Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Correct. And, they (or at least the Germans by the end of the war) had a really efficient way to do it. They had a rail car with a hook on the end that could be lowered to ground level. Then, as the train pulled away, the hook ripped up the sleepers - basically "unzipping" the line.

I can see some utility to some sort of option for occasional manual rail destruction by combat units, though.

I found the old thread on Gamesquad where this had been discussed before:

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... #post55982

It contains Snefen's picture in post #44 that I've reattached here. Jeremy MacDonald's post #38 is relevant, too.

[Curtis Lemay]

And the results photo is reattached here:

[Panama]

Nice photos. Thanks for posting them here.

[morleron1225]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And the results photo is reattached here:

I second Panama's thank you. I'd read about this device but had never seen pictures of it or the destruction it could wreak. That's pretty impressive. I don't know how many of you guys are railfans, but that's my other "big" hobby. Seeing the "after" picture brings to mind today's track maintainence vehicles. Large railroads, such as UP, BNSF, etc. use a machine, which is fascinating to watch in operation, for doing tie and ballast refurbishment at one pass. It has what amounts to a giant chainsaw in the front, which cuts the ties down the middle. A little further back are two sets of claws (one on each side) which pull the tie halves from under the rail (no need to worry about pulling spikes as, in general, if a tie is old enough to be replaced the spikes aren't real tight to begin with). Next, another set of claws places a new tie in position, and automatic hammers spike it down. Then comes a shovel and conveyor rig which scoops up the ballast and cleans it. After cleaning the ballast is simply dumped back between the ties. All of this is happening at once, controlled by one guy in a cab. I understand some of the machines can also be run by remote control by an operator standing trackside. One of these machines can repair about 5 to 10 miles of track a day. If you ever see one on a line somewhere it's worthwhile to pull over and watch the show for a while. [;)] One of these machines and a couple of operators replace the old ten to twelve man section crews who used to do this sort of thing by hand. Laying rail, replacing old rail, and most other labor intensive track maintainence operations are now handled by machines - which are usually leased, along with the crews, from companies that specialize in rail maintainence.

I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this topic and I've learned a few things from it. As I mentioned in my original post, this issue is by no means a game breaker, IMHO. I just wanted to throw some ideas out for perhaps making some changes in the way this aspect of the game is handled. Thanks for bearing with me.

See you later,
Ron

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: morleron1


...I don't know how many of you guys are railfans, but that's my other "big" hobby...

It was a bit of trouble, but an opportunity to get this far off topic can't be passed up.





We finally managed to intersect with Southern Pacific 2472 -- a.k.a. the Galloping Ghost of the Western Coast.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this topic and I've learned a few things from it. As I mentioned in my original post, this issue is by no means a game breaker, IMHO. I just wanted to throw some ideas out for perhaps making some changes in the way this aspect of the game is handled. Thanks for bearing with me.

Well, the moral of the photos is that, when such devices are in use, since the rolling stock of the rail line is abstracted in TOAW, the rail line, in effect, destroys itself, right out from under the feet of the advancing enemy. No physical units of either side are involved. And, even if we explicitly modeled rolling stock, we still wouldn't want to explicitly model these devices, since they wouldn't work right in an IGOUGO (or even WEGO) environment. They need to work just the way the game does now - automatically destroying the rail as the enemy enters it.

Now, there must be cases early enough or remote enough where such devices weren't present. Perhaps for those cases it might be useful to have the option for combat units to purposefully "tear up the tracks" in the hex they are in, for an MP cost - like Stoneman's Cavalry, or such.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: morleron1

I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this topic and I've learned a few things from it. As I mentioned in my original post, this issue is by no means a game breaker, IMHO. I just wanted to throw some ideas out for perhaps making some changes in the way this aspect of the game is handled. Thanks for bearing with me.

Well, the moral of the photos is that, when such devices are in use, since the rolling stock of the rail line is abstracted in TOAW, the rail line, in effect, destroys itself, right out from under the feet of the advancing enemy. No physical units of either side are involved. And, even if we explicitly modeled rolling stock, we still wouldn't want to explicitly model these devices, since they wouldn't work right in an IGOUGO (or even WEGO) environment. They need to work just the way the game does now - automatically destroying the rail as the enemy enters it.

Now, there must be cases early enough or remote enough where such devices weren't present. Perhaps for those cases it might be useful to have the option for combat units to purposefully "tear up the tracks" in the hex they are in, for an MP cost - like Stoneman's Cavalry, or such.

I tend to see it as all just the general administrative-physical-staffing problem of getting the railroad up and running again. Even if there's no deliberate effort to destroy the railroad at all, the 8:05 isn't going to calmly pull up at Falaise station the morning after the battle -- for one, all the employees have probably made themselves scarce.

