Comprehensive Wishlist

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Panama

What benefit do you get from defending on the river.

The attackers have to have major ferry support to assault you (again, assuming it's a super river). That can make you very hard to dislodge sometimes.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

What benefit do you get from defending on the river.

The attackers have to have major ferry support to assault you (again, assuming it's a super river). That can make you very hard to dislodge sometimes.

Ahem...first I'm going to asssume by on the river you mean on the river hex. Can't see any other meaning for that. If you are ON the river hex they don't need anything but rocks and sticks to assault you. If you are on the other side (a hex adjacent to the river hex) they would need major ferry to cross the river to attack. Are we playing the same game?

Which brings up the question, why are the rivers IN the hex instead of along the hexside?
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

What benefit do you get from defending on the river.

The attackers have to have major ferry support to assault you (again, assuming it's a super river). That can make you very hard to dislodge sometimes.

Ahem...first I'm going to asssume by on the river you mean on the river hex. Can't see any other meaning for that. If you are ON the river hex they don't need anything but rocks and sticks to assault you. If you are on the other side (a hex adjacent to the river hex) they would need major ferry to cross the river to attack. Are we playing the same game?

Which brings up the question, why are the rivers IN the hex instead of along the hexside?

They probably should be along the hexside. It's a bit late for that, though.

I think having the defender gain the defensive bonus by being on the river hex itself would improve matters in a lot of ways. It would be necessary for the program to check for ferrying ability in the attacking stack, which sounds like a pain, but assuming we can get Ralph to work up the routines, it's not an insuperable objection.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

...
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Veers
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:04 am

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Veers »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




The attackers have to have major ferry support to assault you (again, assuming it's a super river). That can make you very hard to dislodge sometimes.

Ahem...first I'm going to asssume by on the river you mean on the river hex. Can't see any other meaning for that. If you are ON the river hex they don't need anything but rocks and sticks to assault you. If you are on the other side (a hex adjacent to the river hex) they would need major ferry to cross the river to attack. Are we playing the same game?

Which brings up the question, why are the rivers IN the hex instead of along the hexside?

They probably should be along the hexside. It's a bit late for that, though.

I think having the defender gain the defensive bonus by being on the river hex itself would improve matters in a lot of ways. It would be necessary for the program to check for ferrying ability in the attacking stack, which sounds like a pain, but assuming we can get Ralph to work up the routines, it's not an insuperable objection.

Yeah, that'd be a nice improvement.
To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

I ran across some figures which give some idea of the ammunition requirements for infantry as opposed to artillery. For some period or other of the fighting for Stalingrad in the fall, Sixth Army consumed 25 million rounds of small arms ammunition, half a million AT rounds, and 3/4's of a million artillery shells.

To get some idea of the weight of munitions involved, I'll figure on twenty rifle rounds per pound, ten pounds per AT round, and forty pounds per artillery shell.

That gives 1.25 million pounds of small arms ammunition, 5 million pounds of AT ammunition, and 30 million pounds of artillery ammunition.

One could posit one thing or another about the fighting at Stalingrad, but at least these numbers suggest the munitions requirements of infantry are almost absurdly minimal in comparison to those of artillery.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Huzar
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:02 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Huzar »

The attack arrow on attacker tile is too small!

It is microscopic! Having a big attack arrow (on defender tile) like arrow for movement would be a great improvement, you would immediately know where the attacks are without using the magnifying glass...
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Silvanski »

Do you mean the arrowheads.bmp file? I changed them to a bright yellow, which helps a bit

Image
Attachments
arrowheads.gif
arrowheads.gif (940 Bytes) Viewed 73 times
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
Huzar
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:02 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Huzar »

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
Do you mean the arrowheads.bmp file? I changed them to a bright yellow, which helps a bit

Yes, I changed them to bright red/yellow and still it is almost useless for me, because its microscopic. I cannot understand why the developers didn't made them such as the movement arrows - big and visible.
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

I colored mine red and made them bigger so they would be more visible in the huge view. Helps alot.
User avatar
morleron1225
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:05 pm
Contact:

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by morleron1225 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

About the "activated" rail line definition, I think is pretty clear: if a line is being used at near maximun capacity, looks like pretty active to me. It certainly wasn't passive.

