Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Soviet Rail Capacity

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Soviet Rail Capacity Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 2:05:10 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1855
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
So, we know the Soviets have lots of rail capacity.

Is the any way the Axis player can reduce it?
Post #: 1
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 2:10:37 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
By bombing railyards.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 2
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 2:12:05 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: online
Bomb railyards:

from the manual:

21.1.11. PORT AND RAIL YARD CAPACITY
Ports and railyards are treated as factories
in terms of capture, damage and repair,
but they play only a peripheral part in the
production system. The presence of a port
or railyard in the same hex as a factory with
a zero expansion rate increases the chance
that factory will expand (21.1.8). In addition,
hexes with ports will attempt to accumulate
an additional 1000 tons of supplies and fuel
in storage every turn.
Each railyard factory point will produce a
notional amount of strategic rail capacity
every turn equal to 100 minus the percentage
of damage. This amount can be modified
due to the difficulty level transportation level
modifier in the game option menu (3.3.3) and off map production modifier in non-campaign
scenarios. In addition, Soviet rail capacity is multiplied times five, with the exception of June
1941, when it is multiplied by 2.5. See section 14.2.3 for details on the production of shipping
points by port factories. Only Soviet nationality rail yards and ports can produce strategic
transportation capacity for the Soviet player, and only Axis and Axis allied nationality railyards
and ports can produce strategic transportation capacity for the Axis.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 3
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 2:35:00 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
So by that last part sounds clear that captured rail yards don't add strategic capacity. Thus, Axis captured rail yards in Soviet cities don't add any strategic capacity?

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 4
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 3:30:57 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1855
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Oops..

Should have looked at the manual first. Sorry.

So let me see if I understand this. Let's say a city has a rail yard of 3. If I overrun that city the Soviets lose (3 x 100) x 2.5 which equals 750 in capacity. Correct?

The next question being does it make any sense to try to bomb rail yards?

And if not, which I suppose, what do folks concentrate on bombing? I've been attacking heavy manufacturing but given the amount of dudes the Soviets have, perhaps arms manufacturing is a better target.

I'm trying to do a bit of strategic bombing and was wondering what folks felt would be the best target to concentrate on. The immense Soviet rail system seemed at first blush to be a good one but would like to hear folks thoughts on the matter.

Thanks.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 5
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 4:09:41 PM   
CheerfullyInsane

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 12/5/2010
From: Birkerod, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Oops..

Should have looked at the manual first. Sorry.

So let me see if I understand this. Let's say a city has a rail yard of 3. If I overrun that city the Soviets lose (3 x 100) x 2.5 which equals 750 in capacity. Correct?

The next question being does it make any sense to try to bomb rail yards?

And if not, which I suppose, what do folks concentrate on bombing? I've been attacking heavy manufacturing but given the amount of dudes the Soviets have, perhaps arms manufacturing is a better target.

I'm trying to do a bit of strategic bombing and was wondering what folks felt would be the best target to concentrate on. The immense Soviet rail system seemed at first blush to be a good one but would like to hear folks thoughts on the matter.

Thanks.



Not much experience with playing the Germans, but here's my two cents.
I doubt the Luftwaffe has the bomber capacity to do any real damage through strategic bombing.
I'd much rather use the bombers for CS, and let the foot-sloggers either capture the factories, or force their evacuation.
If you have surplus bombers after moving your ground-troops. I'd first hit every enemy HQ in range.
If no HQs are kind enough to present themselves, *then* I'd hit heavy industry, followed by armament-factories.
Not sure if resources can be targeted directly, if so hit them first.
The logic being that resources are used by HI to produce supplies which in turn is used by arms-factories to produce armament-points.
So hitting at the top of the food-chain, so to speak, results in a snowball effect all through the production-line.


_____________________________

"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle"
- Edmund Blackadder

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 6
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 4:21:21 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15970
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
You won't find Strat bombing very effective. Mainly since the Axis don't have heavy bombers with big bombs/bombloads.

There's already too many targets and things for them to bomb so for me Strat bombing is near the bottom of the pile for Bomber priorities......

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to CheerfullyInsane)
Post #: 7
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 7:38:10 PM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
You can always set the transport figure lower than 100 in game options.