So you pick your chance of damage, your auto-repair capacity, your number of rail repair units, your supply radius, etc -- even your rail hexes themselves -- to generate whatever seems to be the most appropriate overall effect.

Whether Pzgr. Regiment 351 could or could not pull up rail lines and how long it would take to do it is about as relevant as whether eggs really could keep in the warehouse over the winter. It's simply not the level TOAW operates at.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Whether Pzgr. Regiment 351 could or could not pull up rail lines and how long it would take to do it is about as relevant as whether eggs really could keep in the warehouse over the winter. It's simply not the level TOAW operates at.

But whether Stoneman's Cavalry could is relevant. It's an issue for CFNA, too. Anywhere early or remote.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Whether Pzgr. Regiment 351 could or could not pull up rail lines and how long it would take to do it is about as relevant as whether eggs really could keep in the warehouse over the winter. It's simply not the level TOAW operates at.

But whether Stoneman's Cavalry could is relevant. It's an issue for CFNA, too. Anywhere early or remote.

It's also relevant whether Panzer Regiment 5 had the capacity to carry out engine changes in the field.

However, it's not the level TOAW operates at.

I'd say the ability of Stoneman's cavalry to destroy rail lines would enter into the designer's meditations as he decided on the whole mix of factors determining the supply environment I mentioned above (although he's kind of DOA if he's trying to use TOAW for the Civil War in the first place).

However, it's a mistake to seek to render such arcane minutia directly. That's the way one winds up with lots of pretty bells and whistles -- and no simulation of anything at all.

I made my living running a one-truck long distance moving operation until recently. Everything was me: driver, accountant, mechanic. At that level, I would indeed consider precisely what maintenance to carry out before the next cross country run. Oil change? Yes. Air Filter? Okay for now. Time for a lube? Shit...I better.

If I'd had a hundred trucks, I could have ruined the company thinking that way. A certain level of 'abstraction' would definitely have been called for.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They need to work just the way the game does now - automatically destroying the rail as the enemy enters it.

I tend to see it as all just the general administrative-physical-staffing problem of getting the railroad up and running again.

Why doesn’t this same phenomenon occur when ports, air fields, supply points (the kind that are double sided of course) or bridges change hands? What’s so special about the rail road laborer and manager that the 8:05 doesn’t show until an engineering team arrives and spends at least a full turn on scene?

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They need to work just the way the game does now - automatically destroying the rail as the enemy enters it.

I tend to see it as all just the general administrative-physical-staffing problem of getting the railroad up and running again.

Why doesn’t this same phenomenon occur when ports, air fields, supply points (the kind that are double sided of course) or bridges change hands? What’s so special about the rail road laborer and manager that the 8:05 doesn’t show until an engineering team arrives and spends at least a full turn on scene?

Regards, RhinoBones

Bridges? Perhaps the other facilities should be delayed, though. Certainly ports. However, it doesn't strike me as the most imperative revision to be made: better the railways than nothing.

Anyway, you can use events to delay the appearance of supply points easily enough -- and you could get something of the desired effect for ports with exclusion zones, delayed sea lift, blocking units, and the like -- so there are ways already.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They need to work just the way the game does now - automatically destroying the rail as the enemy enters it.

I tend to see it as all just the general administrative-physical-staffing problem of getting the railroad up and running again.

Why doesn’t this same phenomenon occur when ports, air fields, supply points (the kind that are double sided of course) or bridges change hands? What’s so special about the rail road laborer and manager that the 8:05 doesn’t show until an engineering team arrives and spends at least a full turn on scene?

Regards, RhinoBones

He's right you know. Also, why is it as easy to repair rails a city (marshalling yards and numerous bridges) as it is out in the country side? Would be much easier to damage an airfield (crater) than the infrastructure of a railroad I would think. Doesn't matter how easy it would be to fix, it's the damaging that's important. [;)]

On a side note, why can't my units cross a railroad bridge unless they're on a train? [&:]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd say the ability of Stoneman's cavalry to destroy rail lines would enter into the designer's meditations as he decided on the whole mix of factors determining the supply environment I mentioned above (although he's kind of DOA if he's trying to use TOAW for the Civil War in the first place).

However, it's a mistake to seek to render such arcane minutia directly. That's the way one winds up with lots of pretty bells and whistles -- and no simulation of anything at all.

Destroying or not destroying a rail hex is clearly an operational decision that has considerable impact on TOAW games. And there are some cases where handling it randomly is not very realistic. I'm not saying it's an emergency need - just that it belongs on the list.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd say the ability of Stoneman's cavalry to destroy rail lines would enter into the designer's meditations as he decided on the whole mix of factors determining the supply environment I mentioned above (although he's kind of DOA if he's trying to use TOAW for the Civil War in the first place).

