Please vote: Rail conversion rule in Russia

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One thing we could do is the following.

Russian rail cost is increased by 1 per unit if railed from a core Russian hex to a city outside core Russian territory.

That means a garrison would cost 3 instead of 2. Corps 4 instead of 3 and so on. This would mainly affect rail movement of reinforcements placed in Russia to the front line west of Russia.

It would not affect rail movement of Russian units starting outside a core Russian hex.

I think this would simulate better the Russian situation than spending more turns before a city outside Russia could be used as a rail hub.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

.

The system will work well for the Germans, but I'm still thinking of how to do it for the Russians.

For Russian , how about 3 turn in 1942, 2 turn in 1943 , 1 turn in 1944-45 . Since it is dangerous to counterattack in 1941 ,it seems won't happen in 1941 .

The problem with this is that the number of turns would indicate a long distance between the rail hub and city. If you have 3 turns for a city nearly at the front being liberated then it doesn't seem right. The rail hub would be close to the city so 1 turn should be more correct.

Russia won't push the Germans fast westwards until 1944. Before that time the Russians will grind down the German defense line and take a city here and there. The front line will move westwards slowly. So the rail hubs have no problems keeping up.

Actually the Russians would only get a challenge once they're out of core Russian territory and the front line expanded into the Balkans. Then they could grab a lot of territory fast and they had to convert to broad gauge lines that never were broad gauge before.

Still, articles prove that the Russian rail hubs managed to keep up well with the front line even outside core Russian territory. The Russians had a big capacity for converting rail lines and 95% of the lines captured had been converted by May 1945.

So for Russia I think a pay method is better than letting cities take several turns to become available for rail movement.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One question I need answer to is whether I should use September as the month where the rail turn zone jumps eastwards or use January. One reason for using September is that we then take into consideration that the rail hubs were converted during the year. E. g. the rail hubs were far more to the east in September than in May / June. So Smolensk would be in the 1 zone and Moscow in the 2 zone in 1941. Rostov would be in the 2 zone instead of the 3 zone and so on. I think that sounds more accurate.

For GS v3.0 I think we could add a flag for each city whether the city is broad gauge or standard gauge. Then you can only rail to cities with the same gauge as the side (standard for western Allies and Axis and broad for USSR). Then the distance to the nearest same gauge city could determine the number of turns before the city is converted.

Most rail lines in Eastern Poland and the Baltic states were still standard gauge. Only Riga would be in broad gauge. So e. g. Minsk would be close to Vilna and then be in the 1 turn zone. Smolensk would be in the 2 zone, but would drop to the 1 zone if e. g. nearby Vitebsk is captured and so on. Moscow would be in the 3 zone, but drop to the 1 zone if Smolensk or Kalinin are operable.

If we add rail lines then each rail line could have a gauge flag and the rail lines of the same side move e. g. 2 hexes within friendly territory from rail heads at the start of the turn. This way you automate the rail conversion and you could look at the map whether a track is converted or not.

[Morris]

.

The system will work well for the Germans, but I'm still thinking of how to do it for the Russians.

For Russian , how about 3 turn in 1942, 2 turn in 1943 , 1 turn in 1944-45 . Since it is dangerous to counterattack in 1941 ,it seems won't happen in 1941 .

The problem with this is that the number of turns would indicate a long distance between the rail hub and city. If you have 3 turns for a city nearly at the front being liberated then it doesn't seem right. The rail hub would be close to the city so 1 turn should be more correct.

Russia won't push the Germans fast westwards until 1944. Before that time the Russians will grind down the German defense line and take a city here and there. The front line will move westwards slowly. So the rail hubs have no problems keeping up.

Actually the Russians would only get a challenge once they're out of core Russian territory and the front line expanded into the Balkans. Then they could grab a lot of territory fast and they had to convert to broad gauge lines that never were broad gauge before.

Still, articles prove that the Russian rail hubs managed to keep up well with the front line even outside core Russian territory. The Russians had a big capacity for converting rail lines and 95% of the lines captured had been converted by May 1945.

So for Russia I think a pay method is better than letting cities take several turns to become available for rail movement.