Contrast this with how much tonnage the CW could move down that same line, or how much a normally active rail line could be expected to carry. I would say there are degrees of activation, rather than a simple yes or no. They could have brought more carriers or whatever else was needed to fully activate it.

Clearly, I can't represent it as a functioning rail line in CFNA, the way things work now. That would put El Alamein in full supply.
And the article suggest that the line was not used at all, this is how I understand it, this is how You understood it as well, is pretty unambiguous. Nolfi screwed up there, no doubt about that.

Yep.

While we're discussing the railroad aspect of TOAW, I have a small nit to pick - one which has existed since TOAW I: there is no movement penalty for units which destroy/damage a rail line. It seems to me that there should be a penalty attached to a unit which is destroying a rail line as the damage that is being represented is more than simply tearing up the rails. In order to really damage a rail line beyond easy repair it is necessary to blow up most bridges, large and small, destroy junction control towers and their associated interlocking controls, destroy signals/semaphores, damage automatic switch machines, blow up roundhouses, back shops, coaling towers (fueling stations for modern scenarios), and other railroad infrastructure. One should also make arrangements to either move rolling stock and locomotives out of the way or destroy them - this is particularly important in East Front campaigns in WWII as the Russian rail gauge is wider than the standard 4' 8 1/2" and it would have simplified the German's job of rebuilding the railroads if they could have simply re-spiked the rail to the Russian gauge and used Russian rolling stock and locomotives.

I mention all of this because one of the things which the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey revealed was that when a marshalling yard was attacked the Germans could often repair the damage in less than a day. It wasn't until we turned the P-51s and other escorts loose for low level attacks on the return to their bases and really began concentrating on destroying Reichsbahn locomotives that we put a serious dent in the German's ability to move goods and troops via rail. It is ridiculously easy to simply re-spike rails (even if re-gauging them at the same time). Railroads are remarkably resilient and really putting them out of operation requires planning and time. Allowing units to simply move along a rail line, destroying everything in sight, with no movement penalty is not at all realistic.

I realize that this is a relatively small item - but this discussion is about wish list items and this is one of mine - along with a bunch of other things that are mostly covered in the comprehensive wish list that Curtis LeMay maintains.

Just my $.02,
Ron
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

About the rails I have the following reactions.

1. The job of destroying them probably wouldn't go to combat units in the first place. After all, the game mechanics are such that the advancing player 'damages' the rail line by moving into the hex -- but ninety nine times out of a hundred, it would actually be the owning player that would want to destroy it.

2. The scenario designer can set the probability that an ownership change will 'damage' the railroad.

3. 'Rail lines' are starting to become an abstraction with me -- like 'trucks.' I'm beginning to think of them as 'potential major supply conduits.' Like, I'd calmly lay a 'rail line' right from Tunis to Alexandria (depending on the other parameters I set for the scenario.) It's more important how much supply could move along a given corridor than whether or not there was actually a choo-choo. From this it follows that any 'damage' is an abstraction as well.

Rail lines vary a lot in capacity anyway. The narrow gauge Hejaz railway was still running as far as Ma'an or something in World War Two -- but I bet it hadn't a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the capacity of the trunk line from Cairo to Alexandria. Then too, technically one would want all kinds of partial damage -- like that railway the Afrika Korps was able to sort of use. On this topic, I've also started representing a lot of rails as 'damaged' from the start if I've a low opinion of their capacity as-is. The player will have to invest some 'rail repair' resources if he wants to make the route into a major supply conduit.

Really, the rails (and their chance of being damaged) are best thought of as part of the designers' tool kit to get whatever effect he's after. I certainly wouldn't want the mechanism governing their function determined by how long it would actually take to wreck the local SP tracks.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

About the rails I have the following reactions.

1. The job of destroying them probably wouldn't go to combat units in the first place. After all, the game mechanics are such that the advancing player 'damages' the rail line by moving into the hex -- but ninety nine times out of a hundred, it would actually be the owning player that would want to destroy it.

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.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
morleron1225
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:05 pm
Contact:

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by morleron1225 »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

About the rails I have the following reactions.