I was playing a HARD AI game with 80 transport level.

Rail was well tight, factory moves took priority and the new divisions were marching from the Urals!

The Soviets need a large amount of rail cap.

Just look at how much industry is at Kharkov.

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 8
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 8:09:14 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15970
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
They certainly do. There's a lot of industry to move especially down south. Then there's LG, Kharkov and sometimes Moscow. I always use all of my rail every turn

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 9
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 8:37:50 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1855
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Well there are times when a zone is fairly quiet in respect to fighting. Look at AGS (the Romanians) during the first few turns. I've hit Odessa and seem to have gotten some pretty good results against heavy industry. In turn 4 of my "Lava vs Lava" game I have inflicted 41% damage on the port(15) and 73% on heavy industry(3).

There are lots of resource, oil and fuel production, but those are quite far away from a GC POV.

I've followed the thinking about attacks on HQ's but in 41, there are so many Soviet HQs running around I wonder if targeting them is really worth it. Do I really want to kill an incompetent General?

I'm playing this game a little differently... a sort of 1.04 test without the 1.04 .. and am trying to keep my air force right on top of the Soviets, in close range. So I'm looking for targets and wondering if I can really make any difference.

The Germans, I believe did lots of bombing...

(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 10
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 8:41:46 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15970
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Interesting. How many bombers/attacks did it take to achieve that damage?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 11
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/30/2011 8:49:04 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1855
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
I think it took 2 attacks on the port and 4 on heavy industry. Can't remember exactly but I think I go in with about 75 bombers and fighters against the heavy industry. A lot less on the port. I do lose a few bombers but I'm also bagging Soviet fighters. Kinda like dropping supplies. I drop as much supplies as I can every turn not just to keep folks topped up... but it also lures out the Soviets fighters.

So far I haven't had any air missions canceled due to lack of fuel.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 12
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 5:47:35 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline
Is the current Soviet Rail Capacity realistic?

Here is why I ask. Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in the Soviet Union to support economic requirements. If so, then any withdrawal of engines, rolling stock, and/or rail lines from their economic purpose will result in an economic loss--which includes the ability to make tanks, airplanes, and rifles, feed and supply the army, navy, air forces, etc. The people still need to eat and put clothes on their backs--even in the Soviet Union--during every weekly turn. The largest requirement for train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines is the people, industry, and/or government. They need coal, iron, and shipments of goods or parts to produce/construct larger assemblies—be they tractors, tanks or airplane engines. The people, industry, and/or government need access to markets for their corn, wheat, beans, products, raw materials, etc--every week--regardless of war or peace. If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Soviet government to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity.

Given the above, is there an adequate cost levied against the Soviet player's decisions to use or NOT USE rail in WitE for military purposes? If not, what should be implemented to reflect the burden of military operations on economics and the Soviet rail capacity? If so, we're good.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 13
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 5:54:34 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3897
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
You're assuming that the rail capacity is both military and civilian.

Is the current Axis rail cap realistic? To use your argument "Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in Germany to support economic requirements."

"Is there an adequate cost levied against the Axis player's decision to use or NOT USE rail in WiTE for military purposes?"

"If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Axis governments to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity."

In another thread, someone wanted the Soviets to worry about feeding civilians. Well the other side has civilians too. But of course that part didn't matter.

How exactly did all those people in Occupied Europe and the Reich eat, travel, get their coal/iron/Wheaties?????

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 3/31/2011 6:10:22 AM >

(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 14
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 7:31:01 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You're assuming that the rail capacity is both military and civilian.

I'm not assuming anything. Should I?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 15
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 8:31:44 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Is the current Axis rail cap realistic? To use your argument "Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in Germany to support economic requirements."

"Is there an adequate cost levied against the Axis player's decision to use or NOT USE rail in WiTE for military purposes?"

"If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Axis governments to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity."

Good questions. I don't know the answers for the Axis rail cap either. Do you?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 16
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 2:43:17 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
I think it would be a mistake to project current thinking on 1940s era Nazi and Soviet governments.

The railroads of those times were most certainly seen as military assets first and foremost, even in peacetime. Which isn't to say they were not used for civilian purposes (of course they were) but once war started it was understood that they were there to support the war, not move civilians around, or move goods around for civilian consumption.

