Ship movement

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

Post Reply
toddtreadway
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:30 pm

Ship movement

Post by toddtreadway »

I think that ships may move a bit too far each turn. Also, I would like the fuel requirement to be modified so that fuel consumption varies depending on the actual distance traveled.
von_Schmidt
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:34 pm

RE: Ship movement

Post by von_Schmidt »

Since a turn represents *3 months*, I would definitely disagree that ships move too far. They are not using sail, you know ;-)

If you mean TRN's hopping along unused TRN chains; well, those are heavily abstracted, representing more of a transport pool than physical ships.

I kinda agree with your fuel remark. However, offical stance is that the ships do not actually 'move' in the game, but they 'rebase'.
Which leads to get question how a ship (or fleet) can 'rebase' to the centre of the Atlantic, far from any island. But anyway...

-von Schmidt
toddtreadway
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:30 pm

RE: Ship movement

Post by toddtreadway »

In my opinion, that is something I might change in the game. I think ships should have "bases" from which they operate. On your turn, you could move the ship out to a zone to "patrol" like air units do, and then they would move back at the beginning of your next turn to do something else.

You could "rebase" ships as that unit's sole move, perhaps at double or even triple the range of the ship.

Maybe the ships could even have some sort of interception function where they would have the option to intercept invasions within a certain distance.

Just ideas, maybe bad ones!
mcaryf
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Uk

RE: Ship movement

Post by mcaryf »

I guess it is just a question of keeping the game admirably simple but it is rather an anomaly that I can plant a ship at sea and leave it there hence avoiding supply cost when of course it should use fuel whilst being at sea. It might be simpler just to say that any warship actually at sea during a turn costs some amount of supply/fuel points, whether it is steaming in circles in one region or proceeding through several should not make much real difference.

Mike
toddtreadway
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:30 pm

RE: Ship movement

Post by toddtreadway »

In my opinion by using the following ideas the Pacific war (and also the invasion-aspect of the European theater) would be improved:

1) use bases for ships--the ships would have to move out each turn to perform an action
2) reduce the movement factors of ships, but increase it by two or three times if they don't participate in combat and simply rebase
3) increase the die penalty on amphibiously invading units by 2 per space moved in excess of 2 spaces
4) force amphibiously invading units to score at least one hit by an invading ground unit in order to be able to win that combat, unless the area is empty after the combat
5) reduce the fuel cost for ships
6) don't allow amphibiously invading or airborne units to move again once they have fired a shot
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”