Not all railwyas are created equal

[jaw]

Please tell us where on the front Axis forces are advancing faster than historical due to excess rail capacity. Your observation is valid but if it has no game effect it is meaningless.

[Panama]

There is no doubt the Soviets were successful in moving large numbers of troops and supplies during the war. The problem is how extensive the rail net is in the game. There should be no bridge over the Volga at Stalingrad. Many of the rails portrayed on the map were practically useless. In 1943 a single rail led from Kastornoe to Kursk. Some track along this line was so poor that horses pulled the freight cars because the rails could not support a locomotive. That was not unusual for much of the single track lines. In the game you can just choo choo along this rail with no problems.

Much of the rail in the Soviet Union used dirt and sand for ballast and there were no tie plates holding the rail to the ties. They simple drove the spikes into the ties. If any of you know anything about rail then you know dirt and sand provide no drainage and do a very poor job of distributing weight over the rail. Lack of plates also creates problems. All of this ends up with spikes pulled out of rails, rapid rotting of ties and track failure. Trains have to move much slower and stop more frequently for derailment. Weight of cars and locomotives become limited.

No one has ever bothered to research the state of the different railroad lines depicted in the game. There are so many misrepresentations of the rail net in the game as to be ludicrous. If you've played as the Soviet you know how important rail movement is. That is why it should be modeled properly.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Please tell us where on the front Axis forces are advancing faster than historical due to excess rail capacity. Your observation is valid but if it has no game effect it is meaningless.

Actually, the historical examples I have all happen to be about Soviet advances being delayed due to insufficient rail capacity, though no doubt it affected the Germans just as much if not more. I can post quoutes, I just have to sift through a couple of books, but the examples I think of are in Glantz and Erickson.

A good article about the difficulties Panama mentions is available online at: http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

[Zort]

I think the rail transport system might need to be reworked, but at what stage does the game become a logistics game vice a wargame?  It is understood that the rails were bad but forces were moved all over all the time.  Since the game in it's present form doesn't force the player to decide where to send supplies or stockpile them for future offenses there is little need to change the rail aspect I feel.  The designers decided to make the game playable with the abstraction of the supply and rail.  Should the game be changed, maybe but how much detail or micromanagement do we want? 

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Please tell us where on the front Axis forces are advancing faster than historical due to excess rail capacity. Your observation is valid but if it has no game effect it is meaningless.

Well, from my play the center is one such region. The rails can be to close to Vyazma by September - this makes a panzer drive on Moscow far more feasible early on.

[Helpless]

Should the game be changed, maybe but how much detail or micromanagement do we want?

Exactly! There was research done on every line. And many lines which existed didn't went through. Troops and supplies were moved trough the much worse rail nets than those on the WITE map (ex. temp line into 2nd Shock Army pocket, line along the Ladoga, etc..). Mentioned bridge (and there are more of such "phantom" bridges) are included intentionally due to the limitation of greatly simplified supply engine, which even in such form can't be called too simple.

Problem is not in panting those lines with appropriate thickness, but allow to have system which could utilize it and still be usable and playable. And line thickness is the least problem here.

Yet, no one answered Jim's question. Also I'm yet to see Soviet player advancing too fast in 1944 in H2H games.

[76mm]

While on the topic of not all RRs being created equal, I wanted to raise one issue which I don't like at all: If any of the rail leading from Stalino to the Crimea is cut, then all of the track west of there, including all rail in the Crimea, is dead track and cannot be used.

This is rather illogical and makes it much harder than it should be for the Sovs to deploy troops to the gates of the Crimea and further north along the Dnepr.

A proper fix would be to allow track connected to a port to function normally even if cut off from the rest of the rail network. This is reasonable because presumably ports would have some rail stock in them, and more could be brought in via ship if necessary.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While on the topic of not all RRs being created equal, I wanted to raise one issue which I don't like at all: If any of the rail leading from Stalino to the Crimea is cut, then all of the track west of there, including all rail in the Crimea, is dead track and cannot be used.

