Matrix Games Forums

I find it odd that roads - but not railroads - negate terrain effects for supply tracing purposes. At this scale, I’d imagine railroads to be at least as god as roads for transporting supplies. This is usually not an issue since most railroads have roads running in parallel with them. As an example however, I’m thinking about the railroad only connection between Hanoi & Kunming. Rhodesia also has several railroad only connections.

Railroad track width differences was an issue for the Germans in Russia, but not in the game.
So is there some other thought behind this, am I missing something, or should it be changed?

Thanks!

That is EXACTLY the issue I stumbled accross yesterday when I tried to move an army group from Hanoi to Kunming, but couldn't. (Only that I didn't realize that it is in fact railroad tracks - I thought of it as kind of a "trail".)

Not exactly the same issue.
I’m fine with ground units not being able to ride train coaches into enemy territory.
But I think their supplies should be able to go by train only through friendly (including occupied) territory.

Hi

I can explain the situation with the Hanoi-Kunmning railway as I remember it being raised before.

It was actually back in 2011 with one of our previous games, as I've dug out an old email from then when we were discussing it.

The designer of the map (David, who also designed the World at War map) said that this isolates Kunming from Hanoi, preventing Japan from easily penetrating into Chinese territory via this route.

Additionally, there was no functional road right along the route, just a railway spanning lots of gorges and often being quite steep, which made them somewhat impractical for motor vehicles at the time.

Incidentally, I did go on a Chinese railway some years ago, it went up a mountain at a really large angle. Building it must have been a monumental task, and there was no way anyone could have walked, ridden or driven at that angle.

We therefore decided to leave it as just a rail connection, hence that's why it is the same here in World at War.

Bill

Thanks for the explanation, Bill - I think it is fine the way it is. My problem was that I mistook the Hanoi-Kunming line for something like a "trail" or dirt road, so PHalen is right that it wasn't quite the same issue as the one he raised (even though I too counted on having some supply here).

Thank for your comments Bill!
I’m also fine with the Hanoi-Kunming railroad as it is for unit movement purposes.
My point is that once a unit has moved (through terrain) up along the Hanoi-Kunming railroad, its supply should be able to come up from Hanoi by taking the railroad.
I.e. without suffering terrain effect penalties.

As it is now, the Hanoi-Kunming railroad is effectively only there to eventually enable Japan to operate units between Hanoi & Kunming.
Which doesn’t make sense since that railroad isn’t good enough to carry supplies…
So the railroad might be there for game balance reasons?

The only other examples of railroad-only connections I’ve spotted are in Rhodesia, and there’s not much action going on in Rhodesia anyway.

Sorry about making a big fuss about a tiny issue that I can definitely live with, now that I’ve learned the limitations of railway-only connections.
Cause I assume adjusting terrain effects for supply calculations along railway-only connections may not be that easy to do?

Hi

Just to clarify, the railway serves a few purposes:

1) It represents how supplies were received in China early in the war.

2) If Japan holds both Hanoi and Kunming, then they can operate units to/from Kunming, but better still, if they have a railway connection to Korea then the supply value of their units in Kunming will rise to a maximum value of 8.

I'm afraid that we don't have a way to negate the terrain penalties along the railway as Japanese units advance, but as I say, if you can connect it with Korea then it will become a useful base for further offensives either deeper into China or into Burma.