So I’m wrong. Oh well.
Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic
-
Welcome to the boards, and I personally appreciate the well though-out post, but I have never been one to get too bogged down in exact correctness in terms of one turn counting as X amount of time for any A&A game. Time has always been quite abstract in A&A.
-
do you really want to play a game where every turn any unit can move anywhere on the map?
seriously?lol
the argument that ‘well a turn is 8 months’ is pure sillyness, noone would want to play that very long
not to mention naval movement at 5 would make cruisers an absolutely worthless bonehead purchase
usa could attack autobots capital turn 4 with 12 units
germany could make a huge stack and just rampage around like an out of control wrecking balldont get my wrong i do enjoy a game of risk everynow and then
-
Von, I agree that A&A time is abstract at best, that’s why I qualified my “about 8” months by adding “ish” onto the end of the 8. Double the fudge factor to cover my bases :wink:
As for you Crusty, why wouldn’t you want to play a game with a turn scale of about 8ish months? It doesn’t mean you have to take that long in real time to play each turn.
And rules don’t have to reflect real world travel times for the units depicted. In fact, my post was an argument against such a thing. I started off by … lets see
First off, I think Kims idea sounds like the right one.
That’s right, I started off by saying I liked Kims idea best. If you haven’t read Kims post yet, please do so at your earliest convenience.
Then I continued to my modest proposal with the express purpose of quieting thous who were giving Larry a hard time.
I know, I know
@Grognard:As for you that are ragging on the MOD Larry put forward….
I think a sense of scale might dispel some of the misconceptions that are running rampant.
and concluding with
So, 20 sea zones a turn combat movement for ships anyone?
Or all ground units being able to march 10 territories before engaging in combat?No, I didn’t think anyone would.
Might have given you the idea I was advocating increasing movement rates by an order of magnitude, but I was subtly advocating against it.
-
@Uncrustable:
We mustn’t disagree with Larry; we’re here to test his ideas, not come up with our own.
Personally, I think moving 2 spaces for all units might do the trick.
you say we’re here to test his ideas and not come up with our own and then share your own idea on the subject ftw…
:-DI thought the same!
I think no one likes the sea movement of five. But most of us like the plus one from ports. Maybe lower cruiser to eight IPC and we are done on the naval side of the game.
I have onlyone game under my belt with the SM but liked it a lot. The CP stand more of a chance, while it also helps the allies.
-
It IS SRM, not a bicycle race.
Cruisers are not worth buying already, unless some form of naval retreat/pursuit as I’ve proposed is introduced.
The problem with unlimited sea movement is that in reality the enemy would get the chance to move and intercept, clearly not possible here unless we introduced a complex hidden sub placement.
A reasonable limit of 10 units in SRM eliminates the super stack menace. Enough to reinforce a front with new units, not enough to move an entire front in the blink of an eye.
-
Well my post was not directed at anyone in particular
I just wanted it abundantly clear that I am 100% against this movement, even though at first I thought it sounded goodI don’t see why can’t use simple not so radical mechanics such as the bonus movement from bases in G40
-
i still prefer my version: you can only move through your original home territories that way. you can use those of your allies aswell, but you’d need to move to the new railway network. so troops from berlin move from berlin tot munich G1, G2 they move to tyrolia, G3 they can move to budapest (and stop), G5 they move into serbia or romania, even if it’s austrian controlled etc. so it gets troops faster to the front, but not to the battleline (i can imagine quite well there weren’t that many efficient operarating railroads in Western-Flanders by the fall of 1918)….
-
I think the biggest problem for the CP is that they chose for a strategy, namely Paris or Moscow, and can impossibly alter that after a couple of turns. And the allies see it coming from G1 so can act accordingly. With this drastic new rule the Germans can alter their plans if they need to and the fact the allies need to be alert on that means they have to always spend IPC in case the Germans decide to attack the west instead of east. With the plus one from capitals it doesnt change much, because troops from Poland cannot move fast to the other side.
And the mega large stacks moving around the board will perhaps happen every now and then. But I dont think we’ll see Germans moving 100 units to the west and the turn after that to the east. I think you’ll see it once, after Paris or Moscow has fallen.
-
@Frontovik:
i still prefer my version: you can only move through your original home territories that way. you can use those of your allies aswell, but you’d need to move to the new railway network. so troops from berlin move from berlin tot munich G1, G2 they move to tyrolia, G3 they can move to budapest (and stop), G5 they move into serbia or romania, even if it’s austrian controlled etc. so it gets troops faster to the front, but not to the battleline (i can imagine quite well there weren’t that many efficient operarating railroads in Western-Flanders by the fall of 1918)….