That's ok sir , At least something is better than nothing

[Cybvep]

I like the increased cost for Soviet reinforcements in non-Russian Europe. It would be good for late-war balance.

GS 3.0? Are there plans for that?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Not really. We just say that every suggestion that won't make it to GS v2.1 will be looked at in GS v3.0 if we ever decide to do that.

[Cybvep]

So what will happen after 2.1? Do you plan to "retire" or move on to another project?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't know. I think we all deserve a break from constant game changes and just enjoy playing. It's been awhile since we had a stable version we could just play with.

[Kragdob]

The problem with that suggestion is that in the east the Germans didn't have tracks to run the trains on until the rail tracks had been converted to standard gauge. In the west the Germans to take out trains from commercial transportation and use them for military purposes to enhance the capacity. That means you can pay PP's to transport more soldiers than you could otherwise. So in the west this is an option.

How can the Germans rail soldiers to Rostov in September 1941 if the rail hubs end in Kiev? The trains can't run further eastwards because the rail lines aren't converted yet. This is why it's a good idea to have some kind of system for rail conversion.

The system will work well for the Germans, but I'm still thinking of how to do it for the Russians.

As was mentioned elsewhere Rail Capacity is not 'pure' rail transport but also trucks that were available for transporting units. It is just a matter of certain amount of effort (represented by PPs in the game).

It will bounce back sooner or later in form of the question 'how come Germany were not able to transport (by rail/trucks) e.g. one infantry corps in 20 days from say Kiev to Rostov?' I think Germany should be able to do it but it should cost them.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I hit a snag implementing the change for the Germans. The problem is that we don't store in the hex the number of turns till the city is rail operable. This is very easy to add, but doing so will make all existing save games invalid.

Should I make the change so we have this as we want or should we instead use an increased rail cost for Axis units if you rail to a city in a zone higher than 1.

E. g. if you rail to a 2 turn zone then the rail cost is increased by 1 per unit. If you rail to a 3 turn zone then the rail cost is increased by 2 per unit. I'm not speaking about PP's, but rail capacity. So e. g. railing a corps (rail cost of 3) to Rostov (3 turn zone) will cost 5 instead of 3.

Should I do this instead? The cost system will not invalidate save games. Please respond fast so I can implement what you prefer.

[Blathergut]

It would be best to do what you want as opposed to less in order to not invalidate saved games. This is, after all, a beta, and that will sometimes happen.

[Cybvep]

I agree with Blathergut.

[gerones]

Problem here IMO will continue to be how to deal with early and strong Barbarossas. I mean that the germans will continue to move very quickly because of 20 hexes supply range no matter they have to wait for several turns for railing units. (Morris strategy)

[Cybvep]

Problem here IMO will continue to be how to deal with early and strong Barbarossas. I mean that the germans will continue to move very quickly because of 20 hexes supply range no matter they have to wait for several turns for railing units. (Morris strategy)

Yes, but their infantry will now lag behind, so their armoured and mechanised units will have to hold out on their own for a while. This does not have to have disastrous consequences, but it MAY bring you a disaster.

[TotalerKrieg]

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that if the rapid Axis Blitz deep into Russia in early 1941 creates a situation that the Allies cannot recover and push the Axis back in time to have a chance to win the game (with equally matched players) then we need to test the new mod you propose with new code added. Like you and others have said, it is a beta and the point is to test, not play. Do we know what the outcome is of any of these games with the Axis employing this strategy?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We've seen that the Axis often lose if they employ a 1942 offensive in the east and go for Britain instead. You can still win, but you need to find a way to deal with the Russians like stopping the northern convoy for most of the time.

With a normal Barbarossa (June 1941 start) I think both sides have a pretty much equal chance to win. With an early Barbarossa (where the Axis ignore the Balkans) then I think the Axis have an edge. Russia will suffer quite a lot if they lose Moscow. 10 PP's per turn, 20% manpower, 3 railcap and so on. If the Germans cross the Don in 1941 then the Russians will struggle big time in 1942 and may lose Baku as well. The problem for the Russians is that their Siberian reserves can't be everywhere and arrive later than before. So Russian might liberate Moscow, but can't recover from the disaster of losing the Don line.

