The Gallipoli campaign was fought primarily to open up a southern route to supply Russia.
http://maps.omniatlas.com/europe/19150426/
Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?
I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?
To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben
1) If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.
Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?
Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.
Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?
Placing them yes, only Russia can use the rails in her Empire.
I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?
Or you get some glitching in the game where the allies try to “save” Russia or kill Ottomans from northern direction. Not really realistic.
To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:
They are as long as the land areas are connected.
1) If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.
Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?
The transfer of rail within allied nations forces some restrictions, no restrictions to your factories that you began the game with. We didn’t want it to be possible to just send a huge army from a non-factory space ( meaning an area where no rail exists) to any other area en masse. SO the rule protects against glitching. You can move from any space you control to a home factory, but not a non factory space to another non factory space. Allowing that would be too much.
Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.
It is unlimited but only to home factory areas. Otherwise limited by production value as cap.
Well it is but only to a factory ( rail hub): choice is only to nearest factory, or home factory. Too much ‘teleport’ is not good for the game and it is a game. Fixed numbers of redeployment’s without restrictions is just as bad.
I would prefer simply to print available rail lines on the map. This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.
This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.
The game does not have central Africa and in any event water straights block railway movement, except Turkish straights and to have a connection to say some faraway place is limited by production value, which those places have not therefore the problem is solved by other means ( no factories so no rail, no production value so no rails)
Do you have a map to reference?
I do hope Sinai isn’t still in Palestine.
It is Between Egypt and Palestine. The “triangle” portion of land.
Sorry can’t show the map or anything yet.
The important thing is that it should be part of Egypt (British), not Palestine (Turkish). This is a mistake every A&A game to date has made, and I was hoping it had finally been ironed out.
The Suez canal runs THROUGH EGYPT, not between Egypt and Palestine.
Also, be careful about the borders of Italian Libya and Egypt which were different from 1939.
http://unimaps.com/africa1914/index.html
The Turkey-Russia border in the Caucasus also changed.
It is part of Egypt and the border changes for Italy don’t appear on the map ( only strip of land showing)
At last! I had visions of Turkey having joint control of the Suez Canal.
Slowly, slowly, we get there.
Also, with regard to air combat…
Planes fight in aerial combat until one side is defeated or retreats. Fighters, Zeppelins, and Bombers can be scrambled once this is completed the side with planes provides aerial spotting for one round for qualifying land units ( artillery, railguns) where all these units fight at +1 ( this can be defender or attacker).
Planes also roll and hit land units and land units can now hit air units ( the player would hardly choose planes for loses in any event)
In naval combat all planes and ships just fight together, but planes with metal frame technology can participate in sea combat or Zeppelins.
Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power, then returning home.
It makes sense that they have to undergo fire from enemy ground units, otherwise they’d just massacre them. Also relevant if accompanying bombers to targets.
Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power,
Realistic but is busts the game because players with larger air forces will bully and easily defeat poorer nations straight away and they don’t get the ability to effect air power on their turn.
Air planes are expensive and to allow hordes of “plane hunters” to wipe them out makes the game less fun. Of course they can retreat after a round, but it would be too commonplace to do this.
Planes were used in conjunction with land combat, rather than sending over fighters in a quiet area where no land combat occurs.
Air power in this game should really be an after thought, given how flimsy they were and how new most of the technology was. Planes barley had the ability to shoot through their own propellers by the end of the war their impact was anecdotal at best. The best use for planes would be to provide an attack in a territory like any other unit, however if the enemy had planes present as well then a separate battle would have to be resolved between the two opposing air forces (with their attacks being rolled against eachother and nothing else) until one side is destroyed or decides to retreat. Then the aircraft could contribute its attacks to the larger land battle going on.
That is exactly how air combat works, with surviving planes providing aerial spotting for artillery and railguns.
@Imperious:
with surviving planes providing aerial spotting for artillery and railguns.
But I think this is too in-depth for what Larry is planning and wouldn’t be in this game. Also, I think that is too in depth of a task for aircraft period. They should be a stand alone unit with their own attacks, not just another piece to “bump” this or that thing.
In the Great War, planes didn’t have substantial effect against land units. It wasn’t till they got interrupter gear that allowed them to even shoot. Before that, they just had pistols and shot at other pilots as they went by on a fluke or dropped grenades personally ( literally had a small bomb and the pilot would throw it out of the plane) They fought in Dogfights while land units fought land units. They helped as forward observers to direct artillery fire much like Balloons did in the Civil War. Go check it out. They are not “tactical bombers” or “dive-bombers” etc.
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
This is basically what I’ve been advocating for years. I don’t even have limited movement points, railways could shift a lot of materiel. Of course the movement can only be between connected land tts, but you forgot to mention that, didn’t you?
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
Rail movement could much more easily be achieved by
“infinite non-combat movement amongst friendly territories not bordered by enemy controlled territory”
Right. In 6 month turns the entire army could be moved by rail, no limits.
When Russia falls Germany needs to run her army to finish off France and to say " hey they can only move 10 men" would entail too many allied victories.
