RR Logic

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RR Logic

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RR Logic

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RR Logic - 7/21/2009 2:09:39 PM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

As a gamer, I always have the hardest time with what I casually refer to as "stupid stuff". It has caused me to set aside an otherwise good game, because I can't tolerate the stupid fact every time I see it. So imagine my surprise when in my first game I see a CSA Cav Division hop on a train in Union Wisconsin and rail themselves away from the Union troops sent to pursue them and head off towards the east!

I can only ask, but what were the designers thinking when they allowed this loop hole, where troops can use any rails anywhere as long as they have rail capacity? This is just obscenely wrong on so many levels. I hope the designers just didn't think about the possibility of abuse. I'd hate to think they considered it and said, that's alright.

Has no one ever complained about that before? Or do folks consider that as good play?

Post #: 1

RE: RR Logic - 7/21/2009 5:04:30 PM

Rekm41

Posts: 561
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: Canada EH!
Status: offline

Maybe they took over the train and forced them to go.

_____________________________

Keep Moving and Keep your Head DOWN!!

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 2

RE: RR Logic - 7/21/2009 5:30:39 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

No one has ever complained about this before.

What was a CSA cavalry division doing in Wisconsin?!? Our AI must be pretty good!

But seriously, the cavalry couldn't have gotten anywhere if the railroad was blocked. It seems that you left them a clear patch, which they took. I really don't think this sort of thing is common, which is why we never put in a rule against it.

Did the CSA control all of the territories the railroad went through, or was part of their escape route still blue?

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 3

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 1:30:33 AM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

Hi Gil;

Thanks for responding. The game is PBEM not against the AI, my first one, and a training game as it were. The chain of events is this:

A massive CSA invasion of southern Illinois (reference my queries about crossing navigable rivers in force a few days ago).

The Union forces move to surround/intercept the invasion, which they do, and the following turn the CSA retreats back into Kentucky, except for this lone CSA division which was apparently seeking to avoid combat as it moves right through a Union division and then hopes on a train and rides the rails into Madison Wisconsin. (-4 to NW).

The following turn, I rail troops north to deal with the incursion, and the CSA moves to capture St Paul (-8 NW)

The next turn I move to corner him in Minnesota and he moves down the Mississippi River, hopes on a train in Des Moines and travels into Ohio via rail.

None of the provinces were controlled by the CSA, not even close, which is why I found the mechanics of it so silly.

Now granted a lot of the problems are clearly my own fault. The damage done by the raiders is my responsibility since I had pulled the garrisons out of St Paul and Madison. But it simply never occurred to me that a confederate force of any size, could seize enough rolling stock and engines to load up 15-18000 men and rail them from Springfield to Madison, and the from Des Moines to Columbus. It struck me as horribly unrealistic.

This is of course the whole reason to play "training games" of course, but now as the Union I'm sitting at -10 NW, (also lost some points for a big battle in Virginia which is not surprising) and if I comprehend the way NW works, I will be dealing with revolts galore in a few more turns. Meanwhile the Union Armies are besieging the forts around Memphis and Nashville, invading through the Cumberland gap and northern Kentucky, but because of the wild and wacky RR rules I'm looking at a national revolt.

Again, the real lesson here is despite advice by many others to the contrary, garrisons are important. But that doesn't eliminate the weirdness of the RR movement function in my opinion.

Thanks again for lending an ear.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 4

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 3:28:59 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Until I got to your next-to-last sentence I was all set to write that garrisons are important. As you've figured out, if you had them in those cities none of this would have happened. Also, it does sound like the CSA division's initial escape was made possible by either the CSA or USA being set to avoid combat, as you rightly note.

Overall, you're absolutely right that what happened is preposterously unrealistic, but what happened was an unusual confluence of circumstances, and certainly not something that happens regularly.

From a developer's point of view, I should add that it would be difficult to come up with a rule that could be easily implemented and would prevent this, without adversely impacting the game in some other way. A generic rule not allowing railroads to be used unless one controls a province would usually make sense, but I can see how it might cause trouble for the Union during an invasion of the South. Unless there is a rash of railroad craziness, I think it would probably be best for us to leave things as they are.

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 5

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 1:33:10 PM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

Thanks again for the response Gil.