The entire economy of the USSR once war started (really even before it started in many ways) was structured around supporting the war and its needs, not providing for the needs or wants of the civilian population. If your area didn't produce Wheaties, then you didn't eat Wheaties. Have some nice Corn Flakes instead.

(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 17
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 3/31/2011 8:23:50 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
Is the in-game German & Soviet rail capacity employed for movement of troops supposed to represent an excess capacity above and beyond the train engines, rolling stock and etc. that are involved with the everyday functioning of a country at war? I mean is the rail capacity supposed to be something above and beyond rail road requirements for doing all of those mundane – non-player functions like moving around supplies, fuel, ammunition, replacements, oil, iron ore, aluminum, tungsten, food for factory workers, food for the civil population, etc.

Obviously the Germans and Russians utilized rail roads to move troops about during the war. But what affect does the movement of 30-divisions by railroad have upon all the other requirements of a countries finite railroad capacity? Should the game impose some sort of effect\consequence upon a Player when the player decides to employ a large amount of rail capacity to wisk 20 or 30 divisions from Moscow to Stalino? Or was there a bunch of spare rail capacity laying around Germany or Russia that can always be tapped into -- free of consequences -- for the movement of huge numbers of troops (along with their equipment and supplies) from point-A to point-B?

We've seen this aspect of the game looked at and tweaked in the past in-order to implement some sort of consequences associated with movement of Soviet Industry. But the in-game rail capacity -- aside from potential effects for Soviet industrial evacuation -- makes one think that there is a bunch of steam engines and rolling stock waiting around doing nothing until some troops need to be moved. My hunch would be that there wasn't any "excess" rail capacity available to either the Germans or the Russians – particularly (!) in a time of war. I’d reckon if it wasn’t broke, it was being used to move supplies, ammunition, fuel, raw materials, food to keep factory workers fed and civil populations fed (Revolutions have been known to start when folks don’t get fed. As I recall, the “Let them eat cake” approach to starvation ended with a trip to the guillotine.)

The idea that some proportion of rail capacity sits around waiting to be used solely for troop movement seems off kilter. Presumably there was enough rail capacity within the Soviet Union to move 30-divisions over the course of a week – like what we now see in-game. But what is the resultant ripple affects upon the three dozen other things that rail capacity was also needed for? Why not make in-game use of large amounts of rail capacity a consequences related decision for the player rather than a freebee. Yes, you can still move 30-divisions from point A to point B at the seeming drop of a hat. But the option to do so comes with a price. Even if the consequences are as simple as Admin Point expenditures based upon rail capacity used in a given turn. Or; get more complex and impose effects upon supplies\fuel\ammunition\replacements etc that are available (or unavailable) across the front when large amounts of rail capacity is diverted toward movement of large bodies of troops.

Essential to game play – No. Worth discussing – Sure, why not? That’s what a game forum is for. Exchange ideas about the game.


< Message edited by marty_01 -- 3/31/2011 8:31:12 PM >

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 18
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/1/2011 6:27:17 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

Essential to game play – No. Worth discussing – Sure, why not? That’s what a game forum is for. Exchange ideas about the game.


Indeed. You post some interesting questions. It would be interesting to explore the full set of possible answers.

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 19
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/1/2011 6:39:56 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

We are talking the 1940's folks. Rail was used to support industry primarily not food transport. Especially thinking of the Soviet Union, we are talking about a primarily agrarian society. Food was produced and consumed locally.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 20
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 12:32:19 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3897
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Is the current Axis rail cap realistic? To use your argument "Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in Germany to support economic requirements."

"Is there an adequate cost levied against the Axis player's decision to use or NOT USE rail in WiTE for military purposes?"

"If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Axis governments to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity."

Good questions. I don't know the answers for the Axis rail cap either. Do you?


Don't need to. See, I don't have a problem with either rail capacity. What I do have a problem with is why only the Soviets are put under the scope. You obviously don't have a problem with the Axis, otherwise you would of asked.

See, the last time this came up, the guy wanted the Soviets to worry about feeding civilians. And of course, it was only the Soviets. Never occurred to him that the Axis have civilians too.

Hard to shake the ethnocentric bias against the Russians for some, but it has to be done.

