So I’m wrong. Oh well.
Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic
-
Larrys SM move is a good one, just needs some minor tweaking (you should be allowed to move into/through any tts you have units currently in in addition to any tt you have full control of)
The 5 SZ movement for all ships though it too much, and ruins cruisers.Doubling all ships movement to 4 (6 for cruisers) i think is far better than all at 5 (and i believe your idea Kim :wink:)
-
@Uncrustable:
Larrys SM move is a good one, just needs some minor tweaking (you should be allowed to move into/through any tts you have units currently in in addition to any tt you have full control of)
This is probably the most harmonious with the recent rule change, and the one that came to my mind first as well.
It also seems to solve the problem that currently exists, where moving OUT of a contested territory makes it harder for your opponent to move through.
-
Kim,
how about this:
All land units (Infantry, Artillery, Tanks) can move up to two spaces. When moving two spaces the first space must be a friendly territory or a contested territory that already contains units of your power. A Land unit must end its move in a friendly zone or in a territory containing units belonging to your power. However, land units in Africa can just move to an adjacent territory.
-
Kim,
how about this:
All land units (Infantry, Artillery, Tanks) can move up to two spaces. When moving two spaces the first space must be a friendly territory or a contested territory that already contains units of your power. A Land unit must end its move in a friendly zone or in a territory containing units belonging to your power. However land units in Africa can just move to an adjacent territory.
This is far too different from what Larry is suggesting and should have it’s own thread
This thread should be about Larry’s SM (love it, hate it, minor tweaks) -
I´m ok with it beeing moved to the Possible Rules Change Thread of Krieghund,
as long as you won`t shift it to the House Rules Board where nobody will read and discuss it anyway.:|
-
Kim,
how about this:
All land units (Infantry, Artillery, Tanks) can move up to two spaces. When moving two spaces the first space must be a friendly territory or a contested territory that already contains units of your power. A Land unit must end its move in a friendly zone or in a territory containing units belonging to your power. However, land units in Africa can just move to an adjacent territory.
That’s goes along with the latest rule clarification from Krieghund concerning moving from contested to contested, so that should work. The movement in Africa makes sense. Thanks
Kim
-
I�m ok with it beeing moved to the Possible Rules Change Thread of Krieghund,
as long as you won`t shift it to the House Rules Board where nobody will read and discuss it anyway.:|
That thread was more for the specific rule changes that has already been accepted. It really shouldn’t go there as it is a whole new topic and might cause confusion, especially since the rules change you are talking about now is not receiving official consideration.
-
I read these forums almost weekly but almost never post unless I feel I have something important to say.
This is straying from everything that Axis & Allies is.
I understand the game is clearly broken and that a change like this seems like it’ll help the balance (though i doubt it’s enough), but at the cost of this games classic mechanics. Axis & Allies isn’t set to represent history other than most of the starting setup and the alliances. How many people did you see complaining that it took an infantry unit like 6 turns to walk from the Soviet Far East to Moscow in Global 1940? A turn in that game was 4ish months I believe. Sure in reality those troops made it back to Moscow in a matter of 2-3 months. That was a minimum of 6 spaces in the game, meaning that those infantry should really be allowed to move 12 spaces or so a turn and engage in combat. Clearly this is absurd as it is so different from the core rules that make up Axis and Allies, just like strategic movement.
As a quick side note, I hope no one is considering the +5 naval movement, I don’t want US units being transported into Istanbul every other turn.
I propose that we do what we’ve always done, fix a game that WofC didn’t bother to playtest. Everyone was complaining about Global when it came out, and while people are still bitter about the whole Alpha 1-3+ thing at least it made the game fun and enjoyable. I see this rule change as a cheap way for Larry to stop people from complaining for a little while.
I’m open to change, but please try to use Axis and Allies mechanics, not Risk ones.
-
I read these forums almost weekly but almost never post unless I feel I have something important to say.
This is straying from everything that Axis & Allies is.
