Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

This is a good topic. I’m contemplating the creation of a rail marker that could cost a few IPC’s and placed on a land mass can then connect the adjacent landmasses. What I initially like about a physical marker is that it also gives aircraft a strategic target to knock out as well. As I am thinking this through, the rail marker virtually eliminates the region that it’s in and units can simply jump past it. Theoretically, you could put another rail marker in another adjacent region and jump two regions.

Anyway, just thinking this through in light of this thread. Please give me your thoughts.

Bill

@Flashman:

Thank you, “Mr Krieghund”.

Don’t thank me - all I did was give it a name.  This is Larry’s baby (though I did have a small amount of influence on the direction it took).

My argument is not that there shouldn’t be strategic sea movement, but that it should not be used as a combat move.

By all means allow America to ship armies to a friendly tt or SZ anywhere on the board, but not to land in enemy tt or sail through hostile or mined SZs. The idea is to get units to a position where they can attack next turn, by which time the enemy can use its own SRM or SSM to build up defences.

The essential character of warfare in the period was of attrition, because powers could transport reinforcements to shore up gaps in their line faster than the enemy could exploit said gaps. This had been true from the US civil war onward.

However, in order to effectively balance SSM, SRM would need to be through any friendly tt, not just that owned by an individual power.

I assume the unit(s) left behind in contested tts must include an infantry, and that tts moved to by SRM must also end up with an infantry present.

(Asked Larry this question; the answer was to delete my post. Be warned.)

I think this will help the CP alot. Just think the CP can move thirty units from the Russian Front to the French front in one move. That just does not seem like a good idea to me. I would like to see some more restrictions placed on the move. Like a max of 5 to 10 units per turn.

The new phase would have to be before place new units.
Also it should have a limit (10?) else it could get really out of hand.
5 movement for ships is too much too, USA could amphib assault constinople turn 4 with 12 units plus BB and CA

Agree that this shouldn’t apply to ships.

As far as the US, how about wording this proposed change so that it is only available on the first turn AFTER your nation has been at war.  Applies then to the neutrals, etc.

There’s no way a nation is not at war on one turn, and the next is conducting an attack around the globe the next.  Not at least with WWI technology.

EDIT This also means nations that start the game at war can not use this movement until their individual turn 2.

Got pretty far with a game with these rules, and this has made the two powers pretty much equal.

I dont have time to write a playthrough but here is a couple things i have noted.

The westernfront is up in the air. France is on its heels the first couple turns as germany moves in. If germany has adverage rolls, france can hold out till other french and british troops move in. If france gets wiped out in picardy, the first or second turn, paris will fall. France holds, the western front becomes a stalemate and each side will have a hard time winning. As time progresses and germany still cant make a break through, it will lose ground due to the allies superior income. By this time russia will be in revolution or dead. India will probably will have fallen too depending on how many troops that briatian put there. The ottomans will also will be just setting foot into Africa.

The Italians are fielding a slightly larger army, as austria went heavy russia and suffered many casualties.  When the americans come, they need to make a choice.

Italy can hold out, but will eventually lose. Germans are returning there troops from other fronts to come help but the allies can still push into germany but it will be slow.

So, either place troops in austia and try to smash to vienna(risky move), or break the western front and take berlin.

That is where we are stopping and it looks very close to me.

Some more things.

Germany will need to invest in a navy or else britain will crush them. America can move more troops to the front faster with the movement points and the central powers still wont be able to compete in the naval compartment. Britain could also pull some interesting land invasions but they are risky and probably wont go very far.

Made probably too many grammer mistakes due to me typing on my phone but oh well. Ill see how this game goes.

I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?

@loki17:

I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?

This made me laugh. Seriously, though, I think ships would HAVE to have increased movement in order for America to help the Entente keep up with the CPs railroading all over the map. Turn one, Germany will be able to cart a massive amount of troops to the contested territory of their choice (40+ troops?)

With this new rule i think it would be in the Germans best interests to kill Russia first.
They could send plenty of units to do the job and use strategic movement to pile on France once they have all the Russia tts.

Also with this new rule France would have more incentive to take Spain as they could send an overkill of units to take it F2 and then strategic move them to the front.

Great point about Spain, I hadn’t thought about that.  Also, Britain could move North from India and be directly engaging Austrians by turn 3 with these rules. Oh, the possibilities!

@Uncrustable:

With this new rule i think it would be in the Germans best interests to kill Russia first.
They could send plenty of units to do the job and use strategic movement to pile on France once they have all the Russia tts.

Also with this new rule France would have more incentive to take Spain as they could send an overkill of units to take it F2 and then strategic move them to the front.

Only if it is allowed to use the infrastructure of other countries, right? I think that is not in the spirit of this rule. Only your own provinces can be used, I think.

You can move from S Africa to archangel as long you have an unbroken chain of tts

Well, once you have a chain from SA to Archangelsk, moving units between them is the least of the CP problems!

@Tavenier:

Only if it is allowed to use the infrastructure of other countries, right? I think that is not in the spirit of this rule. Only your own provinces can be used, I think.

That’s correct.  Your units may only pass through territories that either you control or are contested and you have units in.  Your allies’ territories can’t be used.

Thanks KH! Am glad that this is the case. Would be very weird otherwise. British Indian soldiers moving through Russian lands to fight Habsburgers in Galicia.

The requirement that your power controls it or contests it is going to lead to that same ridiculous situation we had before the change to movement out of contested territories, where the enemy is going to move out of a contested territory or avoid contesting a territory to avoid making that a possible route.

It will be once again easier to move into a contested territory than into a TT your ally controls.

It should be SRM. But Larry still insists that it isn’t rail movement, and doesn’t want to give credit to those of us who’ve advocated this for years.

But if it isn’t rail movement, what is it; bicycle movement on steroids?

@loki17:

I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?

I agree, its ridiculous that Germany cannot move units by rail through Austrian and Ottoman territory.

The players should not have to think “do I want to take that tt if it stops my ally moving armies through by rail?”

So yes, make it unlimited through friendly tts, but it must stop in contested. Make sea movement unlimited as well, but not into combat, including mined areas.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

The requirement that your power controls it or contests it is going to lead to that same ridiculous situation we had before the change to movement out of contested territories, where the enemy is going to move out of a contested territory or avoid contesting a territory to avoid making that a possible route.

It will be once again easier to move into a contested territory than into a TT your ally controls.

@Flashman:

I agree, its ridiculous that Germany cannot move units by rail through Austrian and Ottoman territory.

Just to clarify, I wouldn’t exactly like it if you could only move through your own territories or territories you control, but it wouldn’t be ridiculous.

What really irks me as being nonsensical is the fact that you can move through contested territories but not allied ones.