Railheads Out/In

[metolius]

I've always thought it was a bit odd that units could hop on rail from almost any location, but could only disembark around cities.

Seems like the limitation should be more symmetrical.

How about requiring that units be no more than 2 hexes from a city to use rail transport that turn?

I'd throw in the idea that units could deploy up to two hexes from the 'arrival' city, as well.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This has something to do with limitations of the game engine. There are functions that check if a hex is adjacent to a city. The algorithm will become more complex if we let the range be 2 hexes from the city. Then we need to find the adjacent of all adjacents etc. It can be done, but can easily introduce bugs we don't want so close to release.

I've also thought about units in the open being able to rail to a city, but not the other way around. This is easier for the game engine because all you need to do is to check if the unit is in friendly territory.

I see rail movement partially as strategic movement as well, meaning that you first transport the unit to a rail hub (truck movement) and then via rail to the desired hex. This happened, of course, at the other end too, but that means some game routines have to be rewritten.

The main problem with GS is that we don't have rail lines on the map and still have rail movement. In other games you follow a rail line and count the number of hexes. E. g. you can move 40 hexes per turn along rail lines. You can start and end anywhere on a rail line. In GS we don't have rail lines so we have to simplify the rules. Maybe adding rail lines could be on the wishlist for GS 3.0

I therefore think that leaving things as is would probably be best because it seems to work pretty well. If we want to make any changes then we could change the rule so only units in or adjacent to cities, capitals, fortresses, mines or oilfields can rail. Then the rule will be symmetrical.

[Kragdob]

I think this could be put on 3.0 list. Such a change would change balance but on the other side it would make having strategic reserves (in cities!) more relevant as it is now.

[amcdonel]

I do believe this could also have significant game balance implications. It strikes me that the Axis is much more dependent on rail in its power level/ability to project limited resources. Rail seems to me to be an essential resource for the Axis and limiting it would have a one sided impact. Allies have advantage on the sea lanes, while the Axis has that benefit from internal lines of communication/supply for the most part -- leaving aside Russia, which rail is not as critical a resource. Important to the Russia - yes -- indeed. But not critical as for the Axis.

Of course, the reverse logic could be used that the rail destination could be any hex, thus balanced on both ends

[rkr1958]

I therefore think that leaving things as is would probably be best because it seems to work pretty well. If we want to make any changes then we could change the rule so only units in or adjacent to cities, capitals, fortresses, mines or oilfields can rail. Then the rule will be symmetrical.

I agree; except the symmetry would not include fortresses, mines and oilfields. Right now you can't rail into such hexes unless they're adjacent to a city. What do you think about changing the rail to include these hexes and only allowing rail from in or adjacent to a resource hex (i.e., cities, capitals, fortresses, mines or oilfields)? That would seem more consistent and, in my opinion, make the rail model more consistent.

[gerones]

If we want to make any changes then we could change the rule so only units in or adjacent to cities, capitals, fortresses, mines or oilfields can rail. Then the rule will be symmetrical.

This change would add more realism to rail deployments. Right now you can rail a depleted unit in combat that is not within a city or adjacent and this way save it from destruction. (e.g. initial Barbarossa)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Does it mean you want to make the rail rules the following.

You can rail to AND from any capital, city, fortress, mine and oilfield and all hexes adjacent to these?

[Cybvep]

You can rail to AND from any capital, city, fortress, mine and oilfield and all hexes adjacent to these?

Sounds good.

[rkr1958]

Does it mean you want to make the rail rules the following.

You can rail to AND from any capital, city, fortress, mine and oilfield and all hexes adjacent to these?

Yes, with the addition of the word only below.

You can only rail to AND from any capital, city, fortress, mine and oilfield and all hexes adjacent to these

[metolius]

Does it mean you want to make the rail rules the following.

You can only rail to AND from any capital, city, fortress, mine and oilfield and all hexes adjacent to these

That sounds about right! Seems like a good and realistic solution.

[ncali]

I'm a little late on this one. But rail lines were criss-crossing a lot of Europe (particularly Western Europe) and the actual rail lines, depots, and small stations are not represented on the map. It seems to me that this rule is a little arbitrary, in context. I think the original rules allowing disembarkation only at cities was primarily to address potential exploits.

But I don't feel particularly strongly about this one - just have some reservations.

[rkr1958]

I'm a little late on this one. But rail lines were criss-crossing a lot of Europe (particularly Western Europe) and the actual rail lines, depots, and small stations are not represented on the map. It seems to me that this rule is a little arbitrary, in context. I think the original rules allowing disembarkation only at cities was primarily to address potential exploits.

But I don't feel particularly strongly about this one - just have some reservations.

My first impression is that this change "feels" correct. It's also symmetrical meaning that if you can rail to hex you can also rail from it. Also, remember we're talking about embarking and disembarking corps size units consisting of 50,000 men and 1000's of vehicles for mech/armor units. I'm no expert on railroads but I would think it would take a major rail facility to accommodate such numbers.

[supermax]

This new rule, as i have started to experience in my new RC9 game, will have major impacts on the game. Not entirely sure if its going to be super positive however.

