RE: Rail and road movement

RE: Rail and road movement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:06:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodwood I have n't noticed but is there Rail in UV? No There is trail and there is paved road. In all cases movement speed for infantry is assumed to not have trucks. What I have been trying to get across in 10 posts now [:'(] is that since these are both rear area bases...there would be enough trucks lying around to haul men to wherever they needed to go ALOT faster than the movement speeds in UV.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:08:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I guess I should play WiTP and test movement rates before passing judgement. But in UV I find travel in those two areas to be too slow. 180 miles a day on rail, 120 on roads. It doesn't get better then that. Ok Haha That is what I was wanting to know all along. Those look good to me.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:17:53 AM)
quote: Ok Haha That is what I was wanting to know all along. Those look good to me. [:D] Asking helps. I just went through the whole thread. No one actually asked for the movement rates. [;)]

goodwood -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:17:55 AM)
Hi Mike I would agree with you about road movement, I can't speak for the wartime days but I drove through the middle of Oz in the early 70s, the roads were pretty ordinary once you got a few hundred kilometre north and west of Adelaide. The east coast roads would have been seal to Brisbane I think, the rail to Darwin didn't exist, in fact the planned wartime rail link from adelaide to darwin was just completed a year ago. [:D] Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane had three different gauges.

goodwood -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Ok Haha That is what I was wanting to know all along. Those look good to me. [:D] Asking helps. I just went through the whole thread. No one actually asked for the movement rates. [;)] Funny about that.[X(] That's about 3 days From Melbourne to Sydney by rail, if you take all marshalling and loading and unloading at each end and dispersal of men and supplies .it sounds a fair time to me.l

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Ok Haha That is what I was wanting to know all along. Those look good to me. [:D] Asking helps. I just went through the whole thread. No one actually asked for the movement rates. [;)] That would of been too easy [8\|]

emorbius44 -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:39:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager I found the move speeds in UV on the slow side. 4 miles a day on an trail hex was IMO way too slow. If you haven't read it yet read Frank's "Guadalcanal" to get an idea of just how bad things were. The treck the 2nd divsion made to get into position to attack Henderson field was agonizingly slow. Same with New Guinea. This was miserable terrain and "trails" included swift flowing streams, razor shark grass, gullies and hills crocodiles, etc. I think the march rate is pretty reasonable. Bob

DoomedMantis -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:52:31 AM)
I thought it was 90 per day on rail, and 30 on roads?

emorbius44 -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:53:03 AM)
It would be nice if we could get some actual figures on the fighting in New Guinea. If someone can prove that they did indeed move at those speeds then It would increase my enjoyment about that aspect of the game. I know New Guinea is one of the most rural places on earth. But I guess I had a vision of a trail that was more like a dirt road than anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picture the path in the mines of moria from lord of the rings only muddied up with 200 inches of rain a year. Bob

madmickey -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 4:59:26 AM)
You can not measure distance in New Guinea as the crow flies. Not only are the path small, but what look like 30 miles distance may invovles 90 miles of marching.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 5:14:59 AM)
quote: I thought it was 90 per day on rail, and 30 on roads? Two move phases a day. Those are the speeds for each phase.

freeboy -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 5:21:35 AM)
quote: You can not measure distance in New Guinea as the crow flies. Not only are the path small, but what look like 30 miles distance may invovles 90 miles of marching In the mountains the actual distance hiked can be 10 times the as the crow flies distance.. Just think, elevation and swithbacks, or hiking around a cliff face etc.

freeboy -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 5:22:36 AM)
OK where do I sign up for the cladss on use of quotes.. above quote should have ended at ".. 90 mies of marching"[:@]

freeboy -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 5:23:01 AM)
or the clads on spelling, too

JamesM -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 5:59:53 AM)
10+ day to move an unit from Brisbane to Townsville by rail in UV, I know Queensland Rail was slow but it was not that slow!

freeboy -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 10:11:10 AM)
Rememberthey have to have the trains available, and load on the correct ones[:-] probably went the wrong way, after all look where they are[8\|]

goodwood -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 11:09:21 AM)
Hey whats wrong with our trains nothin, our boats are another problem, down here, must be only place in the world they abandon a boat race, when there's water in the river. (the Todd River Regatta) thats why I want trains not boats[:D]

JamesM -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/13/2004 2:40:58 PM)
quote: Hey whats wrong with our trains nothin, our boats are another problem, down here, must be only place in the world they abandon a boat race, when there's water in the river. (the Todd River Regatta) thats why I want trains not boats Now that would be an interesting way to get around central Australia.[:D]

Joel Billings -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 4:19:01 AM)
Just to clarify, here's the rules section on movement speeds: The Speed of movement overland by ground units is dependent on the terrain being traveled. The basic march speed of a ground unit is obtained from the following table, showing the maximum number of miles moved per 24 hour period over each terrain type, depending on the type of unit. For example, an infantry unit will move 10 miles over Clear terrain, or 30 miles on a road. These are maximum numbers and could be lowered depending on fatigue of the unit; the higher the unit�s Fatigue the less farther it will travel in each 24 hour period. #1=Artillery/AA/Engineers #2=Infantry/Airborne #3=Armor #4=All Other Atoll 0 0 0 0 Clear 10 10 30 3 Forest/ Jungle 3 4 3 2 Mountain 2 3 2 1 Desert 10 10 30 3 Swamp 2 3 2 1 Trail 4 5 5 3 Road 30 30 60 15 Rail/Highway 90 90 90 90 Units moving on trails over Clear terrain will move at the Clear terrain speed. These speeds are the fastest speed possible, and actual speeds may be slower based on the fatigue of the unit moving. Rivers do not slow travel speed, but moving across a river hexside into a hex with enemy units will cause an increase in the disruption of the moving units.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 4:21:54 AM)
When infantry gets on a road or highway hex, is it immediatly considered to be motorised?