This is rather illogical and makes it much harder than it should be for the Sovs to deploy troops to the gates of the Crimea and further north along the Dnepr.

A proper fix would be to allow track connected to a port to function normally even if cut off from the rest of the rail network. This is reasonable because presumably ports would have some rail stock in them, and more could be brought in via ship if necessary.

+ 1

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While on the topic of not all RRs being created equal, I wanted to raise one issue which I don't like at all: If any of the rail leading from Stalino to the Crimea is cut, then all of the track west of there, including all rail in the Crimea, is dead track and cannot be used.

This is rather illogical and makes it much harder than it should be for the Sovs to deploy troops to the gates of the Crimea and further north along the Dnepr.

A proper fix would be to allow track connected to a port to function normally even if cut off from the rest of the rail network. This is reasonable because presumably ports would have some rail stock in them, and more could be brought in via ship if necessary.

When a railroad line is cut the trains would retreat with the troops or be destroyed before falling into enemy hands. In either case you have no available rail capacity for the cut off sections of railroads.

Would you know if the rail line from a port that is cut off can be used for supply purposes? I'm not sure how difficult it was to ship trains by sea during the war.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While on the topic of not all RRs being created equal, I wanted to raise one issue which I don't like at all: If any of the rail leading from Stalino to the Crimea is cut, then all of the track west of there, including all rail in the Crimea, is dead track and cannot be used.

This is rather illogical and makes it much harder than it should be for the Sovs to deploy troops to the gates of the Crimea and further north along the Dnepr.

A proper fix would be to allow track connected to a port to function normally even if cut off from the rest of the rail network. This is reasonable because presumably ports would have some rail stock in them, and more could be brought in via ship if necessary.

When a railroad line is cut the trains would retreat with the troops or be destroyed before falling into enemy hands. In either case you have no available rail capacity for the cut off sections of railroads.

Would you know if the rail line from a port that is cut off can be used for supply purposes? I'm not sure how difficult it was to ship trains by sea during the war.

As the game has a railyard value for every town, it seems reasonable that a proportion of the rail capacity corresponding to the available railyards, or maybe somewhat reduced, could be used on the cut off part of the rail net. But I guess that could be complicated to implement. Hmm, this is beginning to sound like WITE meets Railroad Tycoon

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Angelo

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While on the topic of not all RRs being created equal, I wanted to raise one issue which I don't like at all: If any of the rail leading from Stalino to the Crimea is cut, then all of the track west of there, including all rail in the Crimea, is dead track and cannot be used.

This is rather illogical and makes it much harder than it should be for the Sovs to deploy troops to the gates of the Crimea and further north along the Dnepr.

A proper fix would be to allow track connected to a port to function normally even if cut off from the rest of the rail network. This is reasonable because presumably ports would have some rail stock in them, and more could be brought in via ship if necessary.

When a railroad line is cut the trains would retreat with the troops or be destroyed before falling into enemy hands. In either case you have no available rail capacity for the cut off sections of railroads.

Would you know if the rail line from a port that is cut off can be used for supply purposes? I'm not sure how difficult it was to ship trains by sea during the war.

As the game has a railyard value for every town, it seems reasonable that a proportion of the rail capacity corresponding to the available railyards, or maybe somewhat reduced, could be used on the cut off part of the rail net. But I guess that could be complicated to implement. Hmm, this is beginning to sound like WITE meets Railroad Tycoon

It may be that the rail capacity in towns and cities was designed to lower the total rail capacity as the towns amd cities are captured by the enemy. Not sure but doesn't seem to work. I've never had problems with rail capacity or supplies for that matter playing as either side.

Rail tycoon was one of my all time favorite games [:D]

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Should the game be changed, maybe but how much detail or micromanagement do we want?