I will damn sure never leave anything without a garrison again.

Going to see where this goes also. At -10 NW things could unravel quickly I suspect, but perhaps my perception of that is wrong, as are so many other things as I continue to learn FoF.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 6

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 2:51:09 PM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

I only have the hard copy of the rule book with me, but after this conversation I found the following:

1.5.5 Rail Movement, on page 29 near the top of the page.

....Forts block rail movement, as can enemy units. Furthermore, enemy control of a province blocks rail-movement through that province as well.

So, is this a support issue with the game not operating as intended?

My read here is that the intention as stated in the rules would be to allow rail movement through provinces you control, and I suppose it could be inferred that rail movement into enemy controlled provinces, but not through, would also be possible. Although that is not clearly stated.

If the rules worked that way I think that would make sense.

< Message edited by steel god -- 7/22/2009 2:53:44 PM >

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 7

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 6:05:37 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Huh. Interesting. It's been so long since we developed the game that I had forgotten. Perhaps this is a PBEM-related issue. Has anyone else seen this? (I'm wondering if it's a new problem, or has been there since the beginning.)

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 8

RE: RR Logic - 7/22/2009 7:58:20 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Yes I have recently in a pbem game when I allowed a marauding reb division to breakthrough into a union rear area denuded of garrisons. With plenty of RR points he was able to take full advantage. An object lesson on why its a good idea to keep some garrisons in place.

Until then I hadn't realised it was permissable and have never seen the AI use it. I suspect the absence of comments is because most players don't know about it either. Its not realistic so it would be worth adding to the list of items for review in the future.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 7/22/2009 8:08:17 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: RR Logic - 7/23/2009 8:33:56 PM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

Definitely reported, definitely many times, definitely on top of my personal "to be fixed" list.

_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 10

RE: RR Logic - 7/24/2009 4:40:01 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

I'm not so sure this isn't historical. I remember someone using trains to move through "enemy" areas in the Civil War. Not sure how many times it was done but once would be enough to leave the rule where it is now. What would stop you from doing that in real life?

Um....I don't know...maybe garrisons.

Which would be the real life answer to the situation. As the Union it is extremely unrealistic that you can denude the entire country of garrisons to build your armies. That should actually cost you the governor's good graces in that state.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 11

RE: RR Logic - 7/24/2009 9:26:38 AM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Fair point about garrisons although there are some penalties - the risk of leaving your cities unprotected to a breakthrough (yes assisted by rail movement) and the increased chance of losing more state brigades, as more state troops are commmitted in frontline service, thus lowering Governor attitude.

There were historical occasions when troops moved by rail through enemy territory but these were probably either small scale afffairs or comparatively short distances. The unrealistic aspect of the game is the potential ability to move large formations even up to army size a long way (hundreds of miles) through enemy controlled provinces if you have sufficient RR points and a clear line. The RR cost is the same whether you are travelling along home or enemy controlled lines. In practice such movement for large formations would have involved a lot of preparations and reception arrangements along the line particularly at the start and end points.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 12

RE: RR Logic - 7/24/2009 2:13:59 PM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

I definitely agree with the point about garrisons. I stripped out most of mine after reading the AARs here and it seemed like the thing to do. In retrospect I will probably never do that again, even if/when the RR rule is fixed to what I think the rules already state they should be.

I know of no historical precedent that could support the movement of a full division, with it's horse, artillery, and stores, any significant distance through enemy territory where the train did not originate in controlled territory. Remember the case I'm talking about here is an enemy force deep in my territory just happening to find that much rolling stock? Too fantastic to contemplate in my opinion.

Also, had such a thing happened in real life, the tracks would have just been torn up in front of the train to prevent it's continued use if real force couldn't be brought to bear on the intruders, but that option is beyond the scope of the game.

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 13

RE: RR Logic - 7/24/2009 4:43:53 PM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

Maybe we need to take a look at the possible bug page again before an update to see what we missed :)

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 14

RE: RR Logic - 7/25/2009 1:43:46 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steel god

I only have the hard copy of the rule book with me, but after this conversation I found the following:

1.5.5 Rail Movement, on page 29 near the top of the page.

....Forts block rail movement, as can enemy units. Furthermore, enemy control of a province blocks rail-movement through that province as well.

