Technically new ICs are railheads or ports where units and supplies arrive from the home country (when they are built)
Problem is, why cant you move units you already have like this? Why can only new recruits be sent to the muster site?
Perhaps if ICs allowed units to be built at OR units to teleport to (as long as you hold a chain of territories to it)
When Germany captures Ukraine, why cant units they already have shuttle there? Why are only fresh troops shuttled there?
Should captured industry only be allowed to build infantry?
If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.
How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?
The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?
If rail movement is a must for you (general) playing this game, with a little work at setup adjustments you can get a decent game going.
But let’s remember that the absence of rail movement doesn’t screw Germany from a balance perspective unless the playtesting was done with rail movement helping Germany and then the movement was removed without any other adjustments.
The game would be cooler with it, but if Germany is screwed balance-wise, it’s not because of the absence of rail movement.
I’ve played too many A&A WWII games that have been ruined for me by the same thing.
Admittedly, more so than this will be because of the crazy system of tanks moving twice as fast as infantry, even though according to Larry they do, in fact, both move by rail (in an abstract kind of way).
OK, I’ll try OOTB, but all the while I’ll be asking “why can’t your units move straight to the front? What the hell happened to the damned trains? You all realize Germany is screwed, don’t you?”
I’ll laugh in the faces of opponents who triumphantly march into Moscow, only to realize that they’ve stranded the bulk of their forces where they can never be of any use again.
Then I’ll be able to tell you all I told you so.
@Imperious:
If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.
How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?
The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?
@Imperious:
If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.
How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?
The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?
Hmm, same quote, different response LOL. Don’t think you can judge a game in a bad light because all the things on your personal X-mas list didn’t make it.
I agree 100% w/IL and most would see it that way (strange I know right). I generally play OOB until we notice a repeating problem, or it is proven that something is skewed and needs some work (like through the Alpha process). It isn’t my intention to suggest radical changes or say something is broken 3 months before the game comes out LOL (3 months after would be more typical). I reserve any personal judgement, and I’m skeptical (as most are) even when others proclaim a problem, because sometimes such demands come from a certain play style, group setting, or in Flashes case just want more out of it. Fortunately the later can be dealt with through house rules, and maybe, just maybe after much testing and proven data at some point can find its way into the game as an optional rule (or in a reprint) ?
Flashman,
What do you do in AA1940 when the bulk of your army is in Moscow? Are you giving up because ‘germany is screwed’?
No. At that point all sorts of trains appear and shoot everything in sight.
Nope, I’m sure he plays by his own set of rules (which would include rail), and probably on his own map too.
If Germany has a transport or two in the Baltic you can transport 2-4 units from Poland, PetroGrad, Prussia right to Keil and to the western front quicker. That’s at least a partial solution to getting your Eastern troops back to the West with more speed.
In Global, Berlin is 2 spaces from Paris, plus you have tanks, planes and mech inf. Moreover, assuming you take Paris you won’t have the Allies spawning a whole wad of new units right on the front line, nor is it so easy for the UK to establish a cross channel army.
Even without rail (and yes I try to insist on rail in every A&A game), Germany can be in Moscow before the western Allies can establish a large presence on the western land border, and still have time to move the bulk of the forces back west. WWI is a different ballgame.
The old “play it before you change it” argument is well and good, and I will certainly do so, but I remain unconvinced that Larry, Curly and Mo have fully appreciated the importance of rapid internal transport to the entire Central Powers war effort.
It’s wait & see of course but I find it hard to believe that some type of Stragetic Movement won’t be included.
It’s an effective way to show the importance of rail networks w/o having rails on the Game Board.
Can’t wait to see the full Rules on this Game.
Hi, one question for Flash.
Do you advocate rail movement but only for original territory,
or you could move units from Berlin wright to Serbia, or from Moscow to west front in NCM?
Because Germany had rails, A_U too but Serbia didn’t, Russia either.
