Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

One can argue that at TOAW's scale, the river has already been crossed when the engineers get to work.

The Germans storm the Meuse with infantry in assault boats, drive the French a kilometer or so away from the river, and continue to advance -- but on a scale that wouldn't represent a whole hex in TOAW. Meanwhile, the engineers get to work, and by late that turn, the tanks are coming across.

Your complaint's valid, but I think the game should avoid attempts at tactical detail. Perhaps have engineers make their attempt in the combat round? This would avoid the instantaneous crossing/'pile in engineer battalions until the bridge is fixed.' They'd still be able to 'wave at the defenders' -- but at least one could avoid the instantaneous bridge repair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

GUI nitipick: I would like to get rid of the autocentering mouse feature. Really annoying.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

What benefit do you get from defending on the river. Well, other than the obvious hiding in water breathing through hollow reeds tactic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

What benefit do you get from defending on the river. Well, other than the obvious hiding in water breathing through hollow reeds tactic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

What benefit do you get from defending on the river.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

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

quote:

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.

quote:



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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1

quote:

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

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: morleron1

quote:

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.