A list of terrains on some of the harder-to-see land zones?

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or; Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

@adalwolf said in Land Unit Adjustments:

@rellhaiser I would say on a 10-12 All Calvary are forced to retreat during a battle, both attacker and defender, but no limit on purchases. They are not limited to 2. This gives them a little risk bringing them into battle.

The idea was that you could retreat one of your Cavalry / Armored Cars every turn you battled in that territory - this just gave you a way to have some units slip out from a losing battle. There’s nothing saying you couldn’t have a set of rules that allowed a player to retreat all of their Cavalry / Armored Cars any turn they liked - I just wrote a different set of rules. You do you.

-M_R

@trig said in Special Fortification Zones:

@noneshallpass
@JbuckBuddy
This isn’t exactly made clear, but I would go with the old A&A rule of, “if it has a land border, it isn’t and island.” Otherwise, what is an island. Is the UK? Is Australia? It goes on and on.

Australia is a continent, not an island. The UK and Japan are listed as island nations, and I would play them as exceptions to the special fortification zones, but I don’t see that in the rules. The New Guineas, Borneo, Sarawak, Ireland, etc., would qualify as islands, and special fortification zones, in my opinion.

@noneshallpass haha yeah I got that your all saying the same thing sorry my wording maybe. Thank you guys

@warwick I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi here.

The Example of Romania on page 8 of the rulebook seems to address this too:

“If the roundel is not located in terrain, but you need to cross a terrain type in order to reach the roundel from the border of the land zone, you are subject to “border terrain” rules. Border terrain rules for that terrain type last one round”.

So while that specific example seems to be talking about combat, it does still mention that the terrain rules apply when crossing a mountain border. I just mention that one since it’s using an example just like what you asked, if you cross into a territory with a mountain border, but the roundel isn’t in the mountains.

But also with the rule just being “All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules”, I’d think you have to take that at face value to mean crossing a mountain border reduces movement to 1, even in non-combat movements.

@theveteran No problem.

Ok, now back to mountainous borders. I’m not saying terrain is magically flat if it is friendly. The way you can be certain that I don’t believe that is to scroll back and read where I said if the armor were in Northern Italy and moving through a friendly Southern France, it would not be allowed to continue on to Aquitaine the same turn.

I’m saying that when a land zone is friendly, then border terrain doesn’t start affecting you until the moment you cross the border. And the river rules give a hint that my perspective may be the correct one.

Sidenote on Game Design: There are two ways game designers can approach movement costs: walls or quicksand. With the walls approach, you are not permitted to move unless you have sufficient movement. If I understand Global War’s system, it is a quicksand one. You are allowed to go in, but then get penalized and stuck. This is the way I conceptualize it. I may be wrong, but I know Morten’s approach in general is to give the player choices with consequences. Other game designers forbid players from doing things.

@noneshallpass I appreciate your emphasis on the owner of the airbase, but for the FAQ clarification, and the fact that all allies may use each other’s facilities, defend together, etc. I think a change in wording about the adjacent space, from “it has” to “there is” defending units or facilities, would bring it in line with my understanding. May be wishful thinking…

@noneshallpass Excellent, None! 8 )