However, it's a mistake to seek to render such arcane minutia directly. That's the way one winds up with lots of pretty bells and whistles -- and no simulation of anything at all.

Destroying or not destroying a rail hex is clearly an operational decision that has considerable impact on TOAW games. And there are some cases where handling it randomly is not very realistic. I'm not saying it's an emergency need - just that it belongs on the list.

...I think you head this route, you open all sorts of things that are currently abstracted and best left that way. We aren't working with staffs of hundreds as we play, and a lot of the work we're missing is damned dull.

I tend to see the 'rail hex' a partially an abstraction in the first place -- whether it's there at all has as much to do with what kind of supply environment you're trying to create as whether there really was or wasn't a rail line there, and what kind of shape it was in, and what rolling stock was available, and so on. Similarly, incidentally, with ports, airfields, and supply points. These are all devices whose presence is only partially determined by the concrete reality on the ground at that point.

So fretting about how easy the rail hex should be to destroy is kind of like worrying about what size shot would be best for bagging the Easter Bunny. It fails to recognize the true nature of the beast.

Currently, you can render it effectively impossible to repair a rail hex -- ever. You can also cause the trains to keep running right along no matter what. You can have any point in between. You can randomize the repair effect, or you can make it a matter of choosing to repair a specific hex. You can make it happen fast, you can make it happen slow.

Given the scale we're operating at, and given the range of things either concrete or abstract a 'rail line' represents, that's quite all right.

Naturally, if a 'rail destruction' option is something that the designer can introduce or prevent completely, it wouldn't do any actual harm, and in some cases would be of some use. However, I'd hate to see it as an option for a unit activity that the designer couldn't prevent players from exercising. One more damned house rule...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


I tend to see it as all just the general administrative-physical-staffing problem of getting the railroad up and running again.

Why doesn’t this same phenomenon occur when ports, air fields, supply points (the kind that are double sided of course) or bridges change hands? What’s so special about the rail road laborer and manager that the 8:05 doesn’t show until an engineering team arrives and spends at least a full turn on scene?

Regards, RhinoBones

He's right you know. Also, why is it as easy to repair rails a city (marshalling yards and numerous bridges) as it is out in the country side? Would be much easier to damage an airfield (crater) than the infrastructure of a railroad I would think. Doesn't matter how easy it would be to fix, it's the damaging that's important. [;)]

Well, come to that, some air forces don't really need airfields. The Luftwaffe could find a meadow for its Stukas and Bf-109's in half the hexes in Europe -- and did.

Many of these things are abstractions -- and rightly so. An 'airfield' in TOAW is as much reflection of how much air power you want a player to be able to exert from a given point as it is a reflection of whether or not there was indeed a modern airport with concrete runways there.

If you start thinking of them as necessarily the concrete, physical object, you're heading down the wrong road. I can think of several ways in which the way TOAW handles airfields could be improved. However, making it possible to blow them up is the least of my priorities. After all, I never heard of one rendered unusable for long. The holes can usually be filled in in a day or two.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: rhinobones




Why doesn’t this same phenomenon occur when ports, air fields, supply points (the kind that are double sided of course) or bridges change hands? What’s so special about the rail road laborer and manager that the 8:05 doesn’t show until an engineering team arrives and spends at least a full turn on scene?

Regards, RhinoBones

He's right you know. Also, why is it as easy to repair rails a city (marshalling yards and numerous bridges) as it is out in the country side? Would be much easier to damage an airfield (crater) than the infrastructure of a railroad I would think. Doesn't matter how easy it would be to fix, it's the damaging that's important. [;)]

Well, come to that, some air forces don't really need airfields. The Luftwaffe could find a meadow for its Stukas and Bf-109's in half the hexes in Europe -- and did.

Many of these things are abstractions -- and rightly so. An 'airfield' in TOAW is as much reflection of how much air power you want a player to be able to exert from a given point as it is a reflection of whether or not there was indeed a modern airport with concrete runways there.

If you start thinking of them as necessarily the concrete, physical object, you're heading down the wrong road. I can think of several ways in which the way TOAW handles airfields could be improved. However, making it possible to blow them up is the least of my priorities. After all, I never heard of one rendered unusable for long. The holes can usually be filled in in a day or two.

Yeah, I always thought it might be nice to be able to operate WW1/2 aircraft out of any open terrain hex. For that matter alot of roads would work quite well.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama




He's right you know. Also, why is it as easy to repair rails a city (marshalling yards and numerous bridges) as it is out in the country side? Would be much easier to damage an airfield (crater) than the infrastructure of a railroad I would think. Doesn't matter how easy it would be to fix, it's the damaging that's important. [;)]

Well, come to that, some air forces don't really need airfields. The Luftwaffe could find a meadow for its Stukas and Bf-109's in half the hexes in Europe -- and did.