1. The job of destroying them probably wouldn't go to combat units in the first place. After all, the game mechanics are such that the advancing player 'damages' the rail line by moving into the hex -- but ninety nine times out of a hundred, it would actually be the owning player that would want to destroy it.

2. The scenario designer can set the probability that an ownership change will 'damage' the railroad.

3. 'Rail lines' are starting to become an abstraction with me -- like 'trucks.' I'm beginning to think of them as 'potential major supply conduits.' Like, I'd calmly lay a 'rail line' right from Tunis to Alexandria (depending on the other parameters I set for the scenario.) It's more important how much supply could move along a given corridor than whether or not there was actually a choo-choo. From this it follows that any 'damage' is an abstraction as well.

Rail lines vary a lot in capacity anyway. The narrow gauge Hejaz railway was still running as far as Ma'an or something in World War Two -- but I bet it hadn't a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the capacity of the trunk line from Cairo to Alexandria. Then too, technically one would want all kinds of partial damage -- like that railway the Afrika Korps was able to sort of use. On this topic, I've also started representing a lot of rails as 'damaged' from the start if I've a low opinion of their capacity as-is. The player will have to invest some 'rail repair' resources if he wants to make the route into a major supply conduit.

Really, the rails (and their chance of being damaged) are best thought of as part of the designers' tool kit to get whatever effect he's after. I certainly wouldn't want the mechanism governing their function determined by how long it would actually take to wreck the local SP tracks.

Hi Colin,

I think that you are correct in some regards, not so much in others. Yes, the actual destruction of the railroads was, generally, carried out by rear area units not by combat units per se. That said, a couple of things come to mind. We already have in the game the type of units that would have performed this work - the rail repair units (on the flip-side, look closely [;)]). Why not allow them to undertake the work either at some movement penalty or with a decreasing chance of success per hex to be destroyed (that might get tiresome, maybe do it automatically with some pre-set flag?). If a combat unit is tasked to destroy the rail then I can see one of two choices (maybe both under some conditions) - either the destruction is not as thorough, giving the opponent's rail repair units a better chance of fixing things, or do the job thoroughly with a higher movement penalty.

Yes, scenario designers can set the chance that rails are damaged with ownership change. To me this represents more the "collateral damage" incidentally inflicted by combat rather than the deliberate destruction we're discussing.

The rail lines do represent an abstraction of sorts in that we don't actually take care of scheduling train movements. However, they also represent physical assets which can be destroyed and rendered unusable in a way that regular roads cannot, i.e., even if you rip up all the concrete on a road the "road" is still there and immediately usable to some degree, albeit with lower capacity and speed than with a well maintained road. In that sense rails are much different in that ripping up the ties (sleepers to those of you across the pond), removing the rails, etc. renders the railroad unusable as such until repairs are made - trains can't move without rails to run on.

Rail lines do indeed vary greatly in capacity. There are two main factors that affect that - rail gauge and loading gauge. Rail gauge is the distance between the rails - as most people know. However, loading gauge is, in some ways more important. For instance, the standard rail gauge in the U.S. and Great Britain are the same, 4' 8 1/2". However, the loading gauge is considerably larger in the U.S. than in G.B.. This allows U.S. railroads to run larger cars, which have higher capacities than the railroads in G.B.. Thus, for any given number or trains U.S. railroads can handle more tonnage than railroads in G.B.. However, that's the sort of detail that we don't need to concern ourselves with in TOAW - thank God. The main difference between the rail lines you mention in North Africa arose from the double-tracking of the main line between Cairo and Alexandria; a factor which roughly triples (or more) the capacity of a given line, depending on the type of signaling and control systems involved. That plus the fact that the RAF more-or-less bombed the line in Libya into oblivion at every opportunity made a big difference in the supply capabilities of the two roads. I suppose that there could be a design switch which would allow scenario designers to take that sort of thing into account by increasing the supply levels for double-tracked lines vs. single track, but I'm not sure we want to get involved to that level with TOAW.

