How to fix the game.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Rail Conversion in the Baltics is one third faster. It remains about half what it was historically, justified with the unlimited capacity argument which isn't a justification because the supply is severely limited once it leaves the rail.

Ah you shifted the goalposts again I see. In the original post you said the Baltics are treated like Russia. I said that is not the case and proved it. Now you are saying that it isn't fast enough. This argument has been had over and over again and mulitple posters have explained that because the rails have unlimited capacity the advance of the FBDs needs to be slowed down. It seems to me that the problem you have is that you do not know how to manage your HQs in order to get the best out of the supply system and are blaming that on the game design.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
Partisans in the Baltic were nonexistent, not rarer. You show me some evidence of partisan activity in the Baltic please.

See Hannys post above. It seems like you have been proven wrong yet again.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
Alright you make exactly the same mistake as most people here. you don't read my posts. You said"Panzer Corps that has been on the move/fighting for 2 full weeks". My point is that the panzer corps has NOT been fighting forward just moving forward.
I break the front with infantry, I then move the panzers forward without fighting any Russians I go around them, I then run them forward again in the second week, Again avoiding contact with any Russians. NO FIGHTING FOR THE PANZER CORPS. But at the start of week 3 the Panzer corps is out of supply. Across the entire front, everywhere, for a whole week, ridiculous. Ammunition is about one third of supply tonnage so in this "no fighting" scenario panzer corps supply requirements are about one third less, probably more like half, than if they were fighting forward.

I never asked for full anything, I am just pointing out that the current situation clearly underestimates German supply capabilities.

And you didn't read my post either then since I clearly said moving / (meaning and, or) fighting for 2 full weeks. Can you post some pics of what it is exactly that you are doing? Maybe that would help your case. Just post screenshots so we can see the positions of the FBD, Corps HQs, your units and Soviet units for all 3 turns, optimized as best as you can. Also seems quite hard to believe that none of your spearheads has had any contact with the enemy. How are you going forward? Do the Soviets lack rear units?

Out of supply would be if they were sitting at 1% fuel. Having 15-20 MPs is not out of supply, it is low on fuel. And just out of morbid curiosity why do you insist so much on this scenario? It will never happen neither while playing against a human player (even a Soviet runner) nor when playing the AI. There will always be units to block the path of your panzers and you won't be able to move without taking contact. So why do you keep insisting on it?

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

That's right I have done it before, I already pointed out this problem one year ago. I gave them a year to fix it and they did nothing.

I think you are overestimating your position and importance here. You didn't "give them a year to fix it". None of the devs works for you. You made a complaint and were shut down by multiple people proving you wrong. Which is the same thing that keeps happening here.

Now there is a small chance that everyone in here is wrong and that all the research that was done for the game is wrong but judging by the way you argue and the fact that your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and fall like a house of cards I doubt that.

Post the screenshots and show us what you are doing. Maybe we can help you optimize your gameplay.

[Shalkai]

I thought Hanny answered you pretty well in post 130 above: "...soviet QM reports. Funny thing is this report is amongst the links you used from AHF, and the same poster you keep using posted it and refers to the 4 fuels and that the Germans could not use them. So much for your reading ability.
Petrol Mogas:B78,B100,B70,KB70.
Tractors ran on Ligroin another petrol fuel."

No, it doesn't spell out exact uses for each fuel type. However, I can clarify with likely uses. You can research further if desired. B100 - 100 octane, hi-test aviation grade. B78 - 78 octane, hi-test motor grade (well, sorta middle grade) usable in high compression engines - cars and high-power trucks/AFVs. B70 - 70 octane, low-test suitable for low compression engines like gas tractors and most trucks. KB70 - not sure on this; at a guess it might be gas/oil mix suitable for 2-cycle engines (motorcycle, generator, etc.). Or KB70 might be diesel, which Soviets used more than most other nations.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Shalkai

No, it doesn't spell out exact uses for each fuel type. However, I can clarify with likely uses. You can research further if desired. B100 - 100 octane, hi-test aviation grade. B78 - 78 octane, hi-test motor grade (well, sorta middle grade) usable in high compression engines - cars and high-power trucks/AFVs. B70 - 70 octane, low-test suitable for low compression engines like gas tractors and most trucks. KB70 - not sure on this; at a guess it might be gas/oil mix suitable for 2-cycle engines (motorcycle, generator, etc.). Or KB70 might be diesel, which Soviets used more than most other nations.

