Matrix Games Forums

When reading accounts of operations on the eastern front, there are often references to the offensive at location x running out of supplies/being delayed because that section of front was served by one single track line. In the game, all railways are the same, and there seems to be no limit to the amount of troops and supplies that can be railed along a railway.

There are many factors that influence the capacity of a railway besides single or double track. Rail weight, curves, number of water towers, sidings etc. It is not necessary to model them all in the game. However, I do think the game ought to differentiate between double and sigle track, and put a limit on how many rail capacity points can be used on a single line.

WITE-2

ORIGINAL: Helpless

WITE-2

And to be fair you need to do the same with the trucks -not all could carry the same.

And to be fair you need to do the same with the trucks -not all could carry the same.

WITE-3

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

The original OP has a valid point... The rail line to Stalingrad was of the limited capacity type. Rail was the predominant supply source with distribution being determined by WHAT was being distributed... i.e. different size trucks is a bit too much and takes away from the OPs post.

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

WITE-4?

Get your ideas together and you might see them in the next GG WW2 game.

Maybe in Gary Grigsby's 'War in the East: Quartermaster's Edition'

Trey

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Maybe in Gary Grigsby's 'War in the East: Quartermaster's Edition'

Trey

Monthly turns to speed up gameplay?

I have yet to see any wargame get the Russian rail net correct. They think all rail lines in the Soviet Union are created equal. This couldn't be farther from the truth. That's one of the problems with all East Front games so why should WitE be different. [;)]

Daily turns and revolver with one bullet is not included.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Maybe in Gary Grigsby's 'War in the East: Quartermaster's Edition'

Trey

Monthly turns to speed up gameplay?

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

And to be fair you need to do the same with the trucks -not all could carry the same.

Would that have an operational impact? The capacity of the rail line serving a certain part of the front would. And truck use appears to be modelled in the game with greater detail than rail capacity usage, as the truck use of each individual unit is accounted for.

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

There are several different levels of in fortifications the game! I feel confident that handles the factors you mention. Rail lines however, are all the same.

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

-1

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

-1

No, he's right. As concrete cures it becomes more dense. He's onto something there. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Aditia

I am also pretty sure not all fortifications were the same either. Does the game differentiate for concrete works that have a different water content?

-1

No, he's right. As concrete cures it becomes more dense. He's onto something there. [:D]

You would also have to find the amount of iron used and the frames used for forms as this has a major impact in the final product. [:'(]

I'd kind of like to see WITE track the pilots separate from the airframes.  They would of course each have settings for morale, experience, fatigue, etc. and I'm guessing that the database would increase by about 20,000 pieces of information for each side of the conflict.  And then after that's done we could tackle the engine(s) for the airplanes, the engine for each of the trucks, the engine for each AFV , etc. 

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

When reading accounts of operations on the eastern front, there are often references to the offensive at location x running out of supplies/being delayed because that section of front was served by one single track line. In the game, all railways are the same, and there seems to be no limit to the amount of troops and supplies that can be railed along a railway.

There are many factors that influence the capacity of a railway besides single or double track. Rail weight, curves, number of water towers, sidings etc. It is not necessary to model them all in the game. However, I do think the game ought to differentiate between double and sigle track, and put a limit on how many rail capacity points can be used on a single line.

Hi!
This is interesting to discuss. Its a very complicated question.
As a whole I have the opinion that this game is an example of a good simulation regarding railway matters.
I havnt seen so far a game with a better, more historical railway net.
It played a decisive role in reality and here it does in the game.
In a way it here also stands for roads (besides terrain changes).
The turn lenght has importance and also the absence of bridges.
Movement points (costs) and track damages are here ways to simulate.
Another matter was the not only single or double track questions but also normal or broad track.
Sometimes double track was reduced to a single track or changed to one normal and one broad track.
Germany also built a lot of " Heeresfeldbahnen " tracks and these are ( understandable) not in the game.
Ex west of Stalingrad, in the Cholmsk area and on the Taman peninsula.
Its also very difficult to have a consensus of which railways that existed
at a special time. Ex there were no usuable rail from Cherson down to Crimea until may-42.
So there has to be realistic simplifications in a game simulating -41-45.
But of course certain changes can be made in a future game version. Ex WitE-2?
GoranW

ORIGINAL: goranw

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

When reading accounts of operations on the eastern front, there are often references to the offensive at location x running out of supplies/being delayed because that section of front was served by one single track line. In the game, all railways are the same, and there seems to be no limit to the amount of troops and supplies that can be railed along a railway.