While I agree that rail damage chances are part of the scenario designer's toolbox I think I failed to make my reasoning clear in my initial post. My main issue is that it seems unreasonable to me that units, be they combat or rear echelon, can zip along a railroad madly ripping things up with no movement penalty, yet it takes a rail repair unit at least one turn to repair a single hex. Thus, a retreating defender can ensure that an attacker might need weeks, maybe months, to restore a line to service. While there is some truth in that, witness the Germans in Operation Barbarossa, in many ways the rate of repair (for at least minimal service) is/was more dependent on the number of rail repair units a given force had available. The Germans failed to allocate sufficient assets to that task in Barbarossa and paid the price for their error. Perhaps the best way to handle the discrepancy would be to allow rail repair units to repair more than one hex per turn with a decreasing chance of success per hex. That would probably be easier to implement (though I really don't know) than my earlier suggestion.

As I mentioned originally, this is just a small nit and certainly does not ruin the game, for me at least. TOAW is, IMHO, the best wargame of its type ever. But to keep it that way we should all be looking for ways of improving it and this item is my small attempt to do so. [:)] Keep up the good work and maybe, when TOAW IV comes out we'll have a game so capable we'll never play anything else. Wait, that's practically the case with me now.

Just my $.02,
Ron
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

About the rails I have the following reactions.

1. The job of destroying them probably wouldn't go to combat units in the first place. After all, the game mechanics are such that the advancing player 'damages' the rail line by moving into the hex -- but ninety nine times out of a hundred, it would actually be the owning player that would want to destroy it.

2. The scenario designer can set the probability that an ownership change will 'damage' the railroad.

3. 'Rail lines' are starting to become an abstraction with me -- like 'trucks.' I'm beginning to think of them as 'potential major supply conduits.' Like, I'd calmly lay a 'rail line' right from Tunis to Alexandria (depending on the other parameters I set for the scenario.) It's more important how much supply could move along a given corridor than whether or not there was actually a choo-choo. From this it follows that any 'damage' is an abstraction as well.

Rail lines vary a lot in capacity anyway. The narrow gauge Hejaz railway was still running as far as Ma'an or something in World War Two -- but I bet it hadn't a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the capacity of the trunk line from Cairo to Alexandria. Then too, technically one would want all kinds of partial damage -- like that railway the Afrika Korps was able to sort of use. On this topic, I've also started representing a lot of rails as 'damaged' from the start if I've a low opinion of their capacity as-is. The player will have to invest some 'rail repair' resources if he wants to make the route into a major supply conduit.

Really, the rails (and their chance of being damaged) are best thought of as part of the designers' tool kit to get whatever effect he's after. I certainly wouldn't want the mechanism governing their function determined by how long it would actually take to wreck the local SP tracks.

Hi Colin,

I think that you are correct in some regards, not so much in others. Yes, the actual destruction of the railroads was, generally, carried out by rear area units not by combat units per se. That said, a couple of things come to mind. We already have in the game the type of units that would have performed this work - the rail repair units (on the flip-side, look closely [;)]). Why not allow them to undertake the work either at some movement penalty or with a decreasing chance of success per hex to be destroyed (that might get tiresome, maybe do it automatically with some pre-set flag?). If a combat unit is tasked to destroy the rail then I can see one of two choices (maybe both under some conditions) - either the destruction is not as thorough, giving the opponent's rail repair units a better chance of fixing things, or do the job thoroughly with a higher movement penalty.

Yes, scenario designers can set the chance that rails are damaged with ownership change. To me this represents more the "collateral damage" incidentally inflicted by combat rather than the deliberate destruction we're discussing.

The rail lines do represent an abstraction of sorts in that we don't actually take care of scheduling train movements. However, they also represent physical assets which can be destroyed and rendered unusable in a way that regular roads cannot, i.e., even if you rip up all the concrete on a road the "road" is still there and immediately usable to some degree, albeit with lower capacity and speed than with a well maintained road. In that sense rails are much different in that ripping up the ties (sleepers to those of you across the pond), removing the rails, etc. renders the railroad unusable as such until repairs are made - trains can't move without rails to run on.