Nice of you to provide the info Shalkai but I doubt chuckfourth cares about the uses of fuel types. He is simply nitpicking other peoples answer in a pitiful attempt to discredit them since he cannot counter the arguments that are being provided. Sad to see really.

[Shalkai]

Further information on supply and advice on how best to use FBDs is available here in the forums - and even nicely collated by EvaldvonKliest - thanks EvK!!! I've learned tons!

In the War Room, please look at 'The Library of WitE resources' post. Items 1.3 and 1.5 - these delve deep into supply. 2.3 shows a totally optimized way to push forward a single line using three FBDs.

I don't use that optimized 3-FBD plan - the line is a bit north of the land bridge and main AGC push, it leaves two entire AG dependent on a single rail path (one lucky partisan bomb = AGC and AGN both crippled for an entire turn), and finally it is a little too gamey for my personal taste.

What I do instead is ignore pushing FBD3 east through Brest. That line starts several hexes farther west than other possible main rail lines. Instead, I rail FBD3 north to 47,46 then it combines with FBD4 to push rail farther on Turn 1. Turn 2 and later, FBD4 pushes towards Leningrad, FBD3 splits east and converts toward Daugavpils (mostly Baltic Rail zone, yay!) and FBD2 heads Vilnius/Minsk. This provides three railheads that are fairly well spaced to support all operations north of the Pripyat Marshes.

I can make some screenshots if the above descriptions aren't clear enough.

Think I just got a skill gain +1 "Forum skill increased! 100xp reward for using link in post."

[xhoel]

I just ran a test with AGN chuck. Using FBD moving forward and both Panzer Corps moving without contact. Turn 1, Panzers crossed the Daugava. FBDs repaired 40 miles of tracks.

My spearheads reached Pskov at the end of turn 2. At this time the Panzer Corps HQs were located a staggering 46 MPs away from railheads. FBDs repaired 70 miles of tracks.

Turn 3, FBDs repaired 60 miles worth of track. The rail lines reached Riga. At the start of turn 3, most units had 12-20 MPs. Did a HQ Build Up for one of the Corps (3 divisions costing 32 Admin points) and on turn 4 they had full mobility, eg 48-50 MPs. Driving forward from Pskov without contact I reached Leningrad. One of my divisions even captured Pushkin. 60 miles of track repaired on turn 4. Railheads reach Valmera.

There you have it. From the 22nd of June till the 10th of July my Panzer Corps reached Leningrad. This was done without taking enemy contact but keep in mind that the terrain also plays a role in fuel expenditure as units spend more MPs for difficult hexes, not to mention multiple river crossings which carry high costs as the bridges over them are presumed to have been detonated beforehand by the Soviets.

Also keep in mind that there won't be a case in which Panzers won't be fighting in the first few weeks. Infantry is lagging behind so Panzers have to pick up that burden.

Tell me now, what is the problem with the system?

[Shalkai]

Screenshot of AGC Turn 2 showing railhead and Dnepr bridgehead at Shklov

[chuckfourth]

Ok good thanks for the tips, I need a little time to digest, But In the meantime, Shalkai do you think the Germans can use any of these fuels in their vehicles?

[Bitburger]

Try playing the Russians first before bitching, and deal with the standard ahistorical lvov pocket or the super lvov.
Just surviving as the Russians is hard enough in current versions.
Shut the fuck up chuck!
Banned?-ya well it was worth it.

[Shalkai]

For the vast majority of captured fuel, no they would not be able to immediately (within 72 hours) use it. The exception would be the 100 octane aviation gasoline (the rarest), which is generally specially marked and jealously guarded. Avgas is like O- blood type - universal donor. All the additives and the extra purity of avgas means it looks and smells different, so a quick check would probably be enough for a quartermaster to start carefully doling it out, especially if he knew it had actually been found at an airfield. They would still be cautious and reserve even that for emergencies though. A cup of sugar or a dollop of kerosene in a jerry can of gasoline can cause problems or even clog a carburetor or fuel pump. Sabotaging fuel supplies is very easy - as is simply burning them.

Putting in fuel of too low a grade is even worse. Power drops, you get engine knock (pinging) which can damage the motor, and again risk clogged carburetors and fouled spark plug problems. No handy tune-up shops open seven days a week in a war zone.

Previous posts have already referred to the need for testing and carefully checking fuel supplies after capture - by either side. Dumping in a can of captured, untested fuel would be a last resort. Troops would be gambling that enemy can of gas would get them another 50km down the road - but they might end up with a disabled vehicle only five minutes later if their dice roll comes up snake eyes.

