Strategic Redeployment

There are many rules for Strategic redeployment at least for land units. but what about Naval Units? It makes much more sence for them anyways. its often annoyed me how long it takes for tranports to get places and even more so submarines and surface ships. I understand if you have ships with infinite movement that causes a lot of problems but I think i have a realistic way of doing this.

First in the non-combat phase any units that could move normally may make a special move. For a cost (3 for Battleships and Carriers, 2 for Crusiers and 1 for destroyers, subs and transports) those units may move eight spaces. These units could not enter sea zones with surface warships but could go anywere else. This makes naval movemnet a lot more realistic and it would also make adding a naval mine unit to the game more plausible

also these are my ideas for AA50 stategic redeployment for land units
Each nation has these maximums
Soveit Union: 10
Germnay: 8
United States: 6
United Kingdom: 4
Japan: 2
Italy: 2 (he made the trains run on time? :roll: maybe it should just be zero :-D)
and it costs 1IPC to move two units from one territroy to another contiguous territroy up to the maximum

@Imperious:

I have this rule for some time. For AA50 i decided that the best option was:

Each factory you own take placement points and divide by 2, each factory you own this value goes up, each time a factory is bombed by SBR, every 2 points reduces this by 1. For me factories are also infrastructure ( roads, communications), so they must be able to be built up or reduced from the ravages of war.

Action: each SR point allows an additional movement in NCM of:

Double the speed within your starting contiguously connected land territories ( tanks move 4, inf move 2)

If you have an empty transport you can bridge up to that capacity a number of units across ONE sea zone onto another land zone. So if UK owns france and has 2 transports and 4 SR points cleared, they can transfer 4 more units to france from UK.

This only works with one intervening sea zone.

But then again this is basically AARHE stuff ( optional rules)

Right, but those rules dont have any effect on naval units which in A&A have the most unrealistic movement range( over four months to travel from London to America! this is not the 1500s)

SR I think should cost IPCs, which is a better representation of infrastructure, since useable infrastucture dose not only exist in territories with an IC

@Imperious:

Right, but those rules dont have any effect on naval units which in A&A have the most unrealistic movement range( over four months to travel from London to America! this is not the 1500s)

yes of course but you know also its a game and you have to take into account the range of the naval ships. The actual effective range of these ships is barely 4 spaces and they must return to port. IN battle they don’t bring tankers generally.
The game must keep some of this about or it will get busted.

SR I think should cost IPCs, which is a better representation of infrastructure, since useable infrastucture dose not only exist in territories with an IC

I think moving units by train is not a cost that would be represented in the game, rather its a built up infrastructure that can be built up or destroyed and the only mechanism we have for this is factories. plus the starting factories pretty much give an accurate SR points:

Germany:5
UK: 4
Japan: 4
Russia: 6
Italy:3
USA: 11

i think these starting SR is perfect, plus your bombers can now bomb rail lines, which you have a new reason to rebuild.

What specific system do you propose?

ok, i see your point on the ground SR and like your system,

but for naval SR i understand the attack range of these ships is pretty close too 2 spaces, but it is unrealistic to say that these ships could not be repositioned to another part of the world very quickly. i dont see why it should not be possible for ships to move 6-8 spaces in the ncp.

Wow, i really like that idea, i think the price is too high though if they can only transport 1 ship

what about a similar rule for airfields. I understand aircraft ranges are if anything too far, but what about decreasing range noramally but then giving some bonus with an airfield,(or maybe they can only operate from territories with airfields) when ever i read about modern warfare it alwasy seems like airfields are very important, but then when i play games like axis and allies they are only represented in pacific and you cant even choose where you build them.

For ports, if they also give some defensive bonus i think 8 is good, and it also takes two turns to build, but that is only the first level and you can only tranport 1 ship there, for additional levles they cost 3 each and the maximum you can build in a teritory is the IPC value +4. Also ports have to border a specific sea zone even if the territory they are in borders multiple sea zones

for airfields, we dont have to dicuss them now but i understand they were much cheaper and more abundant than ports, but i was thinking that you pay one IPC to build an airfield in a territory and the number of airfeilds in a territory determines how many aircraft can be based there. And, if you capture an intact airfeild you can land planes there in combat or non combat.