military History.Tall Paul
What capacity could a train carry compared to a transport?
OK here we go:
All land units starting in a factory space may move double movement only during non-combat movement phase , and this number is limited in quantity to the number of undamaged placement capabilities of that area.
In this way the enemy may interdict and bomb the rail-centers with SBR.
Obviously, minor factories always have less capacity for rail movement.
@Imperious:
OK here we go:
All land units starting in a factory space may move double movement only during non-combat movement phase , and this number is limited in quantity to the number of undamaged placement capabilities of that area.
In this way the enemy may interdict and bomb the rail-centers with SBR.
Obviously, minor factories always have less capacity for rail movement.
4 movement points seems high for Mech Inf and Tank.
Throwing some numbers:
All ground units (including AAA, Tank and Mech Inf) can move 3 territories in Non-Combat Move starting from a Factory.
And can move only 2 territories in Combat Move.
So this give +1 bonus move for slowest ground unit such as Infantry and Artillery. And of no use for the Mech Inf and Tank.
The idea of starting from Factory is great and simple.
It allows to cap the number of unit gaining the bonus move with the actual capacity of the Factory or IC.
Also, if it is damaged, it can also affect this railroad capacity.
If 4 moves are acceptable but for very few units,
then I would allow 4 moves in NCM for all ground units (including AAA, Tank and Mech Inf).
And 3 moves in CM for all grounds units. This would represent a +2 bonus for Inf and +1 for Mech Inf.
The bonus move is applied in a simple manner that way.
All units are moving by train after all, there is no difference between putting on board vehicule or people.
They get down the train at the end of the line. That’s it that’s all.
It cant be any system that gives all units of different ‘speeds’ one and same long movement. That immediately imbalances the game. Infantry are now stronger with triple speed, while tanks get 50% increase.
It has to be a system that can be damaged by bombing
It has to be a ridiculously simple system.
_I know that is correct Marc but I wasn’t sure when that came about. I thought about that when I was buying my HBG markers. Personally If and when I begin implementing them, I may just fudge history a bit to get them into gameplay. Now I think I may need to do some research on world railway systems LOL.
Tall Paul knows quite a bit about rails maybe he’ll chime in._
Toblerone…
CWO marc is right.
Yeah I knew Marc was right. What I’m not sure about is when before WWII Russia implemented them in case I wanted to use them for 1914 or pre-WWII scenarios and wanted to make rules for the different gauges. As far as fudging it into history I may not take the different gauges into account and let it be an “unseen” mechanic which allows their use universally if captured.
@Imperious:
It cant be any system that gives all units of different ‘speeds’ one and same long movement. That immediately imbalances the game. Infantry are now stronger with triple speed, while tanks get 50% increase.
It has to be a system that can be damaged by bombing
It has to be a ridiculously simple system.
It depends on how many units are allowed.
If it is no more than three of any kind per Factory.
And unrepaired factory have a totally impaired railroad, I think this could still work even if it gives a 3 NCM bonus to all units.
The damaging capacity provides a way to counter this tactics.
Maybe you can increase the price of Factory of 3 to 5 IPCs according to the number of units getting this boost.
This HR could go so many ways depending upon what people have as far a physical playing pieces. Personally I have several RR stations from HBG as well as actual Train engines from another game. That said the OP was making his own " land AB/NBs" and calling them rail. Not a bad idea and a good basis of thought.
Trains moved everything in WWII. So you could say that rail is actually already “built-into” the game given the scale of A&A. However, I’m never satisfied with Larry’s creations entirely. So…
IMO basing RRS on their naval and air counterparts seems logical and most compatible with the game. If one were to implement this HR I would use the NB/AB model and adjust accordingly to the OOB set-up to not upset balance.
If you’re going to create an HR be prepared to tinker with set-up. You don’t have to kill the game to do so. If you give Germany RRSs you have to give Russia a counter set-up to maintain balance. This is do-able.
Anyway, just a thought.