Please note that all of the above is what I think, not detailed research I can cite. It is based on military experience, engineering education, personal amateur car-repair experience, and remembered historical references.

Interesting side-note - WitE actually models this. It tracks and uses captured fuel (mostly aviation gasoline I'm guessing, as you usually see the pop-up notification after overrunning an air base) Next time that happens in a game, take note of the pop-up saying 'XYZ Corps HQ has captured 0 tons of supplies and 3 tons of fuel' or something like that.

[Shalkai]

Sheesh! Can we all tone down the venom a bit, please? As I posted a couple of days ago, even an acrimonious exchange can lead to useful knowledge being disseminated.

It may have taken 150 posts and a lot of name-calling, but I think chuckfourth might now be willing to admit that WitE models and formulas, although they are not perfect, are not quite as bad as he originally accused them of being.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hanny you are hiding from me, which of your 4 Motor gas fuels are for what uses, You are happy to write hundreds and hundreds of words about me personally but you wont answer a simple question, either answer it or admit you are a lying fraud.

I made clear to you this is not a debate, nor am i here do your research for you, esp when your too incompetent to read your own links content.

You referred to captured use of fuel, i pointed out its limitations. I should add commercial petrol in Russia was again different and not usable from the pumps unlike as had been the case in France. Because your ignorant, you think this a lie, just as you do with anyone you disagree with on anything. So, i gave up giving you that information and told you to read your own links, that contain the information i just imparted to you so you could inform yourself. What the varies types of fuels were used for is not relavent to the point they existed and put limitations of captured use, but you still claim im lying.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Shalkai
No, it doesn't spell out exact uses for each fuel type. However, I can clarify with likely uses. You can research further if desired. B100 - 100 octane, hi-test aviation grade. B78 - 78 octane, hi-test motor grade (well, sorta middle grade) usable in high compression engines - cars and high-power trucks/AFVs. B70 - 70 octane, low-test suitable for low compression engines like gas tractors and most trucks. KB70 - not sure on this; at a guess it might be gas/oil mix suitable for 2-cycle engines (motorcycle, generator, etc.). Or KB70 might be diesel, which Soviets used more than most other nations.

K refers to the cracking methodology of production. so KB70 is derived from a cracking process. B refers to Bakau crude oil G would be crude from Grozny. The crude from each refinery was different. Common for T70 models to use.

B-70 and benzols and isooctanes (passing under the name gasoline light in the Soviet supply list)

The following mixtures were prepared from them: Producing B-70: 1B- 70, 2B-70, 3B-70, 4B-70. Each has a different octane value.

Mixture No. 1:
60% B-70, 20% isooctane and 20% neohexane.

Mixture No. 2:
60% B-70, 20% alkylbenzene and 20% neohexane.

Mixture No. 3:
60% B-70, 32% isooctane and 8% isopentane.

ORIGINAL: Shalkai
Power drops, you get engine knock (pinging) which can damage the motor, and again risk clogged carburetors and fouled spark plug problems. No handy tune-up shops open seven days a week in a war zone.

Antiknock additives (ethyl gum). Two main ethyl gum were used:
R-9: Tetraethyl lead (TPP) - 55%, ethyl bromide - 35%, monochloronaphthalene - 10%, red dye - 1.5g. for 1 liter
B-20: identical, but dichloroethane is contained instead of ethyl bromide and monochloronaphthalene. The fluid is blue. It is a substitute for R-9 and is used in case of its absence.
The antiknock properties of both fluids are identical, but it is preferable to use P-9 as a less polluting engine plug. Added from 1-4 cubic meters. see ethyl fluid per 1 kg of gasoline. Accordingly, in the designation 2B-70, the first digit is just the number of cubic meters. see per kilogram of gasoline. Add more than 4 cm cube. ethyl fluid per kilogram of gasoline is impractical because octane gain is sharply reduced.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Shalkai

Very good, thank you chuckfourth - your post shows the detail needed to isolate why our experiences are at odds, and why your Turn 3 fuel levels are so much lower than the ones I see in my own games.

Simply put, your corps HQs are over 20 hexes from rail head on Turn 3, which is caused by retreating all Soviet units so that Panzer divisions can be moved the maximum distance eastwards on Turn 2.