Exactly! There was research done on every line. And many lines which existed didn't went through. Troops and supplies were moved trough the much worse rail nets than those on the WITE map (ex. temp line into 2nd Shock Army pocket, line along the Ladoga, etc..). Mentioned bridge (and there are more of such "phantom" bridges) are included intentionally due to the limitation of greatly simplified supply engine, which even in such form can't be called too simple.

Problem is not in panting those lines with appropriate thickness, but allow to have system which could utilize it and still be usable and playable. And line thickness is the least problem here.

Yet, no one answered Jim's question. Also I'm yet to see Soviet player advancing too fast in 1944 in H2H games.

I's not a question of either player advancing to fast. It's a question of carrying capacity being large enough to support ahistoric sized player armies in certain areas, in particular the Stalingrad area. For the Germans, Stalingrad's Rail supply was on a shoestring and any player/gamer gathering of armies considerably larger than the historic army units should be curtailed in some way as it would not have been possible to supply such a gathering of units in that theatre.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Should the game be changed, maybe but how much detail or micromanagement do we want?

Exactly! There was research done on every line. And many lines which existed didn't went through. Troops and supplies were moved trough the much worse rail nets than those on the WITE map (ex. temp line into 2nd Shock Army pocket, line along the Ladoga, etc..). Mentioned bridge (and there are more of such "phantom" bridges) are included intentionally due to the limitation of greatly simplified supply engine, which even in such form can't be called too simple.

Problem is not in panting those lines with appropriate thickness, but allow to have system which could utilize it and still be usable and playable. And line thickness is the least problem here.

Yet, no one answered Jim's question. Also I'm yet to see Soviet player advancing too fast in 1944 in H2H games.

I's not a question of either player advancing to fast. It's a question of carrying capacity being large enough to support ahistoric sized player armies in certain areas, in particular the Stalingrad area. For the Germans, Stalingrad's Rail supply was on a shoestring and any player/gamer gathering of armies considerably larger than the historic army units should be curtailed in some way as it would not have been possible to supply such a gathering of units in that theatre.

I sympathise with yours and others desire for greater historical fidelity in areas such as these, but is it not an acceptable suspension of disbelief in game terms to suppose that the Germans are able to extend the capacity of the rail here if they wish - imagining that extra track was layed, or what-not? Certainly in game terms, it would be extremely limiting not to be able to operate with any freedom on parts of the map like this.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I sympathise with yours and others desire for greater historical fidelity in areas such as these, but is it not an acceptable suspension of disbelief in game terms to suppose that the Germans are able to extend the capacity of the rail here if they wish - imagining that extra track was layed, or what-not? Certainly in game terms, it would be extremely limiting not to be able to operate with any freedom on parts of the map like this.

Sure if you like fiction...

It's my understanding that this game was supposed to be the end all of the War In the East games and the amount of detail and other deliberate design limitations expended in other parts of the game design tend to make me believe this was the intent of the designers.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: squatter

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Helpless



Exactly! There was research done on every line. And many lines which existed didn't went through. Troops and supplies were moved trough the much worse rail nets than those on the WITE map (ex. temp line into 2nd Shock Army pocket, line along the Ladoga, etc..). Mentioned bridge (and there are more of such "phantom" bridges) are included intentionally due to the limitation of greatly simplified supply engine, which even in such form can't be called too simple.

Problem is not in panting those lines with appropriate thickness, but allow to have system which could utilize it and still be usable and playable. And line thickness is the least problem here.

Yet, no one answered Jim's question. Also I'm yet to see Soviet player advancing too fast in 1944 in H2H games.

I's not a question of either player advancing to fast. It's a question of carrying capacity being large enough to support ahistoric sized player armies in certain areas, in particular the Stalingrad area. For the Germans, Stalingrad's Rail supply was on a shoestring and any player/gamer gathering of armies considerably larger than the historic army units should be curtailed in some way as it would not have been possible to supply such a gathering of units in that theatre.