We will just have to play it thru and see what happens.

Early blitz wont be super-affected anyway, or at least the way i do it.

In Russia however,. its another stick in wheel of the german eastern war machine.

I guess you guys based this rule change upon moriss AAR on his game with Joe rock... We will see, but i am not really fond of weakening the germans even more, again after a Moriss event.

Anyway, i am not fond of it.

[supermax]

I'm a little late on this one. But rail lines were criss-crossing a lot of Europe (particularly Western Europe) and the actual rail lines, depots, and small stations are not represented on the map. It seems to me that this rule is a little arbitrary, in context. I think the original rules allowing disembarkation only at cities was primarily to address potential exploits.

But I don't feel particularly strongly about this one - just have some reservations.

My first impression is that this change "feels" correct. It's also symmetrical meaning that if you can rail to hex you can also rail from it. Also, remember we're talking about embarking and disembarking corps size units consisting of 50,000 men and 1000's of vehicles for mech/armor units. I'm no expert on railroads but I would think it would take a major rail facility to accommodate such numbers.

Exactly my thoughts. In Europe, you can get from village to village by train... Not sure this is accurate, since the map represent so many hexes.

In Russia however, it might be closer to reality, but will cost german offensive effectiveness dearly.

This might be a thing that should be considered only for eastern europe, not the whole map.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This new rule, as i have started to experience in my new RC9 game, will have major impacts on the game. Not entirely sure if its going to be super positive however.

We will just have to play it thru and see what happens.

Early blitz wont be super-affected anyway, or at least the way i do it.

In Russia however,. its another stick in wheel of the german eastern war machine.

I guess you guys based this rule change upon moriss AAR on his game with Joe rock... We will see, but i am not really fond of weakening the germans even more, again after a Moriss event.

Anyway, i am not fond of it.

I will not be so affected by this in Russia because I mainly use my rail capacity for newly built units in Germany to the forward cities in Russia. The change will be that rear units will move to the closest city instead of the max distance towards the front line. This way the unit can be railed next turn. I don't think that is bad. You simply need to adapt so you get left behind units forward. There are quite a bit of cities in western Russia so you should be able to find a city you can move to and rail next turn.

If there are any big open areas we could consider adding a city there. So please suggest cities we could add to the map if that's needed.

The biggest impact will be that you can't rail to cities not linked up with your rail network. So you need to make sure rail heads can stream from your front line eastwards (2 hexes per turn). All hexes in Eastern Poland, Baltic States, Karelia and Bessarabia will have standard gauge so you only start to convert rail gauge in core Russian hexes. That means you will get quite far into Russia soon in those areas. It means that you can e. g. rail to Tallinn the turn after you take Tallinn. It will take more time to advance in the south, but that was what happened in the real war.

How it will affect game play is something we will find out by testing.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In western Europe you will be within range of a city with just one land move almost everywhere on the map. Remember that resources and fortresses are also considered places you can rail to/from.

So I don't think the change will affect game play much in western Europe. If you expect to rail the unit the next turn you should try to let it end the turn adjacent to a city. Then you don't even have to move before you can rail.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Ronnie is right about rail movement of corps sized units happened from bigger cities. So units were first transported there and then railed to their destination area.

What we miss in GS is something called strategic movement where units move within friendly territory only to another friendly territory. Then these units could travel at a bigger distance than their movement allowance. The unit's movement allowance is intended to show the range when moving in hostile territory. Within friendly territory the unit could stick to the roads and quickly get to other cities. But changing this will be quite a big change.

[supermax]

Anyway lets test it

[Morris]

This new rule, as i have started to experience in my new RC9 game, will have major impacts on the game. Not entirely sure if its going to be super positive however.

We will just have to play it thru and see what happens.

Early blitz wont be super-affected anyway, or at least the way i do it.

In Russia however,. its another stick in wheel of the german eastern war machine.

I guess you guys based this rule change upon moriss AAR on his game with Joe rock... We will see, but i am not really fond of weakening the germans even more, again after a Moriss event.

Anyway, i am not fond of it.

This time ,I do agree with you !

[supermax]

This new rule, as i have started to experience in my new RC9 game, will have major impacts on the game. Not entirely sure if its going to be super positive however.

We will just have to play it thru and see what happens.

Early blitz wont be super-affected anyway, or at least the way i do it.

In Russia however,. its another stick in wheel of the german eastern war machine.

I guess you guys based this rule change upon moriss AAR on his game with Joe rock... We will see, but i am not really fond of weakening the germans even more, again after a Moriss event.

Anyway, i am not fond of it.

This time ,I do agree with you !

We agree on many things Moriss. The main one being rule creation to block or stem players creativeness.

Problem with this is that with every rule change, there will be other opportunities created for creative players.

I think its good to have this continued development of the game, i just wish we wouldnt have players proposing rule changes to compensate for their lack of originality or talent. I am not referring to anyone in particular here, just a general thought.

Bottom line this may get out of hands if we are not careful.

Often time when a players feels wrongly done in a game he proposes a change...