This is a situation where Panzer divisions are a bit further east than historically achieved, but not much. It is also unusual (though certainly possible) for Panzers to advance so far on Turn 2 without meeting any Soviet stragglers that need a hasty attack to free clear terrain hexes of ZOC. In both of our examples, panzer divs are farther east than historical results, so we need to look further to find the cause of the discrepancy.

In real life, supply throughput decreases as an exponential curve the farther supplies have to travel. In WitE, this is approximated through several linear functions, but there is a discontinuity in the decrease when the immediate HQ goes from 20 to 21 hexes away from railhead.

I haven't run an actual test game, but I can state that I do not see these very low supply levels (I see 30-40 MP) for two reasons - first, I keep corps HQ within 20 hexes of railhead, and second, my railheads are farther east.

Examples:
"XXXXI panzer corps is east of Tallinn on the gulf of Riga the three divisions have 9, 15 and 14 MPs. They are just within 5 hexes of their HQ. Corps HQ is within 4 hexes of 4th panzer group HQ Rail has been repaired as far as Siauliai so 4th panzer group HQ is 18 hexes from railhead, XXXXI panzer corps is 22 from the railhead."
This places your corps HQ at about hex 65,20 which is 22 hexes from Siailuai. (Note that 4th PzG HQ being 18 hexes from rail doesn't help the corps or divisions get fuel). In my games, the railhead is a few hexes further NE, near Jelgava. My HQ, if in the same spot, would be within 20 hexes of rail, so both corps and divs would get normal supply, not isolated. Even if my railhead was at Siauliai, I would simply place my HQ at say 64,22. This might require my panzers to be a hex or two behind where yours are - but they'd have 30+ MP to play with on Turn 3.


"XXXXVI panzer corps is just west of the Dnepr on the northeastern corner of the Pripet marshes its two divisions and one regiment have 12 12 4 MPs respectively. They are in friendly connected territory and within 5 hexes of their corps HQ. Corps HQ is 24 hexes form Pruzhany where the railhead is."
Pruzhany is at 55,66. 24 hexes east places your HQ around 77,62.
In my last start, my Turn 3 railhead was at 59,50 just W of Vilnius. Corps HQ was at 76,54 - so 19 hexes from rail. Divisions were five more hexes east, with a bridgehead in normal supply actually east of the Dnepr river.

Bottom line: You have exceeded a threshold coded into WitE, where the game's imperfect model delivers imperfect results. This suggests two questions:
1. Can the supply model in the game be improved? The answer is no in WitE (engine changes not practical), but yes in the forthcoming WitE2.
2. Can the supply model in the game be maximized through better play to avoid exceeding limititation in the code? The answer is yes, through a combination of maximizing railhead advancement and/or ensuring that corps HQ units do not suffer isolation penalties.

Excellent analysis, i would add the movement points between nodes, not just counting hexes to make sure the step change of 20 is not breached, is an important point to remember for supply optimisation.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Tell me now, what is the problem with the system?

System works better/detailed than any other game i have seen. The options menu gives user the ability to tailor the logistics to there own preference.

Problem is not the system but the operator.[;)]

[Shalkai]

Good point, Hanny. More than one way to get isolated from supply. Off Rail MP cost is usually the limiting factor in certain areas of the map (E of Lake Ladoga, and of course the Pripyat Marshes are prime examples). MP cost is also the noose that strangles during mud and blizzard. Since we were working on a pared-down analysis that eventually just focused on Axis Turn 2 so we could compare apples to apples, I didn't complicate it by adding that other factor into the discussion. Boy howdy did I sure notice it during my first full game, years ago! Took me a couple turns to figure out why my manpower and morale levels were dropping like a rock. LOL!

I greatly appreciate the further details about Russian gasoline grades and additives. I'm not a petrochemical engineer, and even trying to google some of that stuff was way more time than I had to spend. Now I know more than most people about Eastern Front fuel production and grades. But way less than you do! [:)]

[Hanny]

Congrats to xhoel and Shalkai for identifying the in game problem, now back to our regular schedule[:D].