(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 21
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 12:33:57 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3897
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


We are talking the 1940's folks. Rail was used to support industry primarily not food transport. Especially thinking of the Soviet Union, we are talking about a primarily agrarian society. Food was produced and consumed locally.



Yes. But no one thinks to ask about the Axis when it comes to things like this.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 22
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 12:53:23 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3897
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You're assuming that the rail capacity is both military and civilian.

I'm not assuming anything. Should I?


quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Is the current Soviet Rail Capacity realistic?

Here is why I ask. Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in the Soviet Union to support economic requirements. If so, then any withdrawal of engines, rolling stock, and/or rail lines from their economic purpose will result in an economic loss--which includes the ability to make tanks, airplanes, and rifles, feed and supply the army, navy, air forces, etc. The people still need to eat and put clothes on their backs--even in the Soviet Union--during every weekly turn. The largest requirement for train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines is the people, industry, and/or government. They need coal, iron, and shipments of goods or parts to produce/construct larger assemblies—be they tractors, tanks or airplane engines. The people, industry, and/or government need access to markets for their corn, wheat, beans, products, raw materials, etc--every week--regardless of war or peace. If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Soviet government to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity.Given the above, is there an adequate cost levied against the Soviet player's decisions to use or NOT USE rail in WitE for military purposes? If not, what should be implemented to reflect the burden of military operations on economics and the Soviet rail capacity? If so, we're good.


If you were not, then this is all moot.

(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 23
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 3:00:02 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


We are talking the 1940's folks. Rail was used to support industry primarily not food transport. Especially thinking of the Soviet Union, we are talking about a primarily agrarian society. Food was produced and consumed locally.



Yes. But no one thinks to ask about the Axis when it comes to things like this.


True, but food still was not a major transport issue for Germany. Other goods relevant to an industrialized society certainly. Isn't that why Hitler refused to go to a total war footing before 43-44? I strongly doubt it was because he was afraid the German people would starve.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 24
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 3:15:15 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3897
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


We are talking the 1940's folks. Rail was used to support industry primarily not food transport. Especially thinking of the Soviet Union, we are talking about a primarily agrarian society. Food was produced and consumed locally.



Yes. But no one thinks to ask about the Axis when it comes to things like this.


True, but food still was not a major transport issue for Germany. Other goods relevant to an industrialized society certainly. Isn't that why Hitler refused to go to a total war footing before 43-44? I strongly doubt it was because he was afraid the German people would starve.



IIRC, he wanted both guns and butter. Keep the population happy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#Germany (Saves typing.)
Officially, it did not accept that it was in a total war until Joseph Goebbels' Sportpalast speech of 18 February 1943. For example, women were not conscripted into the armed forces or allowed to work in factories. The Nazi party adhered to the policy that a woman's place was in the home, and did not change this even as its opponents began moving women into important roles in production.

"
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, 18 February 1943, in his Sportpalast speech. The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until the failure of the operation Barbarossa. A major strategical defeat in the Battle of Moscow forced Albert Speer, who was appointed as Germany's armament minister in early 1942, to nationalize German war production and eliminate the worst inefficiencies.

Under his direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. To do this during the damage caused by the growing strategic Allied bomber offensive, is an indication of the degree of industrial under-mobilization in the earlier years. It was because the German economy through most of the war was substantially under-mobilized that it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in industry and in consumers' possession were high. These helped cushion the economy from the effects of bombing.

Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used, thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. Foreign labour, both slave labour and labour from neighbouring countries who joined the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, was used to augment German industrial labour which was under pressure by conscription into the Wehrmacht


It just gets annoying when I see all these "Is the Soviet..whatever..is realistic." Or the Soviet's should have to.....whatever......" and yet don't expect the same from the Axis. Whether it's forcing the Reds to do all the dumb things they actually did to saying the Reds should feed their civilian population. Without those same posters saying the Axis should do it too.



< Message edited by Aurelian -- 4/2/2011 3:18:57 AM >

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 25
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 3:38:50 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Hard to shake the ethnocentric bias against the Russians for some, but it has to be done.

I had no intention of presenting a bias towards one side or the other. The topic of this thread is "Soviet Rail Capacity". Let me be clear, my bias was towards staying on topic.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 26
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 3:43:17 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You're assuming that the rail capacity is both military and civilian.

