Rails to Vyazma!

[PeeDeeAitch]

I don't double up the repair, having 5 lines is more important and easier to beltway. I don't do the Daugabpils route in part because in the Baltic region the repair always outruns the hex limit, and so it seems there is less good to double here and another line adds more redundancy to the supply - important now I think.

[pompack]

And to complicate things, the partisans in 1.04.11 are now really annoying. EVERY Rumanian, Hungarian and Slovokian infantry was assigned to rear area security and garrison duty along with EVERY security division (broken into regiments) and a fort on every garrison town. Also I pulled one infantry division off the line, broke it into regiments and used it for security. And I still lost one turn of build on Route 1 (north), FIVE turns of build on Route 2 through Smolensk, amd one turn on route 3 through Gomel. It's really worse than that because in some cases I didn't move the FDB and the next turn it still couldn't build and in other cases I diverted the FDB back to repair the break and lost most of the subsequent turn's build as well.

Per Joel the partisans will be toned down a bit in the next patch. However right now it gets ugly since you need every hex of rail when the mud comes unless you are having a dud offensive; a single break up the line before you get your cross-links in is devastating.

EDIT: I really need a spell checker

[Balou]

Another way to look at rail repair is from the economy viewpoint ie MPs. I just started to reconsider may rail repair layout for AGS.
First: each FBD has 16 MPs per week/turn = 272 MPs until mud in turn 18
Second: there are three popular routes from the Roumanian border towards D-town and/or Stalino, depending on what's your intentions and capabilities. Attachements shows the costs in terms of MPs. If it's paramount to reach D-town and Stalino as fast as possible, then it's definitly the orange route. If the Crimea has to be connected, then its yellow or white, requires Odessa, and Stalino will have to wait.
Third: when the southern hook is successful, I always take the "Lvov"-FBD along to Chernovtsy. I may only start rail repair in week 3, but it's much faster from there to Vinnitsa then from Lvov.

[Balou]

The Chernovtsy-Vinnitsa Railroad

[Balou]

MPs for FBD3. I sometimes use the northern route for the second leg, since it offers a better possibility to build lateral drives towards FBD4.

[Balou]

AGC northern routes

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Balou

Another way to look at rail repair is from the economy viewpoint ie MPs. I just started to reconsider may rail repair layout for AGS.
First: each FBD has 16 MPs per week/turn = 272 MPs until mud in turn 18
Second: there are three popular routes from the Roumanian border towards D-town and/or Stalino, depending on what's your intentions and capabilities. Attachements shows the costs in terms of MPs. If it's paramount to reach D-town and Stalino as fast as possible, then it's definitly the orange route. If the Crimea has to be connected, then its yellow or white, requires Odessa, and Stalino will have to wait.
Third: when the southern hook is successful, I always take the "Lvov"-FBD along to Chernovtsy. I may only start rail repair in week 3, but it's much faster from there to Vinnitsa then from Lvov.

This is interesting, and more folks should show what Rail Repair they do.

I will say on this one, the shortest distance to D-Town isn't the only consideration. I prefer the Southern Route here, because you need that if you want to supply troops in the Crimea. Without it, you can't advance into the Crimea at all.

Same with the AGC northern routes below; the Vishney route is slightly shorter, but you need the line through Smolensk to better supply units on the push to Moscow.

Also, North/South lines are as important as east-west when it comes to Blizzard. this is another important consideration; setting up the lines so it's also easy to build a "beltway" north-south, in order to facilitate the deployment of reserves during blizzard.

[Balou]

As I said, the fastest way to D-town leaves the Crimea unsupplied.
I just completed my rail line "analysis" in the south. Here it is. BTW, if someone wants to further down into the Crimea and continue towards Stalino, its not as slow as I first suspected.
Note: there has been an error with the MPs to Stalino via Zaporo (pink line), numbers have changed.

[Michael T]

I always double up the RR guys. After 10 turns, with the kinks and S bends you can end up with 20 extra hexes converted as opposed to a single RR per line.

[sveint]

Going through Odessa is risky as you are vulnerable to naval assault. Need several Romanian coastal garrisons at minimum.

[Balou]

@ sveint - so what's your rail route to support any advance (if so) to the Crimea ?
@ Michael T - risky IMO, because you will have a maximum of 3 rail lines instead of 5. If one gets cut by partisans ....

[sveint]

I don't fight in the Crimea in 1941. There's nothing there.

[Balou]

I rather prefer to seal the Crimea at Kerch, which is not so hard if done early. I don't like to have a soft underbelly when I push towards Stalino or even further. On the other hand there probably remains the amphib landing issue (?).

[Q-Ball]

The Crimea is a whole different issue, and a good question: Should the Germans attack into it in 1941?

First, I think it is absolutely essential to at least make it as far as the Northern Chokepoints. My game with Tarhunnas has convinced me that this much is critical for the Germans. Even more, you probably need to do this quick enough to allow time to build forts there.

