no not cost anything.

but damageable

dont need a new unit or thing to worry about.

Thats why i tied it to the factories. Placement points = Redeployment points

Build more factories and you got more infrastructure like rails to move around.

Well like I said, thats too abstract for me. I want too decide which raillines too attack and see how much I have damaged each one. I want to be able to target different fronts, not bomb germany in order to take out railines everywhere.

Fair point, so you think they should cost 6 IPC? You cant use transpots too move your guys to moscow or stalingrad which are both like six space away from berlin in 1940E. And transports are not going to allow the germans too move quickly too western or southern europe. Also they would be useful for Russia who cant count on using transports to move its units either.

So to move six spaces you need to spend 45 IPC?

or two?

Id rather have 10 or 15 infantry depending..

You think it costs too much? If you have three in a row it allows you to move your whole inf army four spaces. Shifting that kinda weight that quickly is pretty powerfull.

Perhaps 12 IPCs is more reasonable?

[Railroad]

As i said before all you need to do is allow units in NCM moving in originally controlled territories move an extra space equal to your total placement capability, which in turn can be bombed and are reduced by SBR. So if Germany has one factory and its got damage of 2, then only 8 land units can be moved like this.

that method is too abstract for me.

I was also thinking of another method

Railroad
Cost: 15 IPC
It connects two territories and movement between these two territories is free in the NCM phase.
It can be SBed just like air and naval bases.

I want to see the railroads on the board and see what damage I have done to my enemies railines and where I have done it.

I just read the BotB rule book, and my rules are only similiar in that your alternating within a turn, however thats the only similiarity. In BotB your choosing a territory units can move from in mine your choosing a territory that units can move,attack, combat and build into. Both sides move when a territory is activated.

My feeling is that it will allow for more player interaction.
But your right I should playtest it.

ok. one nation moves one group of pieces and fights, then another? Don't you think this will take a loooong time to finish?

The idea is to keep move, combat, and perhaps NCM in proper turn sequence, THEN everybody at the same time and in SECRET, collect, tech, and build....then place one last time in sequence.

The other option was to have NCM possibly at the end of the turn, so that players can move new built pieces to speed up the game. Under this option NCM is done at end

example:

move-- in national sequence
combat--in national sequence

collect--together, secret
buy tech--together, secret
build--together, secret

place-- in national sequence

Under what you propose, it looks like AA battle of the bulge kind of move and attack set up right?

I have never played A&ABoTB, but its more like players alternate picking territories: the owner of the territory can non-combat move and build into that territory, while the non-owner can attack and combat in that territory. A  chip is placed on the territory once it is activated showing that it cant be activated anymore and that any units in that territory cannot be moved until the next turn.

I could see how games could take longer overall, but in my system players would be constently be going back and forth against each other which i feel may result in more fun, strategy and variablity.

In my suggestion players are essentialy taking one battle or movement at a time. There are not any national phases every country is talking their turn at  the same time except in the second phase your alternating deciding which territory units can move, attack, have combat in and be built in.

I like you idea too, but mine is much more radical while yours essentialy keeps the core of the game totaly intact. I was wondering how people think this will effect gameplay and if it makes any sence or if they like the idea.

And i suppose it does make sence to have collect income and purchase units as the second phase instead of the first.

If this is what you were refering to and i am reading it right you must be misreading my post.
IL quote

{Considering France, Canada and ANZAC, as well as Italy are now getting this a 8-9 nation turn sequence i propose this to fix the downtime issues because my All Axis All Allies turn sequence was not considered..


Here goes:

All nations just perform combat movement , combat, and NCM in the national sequence

Income collection, Technology development, and placement are all done simultaneously by all.

what this solves:
1) double income collection issue
2) downtime waiting for your turn
3) players who go first have a larger advantage because if you play after your fighting that enemies new units, so essentially by moving latter your always fighting the enemies extra turn worth of forces.
4) it forces players to think more about placements and increases decisions that you have to make on defense
5) It stops the tech spurge and cheap plays like Sealion on G1, where you go all tech hoping for LRA}

I thaught this up as a method for cutting down on the down time between turns.

Turns are taken simultaneously
Turn sequence
1. Collect Income and Purchase units(in secret)
2. Activation phase(basically non-combat,combat, conduct-combat, place units all in one)

I think the first phase is self explanetory. but please ask if it dosnt make sence.

In phase 2 players or sides alternate activating territories. Only one territory is activated at a time and any player can activate any territory. When a territory is activated place an upsidedown roundel ontop and leave it their until the end of the turn. The player that controls the activated territory can move any units that have range into that territory. They may also place any purchased units if there is an IC. No units can move out of a territory once it is activated. After the player controling the territory has done what is essentialy his non-combat and place units phase for that territory, the player or side that is non incontrol can conduct combat movement against that territory and conduct any resulting combat. Players or sides alternate activating territories until they both decline activating new territories.


Thats basicaly it, what do you think? did that makes sence?

I havnt playtested this yet, but i hopefully will get a change this weekend.
I lot still needs to be worked out so i would appreciate feedback.

You have made some pretty good aproximations. I am in agreement with you on just about every single unit, and your certainly right about naval bombardment not making sence.

Remeber though that A&A is not a simulation and so the scale is never going to make sence. I like thinking that the scale changes depending on the front and countires involved.

For infantry though you are drastically underestimating what each soldeir represents. One soviet soldeir could easly be 100,000 men or more, perhaps 20,000-40,000 is more realistic for the UK and ��� player; with 50,000-80,000 for the US, Germany and Italy.
 
And for air units I have always said that they represent 1,000 aircraft each. Although 2,000 fighters on four aircraft carrier dosnt make much sence, now does it.

Razor, I do like your concept. The problem I'm having is tanks being able to attack three tt away when starting at a rail station. Maybe any ground unit starting at a rail station gets to move 2 spaces. This will allow inf/art +1. You could allow tanks/mech to move 1 space before boarding the train (giving them 3 moves in some cases), but don't allow them to move after the train ride. You could ride the train right into enemy tt as long as your RR was 2 spaces away. Would be kinda like departing a transport, you don't get to move an extra space.

Its a whole lot simpler, better for game play, and historicaly accurate if Army bases can only increase movement in the NCM phase.

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.

[Army Base]

Whatever the thing is:

1) it must be able to be increased and damaged

2) not cost too much compared to what it does

3) 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.

[army bases]

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.

[Army Base]

Whatever the thing is:

1) it must be able to be increased and damaged

2) not cost too much compared to what it does

3) 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