Many of these things are abstractions -- and rightly so. An 'airfield' in TOAW is as much reflection of how much air power you want a player to be able to exert from a given point as it is a reflection of whether or not there was indeed a modern airport with concrete runways there.

If you start thinking of them as necessarily the concrete, physical object, you're heading down the wrong road. I can think of several ways in which the way TOAW handles airfields could be improved. However, making it possible to blow them up is the least of my priorities. After all, I never heard of one rendered unusable for long. The holes can usually be filled in in a day or two.

Yeah, I always thought it might be nice to be able to operate WW1/2 aircraft out of any open terrain hex. For that matter alot of roads would work quite well.

One can make up 'land carriers' and modify certain aircraft to operate on them. However, having real carriers in the scenario at the same time will produce certain odd effects.

In Seelowe, there are German land carriers and real British aircraft carriers -- which usually wind up empty.

Occasionally, a Bf-110 suddenly appears in the middle of the North Sea. It think it flies to a hex where a British carrier was.

It's not a big problem -- the Bf-110 can fly away to a more orthodox base. But it is damned odd to see. Just sitting out there. About forty miles off the coast in the vicinity of Newcastle.

[Panama]

1.17 Cheat prevention: In PBEM mode, game option to disable the “Undo” button.

This is in the wishlist but not in the blue. I was hoping it would show up. I don't really think it should be under cheat prevention since it's readily detectable but it would still be nice to have had it in 3.4. [:(]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Currently, you can render it effectively impossible to repair a rail hex -- ever. You can also cause the trains to keep running right along no matter what. You can have any point in between. You can randomize the repair effect, or you can make it a matter of choosing to repair a specific hex. You can make it happen fast, you can make it happen slow.

But you cannot choose a specific rail hex to destroy while leaving others intact.

Given the scale we're operating at, and given the range of things either concrete or abstract a 'rail line' represents, that's quite all right.

It's not alright if you're raiding the enemy rear with your cavalry and want to do as much destruction as possible - then later advancing with your main force and want to do as little destruction as possible. That's not minutia - it's operational decisions.

I even have a peculiar problem in CFNA. The CW can repair the rail line from Alexandria to Tobruk. But, I can't leave it in operation if the Axis capture it, so Axis rail damage must be set to a very high value. But, that means that the CW will have to rebuild the entire thing after they shift the tide. If, on the other hand, the CW could just destroy a couple of rails around Tobruk, then Axis rail damage could be set to zero. Then the Axis could still be denied use of the rail, while the CW wouldn't need to rebuild.

Naturally, if a 'rail destruction' option is something that the designer can introduce or prevent completely, it wouldn't do any actual harm, and in some cases would be of some use. However, I'd hate to see it as an option for a unit activity that the designer couldn't prevent players from exercising. One more damned house rule...

Of course it could be done wrong. But it could be done right, too.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I even have a peculiar problem in CFNA. The CW can repair the rail line from Alexandria to Tobruk. But, I can't leave it in operation if the Axis capture it, so Axis rail damage must be set to a very high value. But, that means that the CW will have to rebuild the entire thing after they shift the tide. If, on the other hand, the CW could just destroy a couple of rails around Tobruk, then Axis rail damage could be set to zero. Then the Axis could still be denied use of the rail, while the CW wouldn't need to rebuild.


Of course it could be done wrong. But it could be done right, too.

But given the campaign going differently -- say Rommel having taken Tobruk in April 1941 and then having played see-saw between Halfaya and the Nile for the next eighteen months rather than between El Agheila and El Alamein -- wouldn't it start to be damned odd that the Axis can never get this rail line into operation?

Indeed, even the campaign having gone slightly differently -- say Rommel having had free reign to decide when to fall back from El Alamein -- wouldn't he have had time to have well and truly wrecked that rail line? Then your problem would be that the rail line is peculiarly impervious to Axis crowbars and dynamite.

That's the thing with these sort of devices: they work for one set of circumstances, and one set of circumstances only. Change the circumstances, and what starts occurring is nonsensical.

Anyway, if I were looking at changes in the program that would facilitate simulating the North African campaign, I'd be more interested in devices that would permit the stockpiling of supplies for that next lunge ala Crusader and January-May 1942 mutual build-up than coming up with something to simulate that rail line.

From my point of view, some kind of selective total destruction option is a change that done right, will simply be a device that designers will only rarely make available to players. After all, it would be a rather artificial device in the first place for the retreating Commonwealth player to sabotage the rail line in two spots only but carefully leave the rest of it intact. They'd probably ignore the thing entirely or simply rip up every bit of it they could.

Done wrong, such a change will just be one more obstacle for the designer to circumvent when he is designing a given scenario. What if players can now render a rail hex permanently unfixable but he doesn't want them to have that ability?