I am not saying I would be pushing this one over all others, but do you think it would be better to have them stop as soon as they enter a different ally’s territory?
Germany could move through any Grey it controls, and then once it got to Austria, it would stop in that territory. The next turn, it could move through green until it got to a turquoise or back to grey.
Heck, the CP could even do this in Russia without it being too abusive. They could move through as many CP controlled Russian territories as they like, but once they get to a different color tt, they must stop.
It’s a little bit faster than what you posted, since it allows you to take one step in the different colored territory.
-
I think I am going to play the game as it was published a few times (like 10?) before I clamour for rule changes. It’s too early for me to say anything is necessarily “broken” (with exception to; the number of pieces, the ridiculous National Production chart and absence of IPC’s.)
-
There are lots of options I like for limiting.
1 (which I think is kind of cool and has some flavor) is limiting the amount of units SMed to the value of the territory from which they start (or 5 if they are ships next to a naval base, make the 5 movement by ships only allowable as a SM)
2. Limit the spaces moved to the IPC value of the origin territory.
3. The one I built off of frontnovik’s idea above.
-
I think I am going to play the game as it was published a few times (like 10?) before I clamour for rule changes. It’s too early for me to say anything is necessarily “broken” (with exception to; the number of pieces, the ridiculous National Production chart and absence of IPC’s.)
I did not call for this movement or anything like it, I was pretty neutral, but now that Larry is up for exploring it, I see no reason not to jump on board.
-
No, allow Berlin to Baghdad in one move, but limit the numbers that can move in one SRM.
Yes, the Allies need to be alert but they can already move units by sea quickly enough to balance.
This is about restoring the balance of the game in favour of the CPs, more powerful sea transport may imbalance it back in favour of the Allies, so I’d be cautious about the 5 space sea move.
-
Would you jump off a cliff if Larry told you to?
I think I am going to play the game as it was published a few times (like 10?) before I clamour for rule changes. It’s too early for me to say anything is necessarily “broken” (with exception to; the number of pieces, the ridiculous National Production chart and absence of IPC’s.)
I did not call for this movement or anything like it, I was pretty neutral, but now that Larry is up for exploring it, I see no reason not to jump on board.
-
Sounds like it has fun potential. If Larry’s thinking to change the game, I’m happy to help out, especially when it seems like his initial version was too extreme in the seas. I like A&A. I was not saying I was against the movement, I just wasn’t a huge sensationalist saying “OMG the CP don’t have rail movement there is NO possible way in ANY universe they could stand a chance without it!”
-
@Frontovik:
i still prefer my version: you can only move through your original home territories that way. you can use those of your allies aswell, but you’d need to move to the new railway network. so troops from berlin move from berlin tot munich G1, G2 they move to tyrolia, G3 they can move to budapest (and stop), G5 they move into serbia or romania, even if it’s austrian controlled etc. so it gets troops faster to the front, but not to the battleline (i can imagine quite well there weren’t that many efficient operarating railroads in Western-Flanders by the fall of 1918)….
I am not saying I would be pushing this one over all others, but do you think it would be better to have them stop as soon as they enter a different ally’s territory?
Germany could move through any Grey it controls, and then once it got to Austria, it would stop in that territory. The next turn, it could move through green until it got to a turquoise or back to grey.
Heck, the CP could even do this in Russia without it being too abusive. They could move through as many CP controlled Russian territories as they like, but once they get to a different color tt, they must stop.
It’s a little bit faster than what you posted, since it allows you to take one step in the different colored territory.
indeed, same thing. it sounds better than the ‘original’ strategic movement’
but i would discount enemy territories; sound more fair. you can say the russians used other railroadsystem (they were broader) and the other systems have been FUBAR’ed. -
That is pretty plausible that the Russians would mess up their rail systems so the CP could not use, of course, but I just didn’t want to penalize powers for being aggressive and taking enemy territory by making movement through those territories automatically super slow.
-
Besides the strategic movement ideas, I think something has to be done about the mined seazones. The mines make it very hard for the CP to deal with the Allies naval forces.
Also, I just love how some of the people on here love Larry Harris sooo much that they would acknowledge he is rushing games out without play testing people outside of his inner circle.
-
Besides the strategic movement ideas, I think something has to be done about the mined seazones. The mines make it very hard for the CP to deal with the Allies naval forces.
Also, I just love how some of the people on here love Larry Harris sooo much that they would acknowledge he is rushing games out without play testing people outside of his inner circle.
Rushing the release along with shorting on pieces, crap IPC chart no IPCs are probably more a product of WOTC than Larry Harris
-
Suggested Topics
