• Maybe it’s the other way around.

    Maybe Germany needs the space to give her time before the allies can reach Berlin. I agree that telegraphing what’s to come to the front lines is a disadvantage on the offense. However, it may be balanced by giving Germany an advantage when on the defense.


  • Germany goes on defense they die.

  • Customizer

    It will also make Germany a boring power to play. All you really have to decide is how many new units to send east, and how many west. Without being able to switch emphasis with rail movement you have no strategic manouver whatsoever.

    The only alternative strategy available is to move your units by sea, essentially using the Baltic and Gulf of Bothnia to invade Russia via Petrograd. This practically invites Britain to invade Kiel, though you may have enough to defend here.
    The whole character of war between 1860 and 1945 was that of railway movement allowing powers to reinforce their armies before decisive breakthroughs could be made, hence the heavy attrition.

    If Germany takes 3 turns just to reinforce a static front against western Allies who can move units much further by sea; if the map design means that Poland, the likely main battle ground in the East, is the same distance from Berlin as from Moscow, then German is fatally crippled.

    I maintain that the Central Powers need rail movement to stand a prayer in this game. Only a huge and artificial material advantage at the start and a swift victory over France and Russia, probably before turn 4, gives them any hope.

    Yes, they lost the war in reality. But the main advantage that might have given them a victory was fast internal lines of communication. By robbing them of that you doom them.

  • Customizer

    Germany did have a very good rail network. A big reason for some of the big defeats Germany inflicted on Russia was due to the ability to move large amounts of troops by rail to come up on certain fronts. That was also something that worried the main Russian General (forget his name now) who was planning the big Russian offensive in 1916.
    Perhaps that should be reflected in the game somehow, like an extra space in NCM.


  • Your constant pleas for rail movement could be made irrelevant if production worked how I suggested.

    Powers may place one infantry in any uncontested original territory with an IPC value of two or more.

  • Customizer

    Well, yes, but I’m assuming that when Larry says all new units are placed in the capital he means it, however retrograde the idea is.


  • If rail movement was done, however it would be done, would be clunky, only because it would add an extra layer to the game.
    (spare me your simplified version of rail movement, the ONLY simple version would be a “strategic redeployment phase” where a power can move X units triple distance or something)

    Production in all original contiguous 2+ IPC territories would have been a GREAT stopgap to avoid all this insanity.
    Because I get what you are saying about the long march to the Western Front.

    HOWEVER your map may be wrong, Hanover might not exist and be part of the Berlin territory, allowing German units to shuttle right into Ruhr or Alsace.

  • Customizer

    Larry specifically mentions Hanover, which can only be where I’ve placed it. The borders may be slightly different, i.e. Alsace may have a border with Tyrolia, but I’m sure this map is essentially correct for Germany.

    There is nothing clunky about my rail rule. You simply make all combat moves first, then move remaining units by unlimited rail. This really is how it was done - Germany DID move entire armies by rail across the length of the country in the space of a week - why do people have a problem with that?

    Again, the entire character of warfare in this period was shaped by the ability to quickly reinforce front lines by utilizing the rail networks. Without it, the game more closely resembles the Napoleonic conflict.


  • I agree with you Flashman. Simple and effective non combat Rail movement rules could of been made for this game. It could still work out well. We’ll have to see when we get the game.


  • @knp7765:

    Germany did have a very good rail network. A big reason for some of the big defeats Germany inflicted on Russia was due to the ability to move large amounts of troops by rail to come up on certain fronts. That was also something that worried the main Russian General (forget his name now) who was planning the big Russian offensive in 1916.
    Perhaps that should be reflected in the game somehow, like an extra space in NCM.

    Brusliov


  • Perhaps it is and we just don’t know it yet……Perhaps units have unlimited movement amongst contiguous original territory. (or maybe just Germany does because the Ottomans don’t deserve such a rule)


  • Even if playtesting was shoddy, it’s really hard to say that Germany could be screwed because testing, setup, and rules were all done without rail movement. I don’t see why Germany would be any more screwed without rail movement than with it; the quality of the testing is what really determines whether they are screwed or not.