Rail lines do indeed vary greatly in capacity. There are two main factors that affect that - rail gauge and loading gauge. Rail gauge is the distance between the rails - as most people know. However, loading gauge is, in some ways more important. For instance, the standard rail gauge in the U.S. and Great Britain are the same, 4' 8 1/2". However, the loading gauge is considerably larger in the U.S. than in G.B.. This allows U.S. railroads to run larger cars, which have higher capacities than the railroads in G.B.. Thus, for any given number or trains U.S. railroads can handle more tonnage than railroads in G.B.. However, that's the sort of detail that we don't need to concern ourselves with in TOAW - thank God. The main difference between the rail lines you mention in North Africa arose from the double-tracking of the main line between Cairo and Alexandria; a factor which roughly triples (or more) the capacity of a given line, depending on the type of signaling and control systems involved. That plus the fact that the RAF more-or-less bombed the line in Libya into oblivion at every opportunity made a big difference in the supply capabilities of the two roads. I suppose that there could be a design switch which would allow scenario designers to take that sort of thing into account by increasing the supply levels for double-tracked lines vs. single track, but I'm not sure we want to get involved to that level with TOAW.

While I agree that rail damage chances are part of the scenario designer's toolbox I think I failed to make my reasoning clear in my initial post. My main issue is that it seems unreasonable to me that units, be they combat or rear echelon, can zip along a railroad madly ripping things up with no movement penalty, yet it takes a rail repair unit at least one turn to repair a single hex. Thus, a retreating defender can ensure that an attacker might need weeks, maybe months, to restore a line to service. While there is some truth in that, witness the Germans in Operation Barbarossa, in many ways the rate of repair (for at least minimal service) is/was more dependent on the number of rail repair units a given force had available. The Germans failed to allocate sufficient assets to that task in Barbarossa and paid the price for their error. Perhaps the best way to handle the discrepancy would be to allow rail repair units to repair more than one hex per turn with a decreasing chance of success per hex. That would probably be easier to implement (though I really don't know) than my earlier suggestion.

As I mentioned originally, this is just a small nit and certainly does not ruin the game, for me at least. TOAW is, IMHO, the best wargame of its type ever. But to keep it that way we should all be looking for ways of improving it and this item is my small attempt to do so. [:)] Keep up the good work and maybe, when TOAW IV comes out we'll have a game so capable we'll never play anything else. Wait, that's practically the case with me now.

Just my $.02,
Ron

The Soviets didn't have to be concerned about ripping up rails once the Axis got beyond the old 1939 boundries.
User avatar
morleron1225
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:05 pm
Contact:

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by morleron1225 »

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Soviets didn't have to be concerned about ripping up rails once the Axis got beyond the old 1939 boundries.

Actually, that's not correct. Simply re-gaugeing track on undamaged ties is not particularly difficult. For example, in 1886 some 11 thousand miles of track in the former Confederate States of America were changed in a single weekend. See: http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html for more details. Yes, the change was planned ahead of time and workers and supplies were pre-positioned along the lines so the example is not directly comparable. However, it would have been relatively easy for German rail crews to re-gauge several miles of track daily of the underlying roadbed was still in good shape.

Also, there were facilities along the old Soviet border to facilitate changing the trucks on freight cars between the differing gauges. The above link gives an idea of how that was accomplished. What it boils down to is that the Soviets were not relieved of the need to continue destroying rail infrastructure simply because the rail gauge changed.

Just my $.02,
Ron
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
GnuPG public key available at: pgp.mit.edu
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: morleron1



I think that you are correct in some regards, not so much in others. Yes, the actual destruction of the railroads was, generally, carried out by rear area units not by combat units per se. That said, a couple of things come to mind. We already have in the game the type of units that would have performed this work - the rail repair units (on the flip-side, look closely [;)]). Why not allow them to undertake the work either at some movement penalty or with a decreasing chance of success per hex to be destroyed (that might get tiresome, maybe do it automatically with some pre-set flag?). If a combat unit is tasked to destroy the rail then I can see one of two choices (maybe both under some conditions) - either the destruction is not as thorough, giving the opponent's rail repair units a better chance of fixing things, or do the job thoroughly with a higher movement penalty.

I'd note that a well-and-truly wrecked rail line ain't going to go back into service at all in anything resembling an OPART time frame.

After all, it varies, but in your typical TOAW scenario where dedicated rail repair is a serious part of the scenario, you're 'rebuilding' about 10 km of rail line a day.

That's not bad -- and not what would happen if all the rails really have been ripped up, and all the tunnels blown in, and all the rolling stock destroyed, and the roadbed bulldozed, and...