Serbia had only Beograd-Ni�, for Russia i don’t know but if retreating they would destroy it.
So it would be historical to move from Berlin to west/east part of empire your troops.
But to move from Russia to west front nope. They should first come back to German or A-H original territory.
That’s a good point: certain areas have much more rail network than others. We can assume that practically every border in Germany and Austria has a rail link, with the possible exception of the Carpathians.
Russia had its own network with a different gauge, but I work on the assumption that if Germany captures a tt in Russia they will convert the rails and in effect add it to their own network.
So, yes, theoretically if a country has friendly tts everywhere in between it can rail units from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or from Berlin to Baghdad.
My ideal map would have rails printed on it. The Russian network would have many fewer connections - if you take Moscow it virtually knocks it out.
I plan on implementing some house rules/tokens I use in Global 1940.
I have railroad tokens made, which players can purchase for 5 ipcs and place on the border of two friendly territories.
When crossing a railroad border, a unit can make an extra move, up to three moves.
This simple caveat removes the whole “superspeed tanks” effect, as it only gives tanks a one bonus move, while giving infantry two. It also limits the rail system, preventing a far-reaching empire from “warping” units across the map.
The cool thing about having tokens is that they can be targeted in bombing raids (or scorched earth tactics), just as they were in actuality.
Obviously for 1914, I would have some railroads as part of the initial setup, as many nations in Europe had extensive rail networks in place before the war started.
The way I see it, Germany is most definitely – initially at least – not screwed. With a full-force invasion of Belgium from Ruhr and Alsace on the first turn (14 inf, 6 art), and the movement of all units from Hamburg and Munich to Alsace, Germany will have both French front-territories heavily fortified. On the next turn, these two armies can either join in one colossal battle for Loraine (with the fighter from Berlin) they will – with dice fair – indeed win. The forces initially in Kiel are first moved to Ruhr, and then to reinforce Belgium. This, then, mean that Germany might very possibly have taken and held both Belgium, Lorraine AND crushed the French army after the first two turns, without the British being able to intervene in any fatal way. By the way, merely holding the Eastern Front (after taking Poland of course) allows Germany to send all its units in Berlin – yes, ALL of them – to the Western theatre, enabling a over-powerful attack on Burgundy on the fourth turn. This is how I see it, anyways.
Also, by playing defensively with its navy, Germany can secure all original German tts from attack by sea. This is done by putting all German ships (and subs!) in the naval tt next to Kiel. Perhaps, buying an additional battleship might prove to be wise as well.
Awesome plan! Will have to see the board setup, but sounds like a good thing to try.
If any nation was screwed, the playtesters would have figured that out. Give somebody credit. Do you really think they messed up the setup again?
Does Larry keep making broken games? NO. I think they finally figured things out from past experience.
At least wait for some pictures, Djensen will be getting the advance copy really soon and post about it.
Yea, I don’t know why this is the thread on 1914 getting the most attention now.
just because RAILROADS :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
War in the industrial age was all about railroads. Read some books.
Even IL has realised this and incorporated strategic movement into his game.
Perhaps I’m being picky because this is my no: 1 beef with A&A (all versions); I find it hard to believe in a game where killing is on the industrial scale, and movement is on the Napoleonic.
I will buy the game, and I will play OOB rules to begin. I like the new rules very much, but like many will experiment with some more. As for Germany, I still have the feeling that the Swiss Roll (Paris-Rome) strategy will become optimum for the CPs, mainly due to the huge movement time between Paris and Moscow.
Choo-Choo :-D
I have a feeling that this Game may become massively Home Ruled.Lets face it unless your a A&A
completeist freak(you know who you are :wink: )WWI is not the hottest ticket in town.
I think most of us interested in this Game are interested in & studied the Great War,thus we’ll tend
to add or subtract things we feel are more in tune to the era.
I’ve preordered my copy (2 actually) & will wait till the Rules come before I add or delete but I
already have list of things I want to see in the Game if they are not in included.