    One the other hand, single-round combat could really make the dice much more important that we are used to.

  • Customizer

    O.K. we’ll see how it plays out.

    But don’t say you weren’t warned.


  • I think it’ll be o.k. It doesn’t look like France has very little artillery to start off with so they won’t be making sweeps into the Ruhr or Alsace right out of the gates and Germany will have a bigger economy than France. Plus when Russia gets out of the game, Germany will have all the reinforcements coming in from the east.

  • Customizer

    Maybe something like:

    After all combat is concluded, any units still in your capital may be moved by rail to any area you or your Allies control.

    Perhaps also:

    Any units (after combat) may be railed BACK to the capital to replenish the reserve. You cannot abandon areas.

    So, you can choose to keep units in the capital as a “mobile reserve”.

    This is before placement of new units.

    And consider this:

    A large German army finally marches through the streets of Moscow having secured victory on the Eastern Front. Fine.

    It now takes this army SEVEN TURNS to march all the way to the Western Front, by which time they find themselves confronted by a large American army idly sampling the fleshpots of gay Paris. They’ll be lucky if they don’t find them hanging out in Berlin.

    GERMANY

    NEEDS

    TRAINS

    http://members.kos.net/sdgagnon/mil.html

    GermanyNeedsTrains.PNG


  • In the absence of rails I intend to buy transports (at least one on G1). Transports provide flexibility. If the western Allies goof, you hit them. If the Russians goof, you hit them. If neither of them goof, you grab Norway, Sweden, and Finland for their resources.

  • Customizer

    Can Germany afford to add that many enemy units?

    Attacking a 2 IPC neutral adds 13 IPC’s worth of enemy units, so you have to hold the tt for SEVEN TURNS to show a profit. Meanwhile your own forces are more widely spread and vulnerable, and if the enemy captures the tt its income goes to them.

    You have to think very carefully before invading non-aligned neutrals - perhaps Holland is worth taking for the strategic position; the Scandinavian trio may be more trouble than they’re worth.

    It might depend of if Allies are allowed to invade neutrals (I think they will, but don’t think they should be).


  • Well judging by larrys first reports powers start with HUGE manpower reserves….that will dwindle out later.
    If you are going to attack a neutral, do it early while you have the numbers, and so you have a lot of turns to collect income from it.


  • @Flashman:

    Can Germany afford to add that many enemy units?

    Attacking a 2 IPC neutral adds 13 IPC’s worth of enemy units, so you have to hold the tt for SEVEN TURNS to show a profit. Meanwhile your own forces are more widely spread and vulnerable, and if the enemy captures the tt its income goes to them.

    You have to think very carefully before invading non-aligned neutrals - perhaps Holland is worth taking for the strategic position; the Scandinavian trio may be more trouble than they’re worth.

    It might depend of if Allies are allowed to invade neutrals (I think they will, but don’t think they should be).

    Maybe I misread, but doesn’t Germany only have to make up its IPC losses in terms of casualties? If they lost 2 inf, which would be expected if they bring enough to wipe out  in 1 round (and maybe they can’t), that’s really only 3 rounds of make-up.


  • Flashman,
        I realize you are a huge advocate of rail movement, but wouldn’t the advantage be too great for the Central Powers?  As in, all the CP armies could be at one end of the continent and then the other on a different turn?  That would be a huge headache for the Allies.  You’d have to let the Allies have rail movement too-  It take France and England two turns to get to the original front (vice Germany’s 3).

    Also, do you advocate changing every Axis & Allies game?  None of them have rail movement, and hence have the same problem you are describing as AA1914.  I’m playing a 1940 game right now where Germany can’t magically move its victorious West Front Army to the East in one turn- thank god or Russia would be dead!

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts