Rail & Support

[AbeMuc]

I just read in the manual, that in order to get full supply from cities, they do not have to be connected to raillines tracing to the capital to get the full supply? Is this really correct, as it was different in the previous games.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

That is indeed correct. I changed it for two main reasons: 1/ Armies in this era had lower logistic requirements (due to being smaller and using fewer sophisticated weapons &c) so they're less reliant on railroads than in say 1914, and 2/ huge parts of the ACW map (everything west of the Mississippi for starters) don't have any rail lines, so limiting good supply to rail-linked areas would make it very hard to fight in these parts (New Mexico and Arkansas are pretty bad supply-wise as things are...)

- BNC

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Gonna see how this pans out.

True, West of Mississippi, specifically, Arkansas/Mizzo didn't have rail lines to may points of battle. Then again, there wasn't a 200,000 man Army going thru the woods hunting/eating squirrels only. I would lobby for "depot" supply points, which would be needed to connect within a certain distance, then hit the rails.

The rail line issue needs to be more important in enemy lands. The Union should need rails for Reinforcement and Upgrades in enemy territory tracing back to the North infrastructure.

[AbeMuc]

Thank you very much for the answer. I was thinking of some similar reasons. Just wanted to get a verification on the rule so I can adjust accordingly!

[PvtBenjamin]

The rail line issue needs to be more important in enemy lands. The Union should need rails for Reinforcement and Upgrades in enemy territory tracing back to the North infrastructure.

Agree. I'd add ports.