[chuckfourth]

Red lancer that article is in no way a justification for moving the Baltic boundary any more than light mechanical tank damage is a justification for nerfing German supply.
This is what you are actually saying. Whether or not a particular rail line is inside or outside the Baltic zone is determined by WHEN it was repaired, not by which SIDE of the border it was, really!?
Just because they didn't fix a section of railway doesn't mean it's Russian railway, which is what you are saying here. Its still Baltic railway whether they fix it in 41 or 44. You have removed the Germans ability to fix that piece of line at the correct historical (Baltic) rate because why? they didn't do it quick enough for you historically? It makes no sense. To me this is just the latest example of how the German player is in an inappropriate ahistorical straightjacket in this game. It seems to me that as its been developed to include every little factor that disadvantages the Germans, Baltic boundary and super forts for example and ignore everything that helps the Germans like super guns, or use of captured Russian fuel dumps. I mean how can you even think about deploying superforts without even considering superguns. Mistakes like this make me think the game is not in good hands.

Ok so I'm pursuing fuel for this reason. Hanky and Morvael both subscribe to the ridiculous proposition that you need to have half your transport convoy composed of fuel trucks to go long distances. This is their justification for the drop in supply delivered after 10 hexes.
Right so
First the Germans SET UP PETROL STATIONS.
Second they had petrol tanker convoys
Third they could use Russian fuel.
Some of the German trucks used diesel, these trucks could happily run on captured Russian diesel of which I'm sure they captured plenty.
KB70 and B70 is Russian fuel for their aircraft and light tanks, the Russians had a lot of both. 70 is the octane rating. The German army ran on 70-74 octane so this fuel CAN be pumped straight into the German vehicles.
Ok now this is already acknowledged by giving the Germans fuel when they capture a HQ, good. But they should also get a captured allocation of fuel when they capture a city.
So when Hanky said this
"all mogas had a far lower octane level than western European engines could run on and required additives to bring the octane level up high enough to use in engines."
Using the word all makes this a bald faced LIE because KB70 and B70 are the same octane level as German fuel. It can be pumped straight into a German engine.
Hanky also says
"German MTV and Russian MTV used different grades of fuel, they were not interchangeable, each destroys the others engines. In Russia you cant use captured fuel stocks until its been converted to the same fuel grade."
Wrong again Hanky, German MTV and Russian light tanks used the SAME grade of fuel, KB70 and B70. So another bald faced LIE.
You CAN put low octane gas (Russian) in a high octane engine (German) the engine loses power and the fuel can ignite early giving knocking but it still runs. It doesn't necessarily destroy the engine. This depends on how different the ideal and actual octane levels are and the engine itself. Don't forget an engine will run just fine on a quite wide range of fuel octane levels
And here's something I found very interesting from Van Creveld no less.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=209233
"Fuel consumption by both armored groups was very high, but could be met because that of ammunition was correspondingly low, and because Panzergruppe 2 made a TIMELY DISCOVERY OF A LARGE RUSSIAN RESEVIOUR near Baranovichi."
Hanky note this is in JUNE 41. In the game the Germans cannot find any large Russian reservoirs near anywhere. But here we have an example of a whole Panzergruppe finding enough RUSSIAN FUEL to run on.
The German supply clearly needs to be loosened up to reflect the overall effect of being able to USE SOVIET FUEL and drain large quantities of food and fodder out of captured cities.
Oh and just a point on etiquette for you Hanky here's something you said,
'Soviet account: from "Technical Support of Armored Forces in the Vistula-Oder Operation" is that they could not use captured enemy fuel dumps until they had been tested for octane rating, water contamination, type of fuel, etc which was done by the Army laboratory but took some time to find out if the fuel was usable. '
You lifted this word for word straight out of
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=226225
with no acknowledgment that you lifted it from that article and the whole thing should be in quotes not just the title, that plagiarism my friend. You presented this as though you had read the reference and they were you words, but you copied it. So what other stuff have you made up? seems you are a liar and a thief. or maybe a just leave it at lying thief.
How about we take a reality check?
Rommel's nearest port was Brengazi its about 300 miles (30 hexes) behind the front line and its linked to the front line by a SINGLE road in the desert where there is nothing. According to the game rules at this distance Rommel gets NO SUPPLY. ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, because in the game you can't run a truck convoy further than 260 miles In reality Panzer Army Africa kept 10 divisions supplied 300 miles away from this small port ie railhead.
The single road from Tripoli, the main port where most of the supplies came from is 900, read it again 900 miles 90 hexes, away from the front line. They ran regular truck convoys along this road all the time. If you apply Hankys congestion calculations to this scenario you get a road train that goes twice around the world, if you apply his fuel usage calculations to this scenario each truck convoy has to tow the Exon Valdez behind as it goes along. This game has been crippled by inflated supply requirements and nerfed supply abilities, the accountants are in charge, The cut and thrust of blitzkrieg is missing.
I pointed all this out a year ago and nothing has been done.