I understand the game is clearly broken and that a change like this seems like it’ll help the balance (though i doubt it’s enough), but at the cost of this games classic mechanics. Axis & Allies isn’t set to represent history other than most of the starting setup and the alliances. How many people did you see complaining that it took an infantry unit like 6 turns to walk from the Soviet Far East to Moscow in Global 1940? A turn in that game was 4ish months I believe. Sure in reality those troops made it back to Moscow in a matter of 2-3 months. That was a minimum of 6 spaces in the game, meaning that those infantry should really be allowed to move 12 spaces or so a turn and engage in combat. Clearly this is absurd as it is so different from the core rules that make up Axis and Allies, just like strategic movement.
As a quick side note, I hope no one is considering the +5 naval movement, I don’t want US units being transported into Istanbul every other turn.
I propose that we do what we’ve always done, fix a game that WofC didn’t bother to playtest. Everyone was complaining about Global when it came out, and while people are still bitter about the whole Alpha 1-3+ thing at least it made the game fun and enjoyable. I see this rule change as a cheap way for Larry to stop people from complaining for a little while.
I’m open to change, but please try to use Axis and Allies mechanics, not Risk ones.
You should post this on Larry’s site.
-
Me at least. I’ve long argued for rail movement in non-combat in all Axis and Allies games; it was no less important in WWII.
Now that Larry is beginning to accept the advantages of it, I confidently expect to see it become standard, and the games improved as a result.
How many people did you see complaining that it took an infantry unit like 6 turns to walk from the Soviet Far East to Moscow in Global 1940?
-
"Me at least. I’ve long argued for rail movement in non-combat in all Axis and Allies games; it was no less important in WWII.
Now that Larry is beginning to accept the advantages of it, I confidently expect to see it become standard, and the games improved as a result."
Agreed. Â Probably the thing that bugs me the most about G40 is the 18 Soviet infantry in the Far East, with no supporting tanks, aircraft, etc. Â It should be maybe 6-8 infantry, an artillery or two, plus a tank and a fighter (and maybe a minor factory). Â It seems like a cheezy way to keep the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact in effect. Â The Soviets don’t have an offensive capability (unless they are willing to take disproportionate casualties) or any way to reinforce quickly. Â The Japanese are somewhat deterred because an attack would be an expensive distraction. Â If there was rail movement, the forces could be more realistic, and the Soviet player would be able to shift them back and forth (to save Moscow at the last minute) in a reasonably timely manner. Â The Japanese would have an incentive to try to cut the rail line.
The problem is figuring out how many units to allow each player to rail move in G40. Â I’m toying with a system of maybe dividing total player income by 10, and allowing that many units to rail move. Â So if you have 55 IPCs in your hand at the end of combat, you can rail move 5.5 - rounded up to 6 - units.
Edit: My reason for linking rail movement to income is twofold. 1. If your economy is doing better, you’d have more money to spend on maintaining rail lines, even though the cost is abstracted into the game. 2. It might help speed up the game, as it would allow players to maintain the momentum on the offensive, as their lines of supply get extended.
-
Is the requirement of an infantry in each territory still enforced at the end of place new units, or after Strategic Movement (or both?)
-
SM is its own phase, so both.
-
Anyone tried a Russian defence of Italy?
Build a Russian super-stack and rail it west; to Serbia if its available. Assuming Germany is going all-out for Paris, Austria has to either take on the RSS directly, or cover Vienna against it. You can build new Russian forces to take back anything the enemy takes in Russia, and move your stack towards Venice to effectively fork the Austrian army.
This could be a major spoiler of the Central Powers’ new found mobility.
-
sounds like the long distance move is going to be retired after a short career, 2 moves when through controlled TT’s seem to be the order of the day.
-
Maybe long “mobilization” moves in round one only to get those troops to the front lines?
-
sounds like the long distance move is going to be retired after a short career, 2 moves when through controlled TT’s seem to be the order of the day.
As well as +1 move bonus for naval units when beginning their move from a sea zone with a friendly naval base.
Kim
-
I’m glad the plus one from port is probably going to be standard. Thanks for advocating it, Kim!
-
I’m glad the plus one from port is probably going to be standard. Thanks for advocating it, Kim!
Yep, this and the non-combat double move is going to be our standard for now. I hope this makes the game better long term.
Kim
-
I’m glad the plus one from port is probably going to be standard. Thanks for advocating it, Kim!
Yep, this and the non-combat double move is going to be our standard for now. I hope this makes the game better long term.
Kim
Me too.
Suggested Topics