I'm not so worried about the Axis progress in 1941, but the Axis progress in 1942 if they get much better than historical results in 1941. We've seen Axis players push for Omsk in 1942 and then take Omsk in 1943. Then it's game over for the Allies.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We are playtesting for a reason and this is why we hold back the release to the public.

When we had the supply range of 15 in 1941 then the Axis had problems getting further east in 1941 than the historical result. Taking Moscow in 1941 felt like a dream. Even worse was that the Germans suffered from reduced movement when the winter offensive started and before the supply range increased to 20. So the Germans were decimated in the winter.

We addressed this by setting the supply range back to 20 again as before and delaying the Siberian reserves so Russia would only fight hard from January, thus giving the Axis some time to recover.

By doing so we repaired what was overdone, but we got back the initial problem of rapid Axis advance through Russia. So we tested a proposed fix and found out it had bad effects that disrupted the game balance. That means we need to try something else.

The new proposal is to deal with the rail capability of captured cities in core Russian hexes. It might be that this strategy will hamper the Germans too much, but then we can tweak it or even scrap it. Until know we don't know. All we know is that we have a potential game balance issue.

I don't want it to become a no-brainer to launch Barbarossa in May 1941 and rush towards victory if you're capable as the Axis. You should have a good chance to win, but you should not win the war in 1941. 1942 should be the time you decide the game. Russia should have a chance to recover from the 1941 Axis offensive with clever play. If the Russians mess up then they should pay the consequences.

The ideal situation would for the Russians to have to put up some kind of resistance in 1941 to avoid collapse in 1942, but not lose too many units in 1941 while resisting.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I see that the trend is for me to add the change, despite invalidating all save games. That is fine with me. I will make the changes now and then we can send RC9 out this evening.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Problem here IMO will continue to be how to deal with early and strong Barbarossas. I mean that the germans will continue to move very quickly because of 20 hexes supply range no matter they have to wait for several turns for railing units. (Morris strategy)

I'm not so worried about this if the Germans have to use armor and to some degree mech units to achieve this. That means a higher oil consumption for the Axis and more losses. Those losses will cost more to repair and you lose XP in the process. These units are more vulnerable to counter attacks.

I actually like this idea. Bold players like Supermax and Morris might want to go all out with their fast units and capture a lot off terrain, but at a high price. The Russians can send their own armor (if built) and some mech against these spearheads. So if you take too much risk you might lose these valuable units.

The alternative is to wait a bit for the infantry to catch up, thus losing a chance to take Moscow, cross the Don etc. The upside is that you don't lose too many armor steps and burn less oil. That means the player has a choice. We might see different playing styles come into play. Some might like the "shock" effect of rushing through Russia, hoping to demoralize their opponents. Others want to minimize losses and grind down the Russians instead. It's impossible to know which strategy will be the best.

The problem now is that the Axis player can do both. They can rush ahead with the panzers and rail infantry units to the newly captured cities. This way they can let the infantry take most of the damage on the next set of cities while the panzers rush past them towards new cities.

That's really devastating and very hard to defend against. If Russia forms a defense line with their best units then the Germans change strategy and use their own units to destroy as many Russian units as possible, thus making the Russian winter offensive be much weaker. Even worse is that the 1942 Axis offensive will meet less opposition.

If only the panzers meet the Russian defense line then they have to risk taking a lot of damage trying to break through or wait for a turn or two for the infantry to catch up and join the fight. That seems more how it happened in the real war.

[ncali]

My prior suggestion was a little cryptic, upon re-reading. I do kind of like Stauffenberg's suggestion (or the supply range limitation suggestion) but I wanted to tie either of them to the timing of Barbarossa and/or the German advance.
If the Germans invade earlier or later, that should have an impact on their progress with the rail network.

This could better account for the range of options - from a (rare) 1940 invasion to an early '41 invasion, to a late '41 invasion, to a '42 invasion.

Additionally, the progress the Germans have made to capture the critical rail hubs (and convert the major rail lines) could be considered.