I'm not assuming anything. Should I?


quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Is the current Soviet Rail Capacity realistic?

Here is why I ask. Train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines were created in the Soviet Union to support economic requirements. If so, then any withdrawal of engines, rolling stock, and/or rail lines from their economic purpose will result in an economic loss--which includes the ability to make tanks, airplanes, and rifles, feed and supply the army, navy, air forces, etc. The people still need to eat and put clothes on their backs--even in the Soviet Union--during every weekly turn. The largest requirement for train engines, rolling stock, and rail lines is the people, industry, and/or government. They need coal, iron, and shipments of goods or parts to produce/construct larger assemblies—be they tractors, tanks or airplane engines. The people, industry, and/or government need access to markets for their corn, wheat, beans, products, raw materials, etc--every week--regardless of war or peace. If the rail system is degraded via combat loss and/or the perpetual useage by the Soviet government to move and supply combat forces, then the economy will begin to grind to a halt, and the people, industry and/or government (army, navy, air forces) begin to starve, go without, etc. because of "rail system consumption" that prevents economic activity.Given the above, is there an adequate cost levied against the Soviet player's decisions to use or NOT USE rail in WitE for military purposes? If not, what should be implemented to reflect the burden of military operations on economics and the Soviet rail capacity? If so, we're good.


If you were not, then this is all moot.

If so, we're good.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 27
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 4:05:44 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


We are talking the 1940's folks. Rail was used to support industry primarily not food transport. Especially thinking of the Soviet Union, we are talking about a primarily agrarian society. Food was produced and consumed locally.



Yes. But no one thinks to ask about the Axis when it comes to things like this.


True, but food still was not a major transport issue for Germany. Other goods relevant to an industrialized society certainly. Isn't that why Hitler refused to go to a total war footing before 43-44? I strongly doubt it was because he was afraid the German people would starve.



IIRC, he wanted both guns and butter. Keep the population happy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#Germany (Saves typing.)
Officially, it did not accept that it was in a total war until Joseph Goebbels' Sportpalast speech of 18 February 1943. For example, women were not conscripted into the armed forces or allowed to work in factories. The Nazi party adhered to the policy that a woman's place was in the home, and did not change this even as its opponents began moving women into important roles in production.

"
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, 18 February 1943, in his Sportpalast speech. The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until the failure of the operation Barbarossa. A major strategical defeat in the Battle of Moscow forced Albert Speer, who was appointed as Germany's armament minister in early 1942, to nationalize German war production and eliminate the worst inefficiencies.

Under his direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. To do this during the damage caused by the growing strategic Allied bomber offensive, is an indication of the degree of industrial under-mobilization in the earlier years. It was because the German economy through most of the war was substantially under-mobilized that it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in industry and in consumers' possession were high. These helped cushion the economy from the effects of bombing.

Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used, thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. Foreign labour, both slave labour and labour from neighbouring countries who joined the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, was used to augment German industrial labour which was under pressure by conscription into the Wehrmacht


It just gets annoying when I see all these "Is the Soviet..whatever..is realistic." Or the Soviet's should have to.....whatever......" and yet don't expect the same from the Axis. Whether it's forcing the Reds to do all the dumb things they actually did to saying the Reds should feed their civilian population. Without those same posters saying the Axis should do it too.



I expect the same criteria (whatever they are) to be applied to the Axis side as well. What is that criteria?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 28
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 6:44:29 AM   
bcgames


Posts: 2527
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Bramble Rose Farm, KS
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
It just gets annoying when I see all these "Is the Soviet..whatever..is realistic." Or the Soviet's should have to.....whatever......" and yet don't expect the same from the Axis. Whether it's forcing the Reds to do all the dumb things they actually did to saying the Reds should feed their civilian population. Without those same posters saying the Axis should do it too.

By how much should the Axis rail capacity be reduced in order to make it realistic?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 29
RE: Soviet Rail Capacity - 4/2/2011 9:49:23 AM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1855
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
I don't have a problem with rail capacity... I just started the thread to see if folks thought it was worth bombing...


(in reply to bcgames)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Soviet Rail Capacity Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.336