I sympathise with yours and others desire for greater historical fidelity in areas such as these, but is it not an acceptable suspension of disbelief in game terms to suppose that the Germans are able to extend the capacity of the rail here if they wish - imagining that extra track was layed, or what-not? Certainly in game terms, it would be extremely limiting not to be able to operate with any freedom on parts of the map like this.

+1

[Panama]

If there were fewer of the single line limited use rail lines in the game then some thought would have to be given to where to advance and what to defend. Given the extremely complete rail net that is spread all over the map there isn't really any place you need to defend to protect any strategic rail. Historically the Axis advanced along certain paths to ensure a rail line was either secured or broken.

Moscow has I think six strategic rail lines leading out of the city. But in the game Moscow is meaningless as a rail hub because there is a 'spider web' of rail to the east that, in real terms, had no strategic significance. No one is asking for Russian Rail Tycoon. A few less rails would be all that would be needed.

Historically there was a rail line running southeast from Moscow towards Stalingrad. If this rail line was broken then troops would have to be shuttled through the Urals and then south. The Germans made a point of breaking this line.

I don't know. Maybe too much is being made of all this. It's a game. [:D][:D][:D]

But then you have to admit, they did a good job with it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

When a railroad line is cut the trains would retreat with the troops or be destroyed before falling into enemy hands. In either case you have no available rail capacity for the cut off sections of railroads.

Would you know if the rail line from a port that is cut off can be used for supply purposes? I'm not sure how difficult it was to ship trains by sea during the war.

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly: the Germans destroy one hex of rail somewhere west of Stalino after a quick penetration. There are still many dozens of divisions to the West, holding the Crimea and lower Dnepr, there is no question of trains in the Crimea falling into enemy hands for the foreseeable future, and the distances involved are rather large, requiring rail transport. I find it difficult to believe that all of the rail would be, or even could be, pulled east of the broken line. How could all of the trains have been evacced?

As to shipping railcars and locomotives by sea: I haven't done any research on this point, but given that the Sovs moved entire factories beyond the Urals, I don't think it would have been beyond them to ship a couple of locomotives to a major port, even if they had to disassemble them.

[Tarhunnas]

BTW here is a railway map of the Soviet Union during WW2. The colours only show the different railway administrative regions, so you can ignore those. The interesting thing is it shows which lines are single and which are double tracked. I think it clearly shows the importance of Moscow as a hub. The radial lines are mostly single track. Especially communications to the north-west will be very difficult if Moscow is lost. The importance of the Rostov - Voronezh - Moscow line also stands out.

[76mm]

How cool is that map?!

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Angelo

When a railroad line is cut the trains would retreat with the troops or be destroyed before falling into enemy hands. In either case you have no available rail capacity for the cut off sections of railroads.

Would you know if the rail line from a port that is cut off can be used for supply purposes? I'm not sure how difficult it was to ship trains by sea during the war.

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly: the Germans destroy one hex of rail somewhere west of Stalino after a quick penetration. There are still many dozens of divisions to the West, holding the Crimea and lower Dnepr, there is no question of trains in the Crimea falling into enemy hands for the foreseeable future, and the distances involved are rather large, requiring rail transport. I find it difficult to believe that all of the rail would be, or even could be, pulled east of the broken line. How could all of the trains have been evacced?

As to shipping railcars and locomotives by sea: I haven't done any research on this point, but given that the Sovs moved entire factories beyond the Urals, I don't think it would have been beyond them to ship a couple of locomotives to a major port, even if they had to disassemble them.

I'd assume that the evacced trains would be by sea [8D]

No reason why a section of line that has been cut off coiuld not use the rail capacity of the cities and towns that are connected to that cut off section. Guess the designers did not think that level of detail was worth programming and simply used a general rule. You'd have to add up the capacity in the cut off section to see if there is enough to actually move a division. I suspect in most cases the cut off line's capacity would be very low.