Why ever would you apply a bit of commonsense to a problem when you can use Hankys convoluted rubbish.

Congratulations Xhoel you have actually managed to sound more hysterical than Hanky
Xhoel you pretend like there is no problem with German supply, so why is it being rewritten for WIET2 then? Answer because it doesn't work in WITE1.

Shalkai I looked at your links but I still cannot understand how to fix more that 6 railway hexes a turn to get to Jelgava in two turns. Can you explain how that is done?
You also said this
"no they would not be able to immediately (within 72 hours) use it" Of course the mistake you make here is that the turns are a week so they have a week to 'use' it in.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

I pointed all this out a year ago and nothing has been done.

And nothing will be done because you are unable to make your case and each argument is being shot down.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Congratulations Xhoel you have actually managed to sound more hysterical than Hanky
Xhoel you pretend like there is no problem with German supply, so why is it being rewritten for WIET2 then? Answer because it doesn't work in WITE1.

I asked you to show us your spearheads and HQs so we can help you optimize them. I also went and did a test and managed to reach Leningrad in 4 turns using the parameters that you yourself specified (no combat from the Panzers and no resistance from the Soviets). I have proven you wrong. And you didn't answer my question: What is the problem with the Germans reaching Leningrad on turn 4?

Your best counter to that is that I am being hysterical? [:D][:D]
You sure won that argument [;)]

The Supply system is not being rewritten because the Germans have too little supply in WitE. It is being rewritten to represent a more historical supply system (eg: no infinite freight, double and single rail tracks etc). One of the many complaints has been that the Germans actually have too much supply during the summer.

I extended my hand and tried to help you optimize your spearheads without offending you. This was done because I thought that you have somehow misunderstood the rules and because you don´t know how to use the supply system properly and instead of asking for help were attacking the game. I clearly was mistaken. I went out of my way to test your theory and have proven that it is wrong. Any WitE player is free to recreate what I have stated in post #145 and post their results. I can guarantee you that on turn 4 the Germans will be at the outskirts of Leningrad.

You being yourself cannot comprehend that you are wrong and continue to spew things that make no sense. Have it your way. I won't bother myself with answering to anything you say anymore. It is the same as arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat. No discussion to be had, believe what you want to believe. You keep doing your thing and keep grasping at straws @chuckfourth.

Best regards,
Xhoel

[RedLancer]

I'm beginning to think this is some bizarre form of trolling...

You have completely misrepresented my argument. Let me try again. The map is correct. The boundary you are concerned about represents where the different rail repair rules apply on the map and does not reflect the geography of the Baltic States in 1941. I presumed you had read the Manual and knew that the:

"Baltic Rail Zone: Delineates the area in the former Baltic Republics where compatibility of rail gauge makes repair of railroads easier for the Axis player in the first six months of the war".

The design choice was to have rules that allow a reduced cost of rail repair in those areas where historically rail repair was faster because the rail gauge was standard gauge and not broad gauge.

You have removed the Germans ability to fix that piece of line at the correct historical (Baltic) rate because why?

Because as I have shown the rail between Vilnius and Daugavpils was broad gauge: therefore the cost of repair is higher in those hexes. The rule is about Standard and Broad not Baltic and Russian. It is called the Baltic Rail Zone as a generalisation. This is why the Manual quote above says "in the former Baltic..." and not "of the former Baltic..." which would indicate the rail rules being contiguous with the administrative boundaries of the former Baltic States.

The reduced rail repair cost rules have been added to the game to favour the Axis. This demonstrates the focus on detail the game designers have. To argue that the game been developed to include every little factor that disadvantages the Germans when this rule has been included counters your argument completely.

[King_Solomon]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm beginning to think this is some bizarre form of trolling...

While this has proven entertaining (and very educational, who knew so much about Soviet petrol?), it has grown tiresome. Xhoel was right, please stop feeding the troll. Give yourself a break in anticipation of a repeat performance when WitE2 appears.

Chuckfourth, I'm sorry but this game is not for you nor will it ever be. I would suggest finding one of the many wonderful board games on the Eastern Front which would allow you the benefit of creating/changing any rules you deem fitting. If you need game suggestions I would gladly help.

I realize I am an outsider but I come here because I love the game and to escape our messed-up world for a while, not for the bullshit and name-calling. It's time to move on from this argument. Can we please close this thread?