RevRick -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 5:55:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I guess I should play WiTP and test movement rates before passing judgement. But in UV I find travel in those two areas to be too slow. 180 miles a day on rail, 120 on roads. It doesn't get better then that. That would be about right for moving large masses of materiel and men by rail, specially if the rolling stock is non standard and has to be changed during the movement. Rail traffic runs both ways, and sitting in a siding waiting for another train to clear the blocks would chew up a bit of time as well. I would not imagine pre- and early-war Australia would have double track lines over much of the routing.

goodwood -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 8:24:32 AM)
" I would not imagine pre- and early-war Australia would have double track lines over much of the routing." [/quote] Haa we still haven't [X(]

soeren -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 10:02:30 AM)
Look here what trail means: http://www.kokodatrail.com.au/photos/showgallery.php?cat=504 [:)]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 11:47:51 AM)
Cool site, nice pics! I would love to walk that trail, too. But well, the Whisky Trail will come first [;)]. Oh, and no one has mentioned yet that the Kokoda trail wasn't one way - imagine Aussie troops going up the trail and native stretcher-bearers coming down with wounded - traffic jam and delay... I think the movement rates in UV are okay, the only thing that bothers me is the movement of tanks and arty along the Kokoda trail - should be impossible. Oh, talking about the Whisky Trail, here is one shameless boast from a hike on the West Highland trail. My heart is in the Highlands, wherever I go... [image]local://upfiles/1313/Bz786608869.jpg[/image]

Rainerle -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 11:56:48 AM)
More questions: 1) How much combat value is lost after moving ? 2) Looks like its possible, unlike UV to move across hexes even without trails ? 180 miles/day rail/highway and 60 miles/day road actually seem much to me.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 12:01:32 PM)
I'm quite sure it is possible in UV to move accross hexes without trails. I have withdrawn troops from Dobadura to PM through the jungle because Buna and the Kokoda trail were teeming with Japanese on their way to PM.

Radzy -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 4:18:29 PM)
Hi, I do have one question, as I couldn't find an answer. Is there any let's say "capacity" of the rail/road? What I mean: it takes much more time to prep and move a division than a regiment. From now, while I'm reading info about the movement it seems like it takes the same time to move even whole army as it takes to move a small Kanga Force fe...Also there are "limited" number of locos and carriages/platforms to move troops plus supply in each country. For now it seems to me like someone entered "IDKFA" cheat[:D]. Hope I'm wrong Best Regards, Radzy

Nikademus -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 6:37:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager Overland movement is still too slow. UV assumes that they would be walking. I am contending that they would have sufficient trucks to move them at a much quicker rater...especialy if the Japanese landed on the shore. In that case every vehicle that could be commandered would be taken to move men to repel the invasion. I guess I should play WiTP and test movement rates before passing judgement. But in UV I find travel in those two areas to be too slow. bear in mind too that the game doesn't account for the fact that the Owen S. Mtns prevented most of any unit's heavy equipment from being transported when making your judgement. Thats a signifigant bonus for the attacker (either side)

Mike Scholl -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 11:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Radzy Hi, I do have one question, as I couldn't find an answer. Is there any let's say "capacity" of the rail/road? What I mean: it takes much more time to prep and move a division than a regiment. From now, while I'm reading info about the movement it seems like it takes the same time to move even whole army as it takes to move a small Kanga Force fe...Also there are "limited" number of locos and carriages/platforms to move troops plus supply in each country. For now it seems to me like someone entered "IDKFA" cheat[:D]. Hope I'm wrong Best Regards, Radzy Thei is a real and vital question. Just because an advancing force has captured some miles of RR does not in any way mean that they have captured any engines or rolling stock to make use of them as a RR. And all Asian RR's outside Japan had a pretty limited quantity of rolling stock. It's perfectly reasonable for the Japanese to have captured 80% of the track milage in Malaya and still not have a single working train to operate on it. And even if you hold all the Rails and Equipment in East Asia you still pon't have the actuall carrying capacity of a Major US or European RR of the time.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Rail and road movement (6/14/2004 11:13:56 PM)
quote: Thei is a real and vital question. Just because an advancing force has captured some miles of RR does not in any way mean that they have captured any engines or rolling stock to make use of them as a RR. And all Asian RR's outside Japan had a pretty limited quantity of rolling stock. It's perfectly reasonable for the Japanese to have captured 80% of the track milage in Malaya and still not have a single working train to operate on it. And even if you hold all the Rails and Equipment in East Asia you still pon't have the actuall carrying capacity of a Major US or European RR of the time. Rail is treated as a better class of road. It is not considered to be jumping on the train. It is so easy to stop a train that it is embarrassing. At least trucks can weave [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.015625