So, is this a support issue with the game not operating as intended?

My read here is that the intention as stated in the rules would be to allow rail movement through provinces you control, and I suppose it could be inferred that rail movement into enemy controlled provinces, but not through, would also be possible. Although that is not clearly stated.

If the rules worked that way I think that would make sense.

I don't think its a question of the game not operating properly.

We have an apparent clash between two sections of the manual concerning rail movement.

The first is the one you refer to on p29:

"Forts block rail movement, as can enemy units. Furthermore, enemy control of a province blocks rail movement through that province as well".

That seems fairly unambiguous until you look at the specific cases for rail movement prohibition which are listed on p51. This section reads as follows:

"Rail movement can be blocked under the following circumstances:
� Forts block rail movement.
� If a unit is in the same province as an enemy unit, then it cannot move by rail into unfriendly territory.
� If an un-garrisoned brigade is in a province its player controls, enemy units cannot enter that province by rail.
� Partisan and Raider units have a chance to block Rail Movement as though they were a brigade, but only have a 50% chance of doing so. In addition, Partisan and Raider units can only block Rail Movement out of a province if they are in a province that is adjacent to a province that they control. (However, this is not a restriction for blocking movement into a province, although they still only have a 50% chance to do so.)
� Units cannot move by rail into provinces that are in Unrest (see the Politics chapter for Unrest rules)."

You will see that this does not include a blanket prohibition of rail movement through enemy controlled territory.

In this matter it would seem reasonable to rely on the detailed provisions set out on p51. In support of that view is the fact that that is how the game works at present ie in accordance with the detailed rules for rail movement.

If that is correct then the earlier comment on p29 goes too far and is misleading it seems, although this was probably intended to be a general statement modified by the detailed provisions later in the manual.

Of course it still leaves open the question of just how realistic are the rules in terms of movement through enemy controlled territory.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 7/25/2009 3:19:42 PM >

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 15

RE: RR Logic - 7/25/2009 3:10:58 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steel god

I definitely agree with the point about garrisons. I stripped out most of mine after reading the AARs here and it seemed like the thing to do. In retrospect I will probably never do that again, even if/when the RR rule is fixed to what I think the rules already state they should be.

In my own DAR I stripped my garrisons away from the border states. Specifically along the Canadian border. I not only left garrisons in place along the border I moved the garrisons from the other areas to these locations until I could rearm and assign them to divisions. That always gives me a pool of units available to defend my cities.

For what it's worth if the CSA player wants to just hop a train and move around in the north I'm happy to let him. Because a top priority for me as the US is to build rail capacity. I'll trap them if they aren't really careful and then they will take a total loss for their efforts.

quote:

I know of no historical precedent that could support the movement of a full division, with it's horse, artillery, and stores, any significant distance through enemy territory where the train did not originate in controlled territory. Remember the case I'm talking about here is an enemy force deep in my territory just happening to find that much rolling stock? Too fantastic to contemplate in my opinion.

Yes, I agree for a large unit. A brigade could make it work...maybe...but unless the unit captured a marshaling yard or something it wouldn't work otherwise. The game does abstract the use of rail quite a bit but it makes the game play quickly without much of a trade off.

quote:

Also, had such a thing happened in real life, the tracks would have just been torn up in front of the train to prevent it's continued use if real force couldn't be brought to bear on the intruders, but that option is beyond the scope of the game.

It would be hard to outrun the telegraph. You could get maybe another zone over from where you started but then they would get you.

In a similar incident, during the game which I did the UnCivil War DAR on, I penetrated the southern crust and got into the southern interior. While I didn't use rail movement on him I did take city after ungarrisoned city from him. The dangers of not having a garrison in cities, that are within reach of enemy forces, in this game, are too great to take the risk. The damage that causes is always catastrophic.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 7/25/2009 3:17:16 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 16

RE: RR Logic - 7/26/2009 6:07:15 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I've added this to the list of things to consider changing for the next patch. I have no recollection of there having been complaints before, but obviously that has been the case, so either these were missed or the significance of the issue wasn't emphasized. Thanks for the feedback on this.

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 17