There are many factors that influence the capacity of a railway besides single or double track. Rail weight, curves, number of water towers, sidings etc. It is not necessary to model them all in the game. However, I do think the game ought to differentiate between double and sigle track, and put a limit on how many rail capacity points can be used on a single line.

Hi!
This is interesting to discuss. Its a very complicated question.
As a whole I have the opinion that this game is an example of a good simulation regarding railway matters.

What's so complicated about historical accounts of supply being bottlenecked due to the rail net?

I havnt seen so far a game with a better, more historical railway net.
It played a decisive role in reality and here it does in the game.

Only if it reflects historical reality. Just because it looks historical doesn't mean it is if the game is abstracting way more supply to a geographical area than the historical rail net could in reality deliver.

In a way it here also stands for roads (besides terrain changes).

okay let's say that there were roads in the area that made up for the less than ideal raillines... Why the historical accounts then regarding the lack of supplies due to the poor rail... Shouldn't the roads then make up for it? Argument doesn't hold water.

the turn lenght has importance and also the absence of bridges.
Movement points (costs) and track damages are here ways to simulate.

What does turn length have to do with it? Daily turns, Weekly turns, or Monthly turns? No matter the scale of the game... To be accurate, supplies to some geographical areas were woefully inadequate.

Another matter was the not only single or double track questions but also normal or broad track.
Sometimes double track was reduced to a single track or changed to one normal and one broad track.
Germany also built a lot of " Heeresfeldbahnen " tracks and these are ( understandable) not in the game.
Ex west of Stalingrad, in the Cholmsk area and on the Taman peninsula.
Its also very difficult to have a consensus of which railways that existed
at a special time. Ex there were no usuable rail from Cherson down to Crimea until may-42.
So there has to be realistic simplifications in a game simulating -41-45.

A game that keeps track of all the cool TOE changes... Tracks individual supply points in the form of General Supply, Ammo, Fuel, w/fuel dumps... then has to make "realistic simplifications"... Ludicrous...

But of course certain changes can be made in a future game version. Ex WitE-2?
GoranW

Now I can agree to this last statement.

Hi!

This is interesting to discuss. Its a very complicated question.
As a whole I have the opinion that this game is an example of a good simulation regarding railway matters.

---What's so complicated about historical accounts of supply being bottlenecked due to the rail net?

-----Thats of course not complicated but the whole thing of simulating railways and their function in a detailed game is.


I havnt seen so far a game with a better, more historical railway net.
It played a decisive role in reality and here it does in the game.

---Only if it reflects historical reality. Just because it looks historical doesn't mean it is if the game is abstracting way more supply to a geographical area than the historical rail net could in reality deliver.

-----The net is very historically drawn. Thats an important part of the game to begin with.
Another thing is to have that in the next step simulating the real transport capacity.


In a way it here also stands for roads (besides terrain changes).

---okay let's say that there were roads in the area that made up for the less than ideal raillines... Why the historical accounts then regarding the lack of supplies due to the poor rail... Shouldn't the roads then make up for it? Argument doesn't hold water.

----- Of course it also stands for roads since there are none in the game.


the turn lenght has importance and also the absence of bridges.
Movement points (costs) and track damages are here ways to simulate.

---What does turn length have to do with it? Daily turns, Weekly turns, or Monthly turns? No matter the scale of the game... To be accurate, supplies to some geographical areas were woefully inadequate.

-----Turn lengths are of importance in simulating the railway system. It brings up questions about
rate of repairing rails, bridges or not and other important questions. Turn lengths are also mostly correlated to game-scale
that then reflects the railway system.


Another matter was the not only single or double track questions but also normal or broad track.
Sometimes double track was reduced to a single track or changed to one normal and one broad track.
Germany also built a lot of " Heeresfeldbahnen " tracks and these are ( understandable) not in the game.
Ex west of Stalingrad, in the Cholmsk area and on the Taman peninsula.
Its also very difficult to have a consensus of which railways that existed
at a special time. Ex there were no usuable rail from Cherson down to Crimea until may-42.
So there has to be realistic simplifications in a game simulating -41-45.

---A game that keeps track of all the cool TOE changes... Tracks individual supply points in the form of General Supply, Ammo, Fuel, w/fuel dumps... then has to make "realistic simplifications"... Ludicrous...

----- I dont find it ludicrous that there are different detail levels in a complex game.
Thats depending on what you want to put forward in a game. Historical sources are also more or less
easy to obtain or reliably. Different aspects are also more or less easy to simulate within the choosen game concept.
But in a way you have a point in that its mostly an advantage if main parts of the game have a similarity regarding complexity.

GoranW