You'll be fixing that thing for the next two years -- not the next month. A railroad can be wrecked to the point where all you've got left is the surveyed route.

My point is that both 'rail destruction' and 'rail repair' are both abstractions the designer determines to reflect on the one hand whatever casual disruption and damage the retreating player (and just being fought over in general) has brought about, and on the other hand, the advancing player's ability to get things up and running again to some extent.

Really, in many cases, what you mean by 'rail destruction' would entail the complete removal of the rail hex, and by 'repair' the actual creation of a new hex.

Yes, scenario designers can set the chance that rails are damaged with ownership change. To me this represents more the "collateral damage" incidentally inflicted by combat rather than the deliberate destruction we're discussing.

But there you are. This 'collateral damage' is all that happens in OPART. There's no mechanism at all for 'the deliberate destruction we're discussing.'

...At least, no direct mechanism. If one sets the probability that the rail line will be destroyed very high, and strictly limits the advancing player's ability to fix it, one has created a mechanism to effectively simulate serious demolition. Of course, it doesn't take any work on the part of the retreating player.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Soviets didn't have to be concerned about ripping up rails once the Axis got beyond the old 1939 boundries.

Actually, that's not correct. Simply re-gaugeing track on undamaged ties is not particularly difficult. For example, in 1886 some 11 thousand miles of track in the former Confederate States of America were changed in a single weekend. See: http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html for more details. Yes, the change was planned ahead of time and workers and supplies were pre-positioned along the lines so the example is not directly comparable. However, it would have been relatively easy for German rail crews to re-gauge several miles of track daily of the underlying roadbed was still in good shape.

Also, there were facilities along the old Soviet border to facilitate changing the trucks on freight cars between the differing gauges. The above link gives an idea of how that was accomplished. What it boils down to is that the Soviets were not relieved of the need to continue destroying rail infrastructure simply because the rail gauge changed.

Just my $.02,
Ron


What I've heard (and note my choice of word) is that the Germans biggest problem was not changing the gauge. It was that German locomotives weren't designed to run as far between water stops as Russian ones were. The water tanks were too far apart -- and so the rails not merely had to be relaid, but new watering points built (and guarded).

As far as using the existing Russian rolling stock goes, my impression is that the Russians were pretty successful at getting most of that out of German reach. However, I could be wrong.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: morleron1

Perhaps the best way to handle the discrepancy would be to allow rail repair units to repair more than one hex per turn with a decreasing chance of success per hex. That would probably be easier to implement (though I really don't know) than my earlier suggestion.

Note that the player can do this by subdividing his RR repair units, and the designer can certainly determine his options in this regard by deciding how many RR repair units to give him, and how large to make them. I've got a scenario where the German will find the most efficient thing to do is to lay his three RR repair units along the one rail line that actually connects to a supply source and tink away on three hexes each turn.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: Panama

The Soviets didn't have to be concerned about ripping up rails once the Axis got beyond the old 1939 boundries.

Actually, that's not correct. Simply re-gaugeing track on undamaged ties is not particularly difficult. For example, in 1886 some 11 thousand miles of track in the former Confederate States of America were changed in a single weekend. See: http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html for more details. Yes, the change was planned ahead of time and workers and supplies were pre-positioned along the lines so the example is not directly comparable. However, it would have been relatively easy for German rail crews to re-gauge several miles of track daily of the underlying roadbed was still in good shape.

Also, there were facilities along the old Soviet border to facilitate changing the trucks on freight cars between the differing gauges. The above link gives an idea of how that was accomplished. What it boils down to is that the Soviets were not relieved of the need to continue destroying rail infrastructure simply because the rail gauge changed.

Just my $.02,
Ron


What I've heard (and note my choice of word) is that the Germans biggest problem was not changing the gauge. It was that German locomotives weren't designed to run as far between water stops as Russian ones were. The water tanks were too far apart -- and so the rails not merely had to be relaid, but new watering points built (and guarded).

As far as using the existing Russian rolling stock goes, my impression is that the Russians were pretty successful at getting most of that out of German reach. However, I could be wrong.

If you want a full description of the problems faced by the Germans in 1941 and 1942 and the Soviets in 1944 and 1945 concerning rails read "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945" Walter S. Dunn, Jr.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”