If you stop at the chokepoints, you better leave good units down there, not just Romanians (unless you use the Mtn Bdes). You can't afford as Germany to have the Russians breakout and threaten your rear.

To get all the way to Kerch would probably involve the diversion of at least a Panzer Corps from the drive on Stalino. Taking Kerch does secure the Crimea for sure during the Blizzard, and simplify defense elsewhere, but that's a tough call to divert those Panzers. Ideally you can do that and take the Donbas cities anyway, but you probably can't.

The Crimea does have some population, but not that much.

I think Amphib landings are overrated. The Germans can bomb the port you just took, which puts the units on beachhead supply, and prevents reinforcements coming in. All you really do is throw a beached whale on shore that will eventually be cleaned up.

[Tarhunnas]

Landings can mess things up for the Axis in the Crimea. Unless the Axis player is very careful and devotes a lot of units to it, it is often possible to isolate units with a well placed landing and the Soviets can afford to risk a division or two to isolate an Axis corps in the Crimea.

As things stand now, there is no reason whatsoever for the Axis to risk units in the Crimea, even if it can be had for free. The problem is IMHO twofold: There is nothing there worth having, which there should be, and Soviet landings are much too large, frequent and cheap for the Soviets.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Landings can mess things up for the Axis in the Crimea. Unless the Axis player is very careful and devotes a lot of units to it, it is often possible to isolate units with a well placed landing and the Soviets can afford to risk a division or two to isolate an Axis corps in the Crimea.

As things stand now, there is no reason whatsoever for the Axis to risk units in the Crimea, even if it can be had for free. The problem is IMHO twofold: There is nothing there worth having, which there should be, and Soviet landings are much too large, frequent and cheap for the Soviets.

I can see sacrificing a couple units on Amphib; not sure what to do. Tarhunnas and I are playing with a House Rule limiting to 3000 amphib points, and a general agreement to keep the distance sailed to a small number of hexes. (No landings in Romania). The Crimea does expose the Germans potentially; you can cover the ports easily.

The Crimea has maybe 13-15 manpower, and a small industry cluster in Kerch. There isn't alot down there in terms of Russian industrial capacity. Was there historically? Or was it a focus mostly for control of the Black Sea?

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: sveint

Going through Odessa is risky as you are vulnerable to naval assault. Need several Romanian coastal garrisons at minimum.

+1

This is an issue for any southern route that is taken and essentially, you are making a long term commitment to leaving several units off the line, even if you do nothing with the Crimea. Eventually, this won't be as critical as beltway routes are hooked up inland, but it would be a bit for that to take place.

As far as the Crimea goes, it is even more worthless than I suspected in this game. Unless you move into Kerch and surprise the Russians, just cutting the rail line to any port city (Odessa included) does not prevent the Russians from evacuating industry. (Both Odessa and Kerch can be evacuated in this fashion). Essentially, the Crimea is a trap in this game to suck down a fair number of Axis forces in garrison duty to guard against Russian invasions that may or may not come.

Historically, the Crimea had huge implications as far as the political situation with Turkey (at least in Hitler's mind) and also as a potential bomber base to operate against the Rumanian oil facilities. With the air model as broken as it is, it is impossible to determine if this type of campaign was possible or not in the real war. Certainly in game terms, the Axis has little response they can do since interception sucks for the most part and bombing any bomber fields in the Crimea would be problematic at best since after the first turn, trying to bomb airfields is fairly ineffective.

I think unless there are major changes, I see no need to take out the Crimea as the Axis and getting into the choke points should be a sufficient defense to screen off the area. Let the Russians commit a lot of force in a vulnerable position and see if they can get anything done against minimal Axis forces instead of the other way around.

In other news, great conversation on the rail roads. [:)]

I also agree with Q-Ball on the need for "beltway" rail roads to help shift forces in theater north and south. Makes a big difference in meeting Russian attacks.

[Balou]

I see no need to take out the Crimea as the Axis and getting into the choke points should be a sufficient defense to screen off the area.

IMO the trouble is that - if the southernmost rail line is not going via Odessa - any troops sealing the Crimea chokepoints will be far away from rail supply. Any rail line further north won't be in reasonable distance to those troops unless Krivoi Rog or Zaporo are connected, and going to Nikolaev without Odessa would be very costly in terms of MPs. For sure it's not going to be a problem during summer, but my feeling is that it's going to be different during mud or blizzard.

Beltways: I'd like to know what other people have seen with auto rail repair when it comes to beltways. So far I have repeatedly tried to lure those guys near the rail lines I want connected, but somehow and even after they were sent back and their HQ had been relocated, they always seem to remain deaf to my orders.

[Balou]

Forgot to add that my beltways will primarely be build by FBDs, but auto help would be appreciated.