RE: Strat movement & game balance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Strat movement & game balance

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Strat movement & game balance

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 9:20:58 AM

Jalla

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

Now, I think that there are some misconceptions about how railroads operate that are the reason for some of the argument going on here. Being a professional railroader myself, I will try to give you some insight into railroad operation.

First, the strategic movement cost is really not a factor of time. The cost of doing a railmove in the game comes from the needs to marshal the necessary rolling stock required to move an entire unit. For an infantry division, this would be about 500 railroad cars of different types and at least 20 engines. This rolling stock would have to be brought together and used to build at least 15 trains of differing length. Then the trains have to move to where they're needed for entraining. After completing the strat-move of the unit, the trains have to be moved back to where they're needed next, rebuilt, engines changed etc. All this consumes a lot of time. I guess the game assumes that this rolling stock cannot be used for other purpose in the limited timeframe of a week (excluding ad-hoc moves of supplies, personnel along the line), which I feel is probably right.

Second, the real limiting factor on strategic railmoves which currently is not simulated is the capacity limits of a single line. If you wanted to move a lot of troops up a single-track line, the limiting factor is the length of, and distance between, the passing-loops. If we assume that it takes 20 minutes to move from a passing loop to the next, the maximum number of trains that can be moved along such a line (in any direction) is 3 per hour, 72 per day, and 504 per week. Now this is of course in practice impossible to achieve, so let's cut the practical capacity by 33%, to about 330 trains/week. Now, to move an infantry division using 20 trains one way would consume a capacity of 40 trains (the trains have to get back as well). That gives us a total capacity of said single line of about 8 infantry divisions per week.

So, if you wanted a more realistic railmove-model to be implemented, I guess every piece of track had to be rated for capacity, with every move across the line being deducted from the total capacity. This would probably be a bit too much to ask for, and I think the current model is working well enough.

As for the argument that the the soviets have too many railmove-points in the game, you have to consider that the soviet union had a very efficient railway system in place by 1941. Unless someone comes up with some raw data to suggest the railmove capacity is too much, I say we leave it as it is.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 61

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 9:42:21 AM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

I�m dead tired right now, so I hope I get the numbers right:

In one Soviet game versus AI I have a tank div in hex 109,45, just east of Moscow. Transport cost as in the unit detail screen is 2379. Max transport range (with loading, without disembarking at trip end) is what I�d take as 100% for transport cost (pool point cost, this train is used to his max capacity). A 40 hex trip to just south of Leningrad (hex 82,19) leaves 30 strat move points (SMP), minus disembarking cost of 15 leaves 15 of 100 SMP. So let�s calculate with 15% train capacity left after this transport (we could reduce this further because of additional coordination efforts for using leftover capacity or whatsoever, but let�s keep things simple right now). 15% reduction of transport cost: 2379*.85 results in a pool point reduction (transport price) of 2022 (rounded down) for this transport.

Example same unit to Orel hex: 47 SMP left after transport, minus 15 disembarking cost leaves 32 SMP left, 23 hexes travelled. This train has a leftover capacity of 32% for the rest of the week. 32% reduction of transport cost: 2379*.68 results in a pool point reduction (transport price) of 1617 (rounded down) for this transport.

So a transport distance of 23 hexes versus a transport distance of 40 hexes makes a difference of (2022-1617=) 405 transport cost points. Compare the fix cost of 2379 as it is right now for any distance with above examples (40 hex travel 2022, 23 hex travel 1671). That�s a difference that could and should matter in my book, not negligible at all�

Now that I did an example what a difference shorter versus longer rail transports should make, I might as well suggest how it could be implemented:

a) Code a calculation of effecively used strategic movement points (SMP) as in the examples above, which leads to an effective transport cost (which for less than max distance transports results in savings on the max value which is listed in unit detail windows).

b) Give the player a feedback, how much a strat transport would cost, before he orders it: Include one additional line showing the calculated effective transport cost in the tooltip which shows the player remaining rail (and sea...) movement points as he hovers the cursor on rail line hexes (sea ports).

c) Tweak the strat move pools in a way that leaves no significant overcapacities, which I think are mainly responsible for how easily Soviet pbem players can stall the Axis offensives before the first Blizzard season at the moment.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 62

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 9:43:23 AM

Jalla

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

Reconvet,

The actual cost to move a unit by train is not the distance moved, but the fact that someone decides: "this unit has to be moved by train". If you move the trains a long or short distance is not really a major concern once the rolling stock has been allocated to the move. I agree that it might be possible to move an infantry division a shorter distance using less than 20 trains, if the trains are moving back and forth along the line. But such a move would consume more line-capacity, hindering other rail-moves along the same line.

Rail-move should really only be used for long hauls, as short tactical hauls are not an efficient use of rail capacity. This is reflected in the cost for moving by rail being the same, no matter the distance moved.

(in reply to Jalla)

Post #: 63

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 10:01:28 AM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jalla

Reconvet,

The actual cost to move a unit by train is not the distance moved, but the fact that someone decides: "this unit has to be moved by train". If you move the trains a long or short distance is not really a major concern once the rolling stock has been allocated to the move. I agree that it might be possible to move an infantry division a shorter distance using less than 20 trains, if the trains are moving back and forth along the line. But such a move would consume more line-capacity, hindering other rail-moves along the same line.

Rail-move should really only be used for long hauls, as short tactical hauls are not an efficient use of rail capacity. This is reflected in the cost for moving by rail being the same, no matter the distance moved.

The average German was (still is) a perfectionist, so the idea of trains sitting idle while troops and ammo have to be moved is a big nono. The early war German military machine had so much striking power exactly because of it's efficiency, including it's logistics (at least until it advanced further east). The Soviet Union practised detailed planning of it's whole economy, the rail system being a part of that.

Can you really conceive trains sitting idle for half a week on either side? Sorry, I can't, no way... Negligent railway managers would have to expect being shot on the spot for obstructing the war effort, no?

We surely agree none of us will want to see and manage single train line capacities in this game, but we should get a strat movement pool system which does not imply the notion of inefficiency. Most wargamers try to use all their tools in the most efficient way after all.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Jalla)

Post #: 64

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 10:48:26 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

Ok, Reconvet, thank you. Yes, this time you are providing hard facts and number. If I understand your proposal, you are saying that the non-distance costs are equivalent to a trip of 45 hexes, and that this has to be paid for each rail movement, as �fixed � administrative and logistic� cost.

You are basing your calculations in MP left. Ok, poor design. If I move first by foot, then I embark, and arrive with 0 MP at destination, the rail cost is higher due to the fact that I made a foot march before?

But anyway, your proposal now it is concrete and I like the idea of a fixed cost, irrespective of distance. You propose that fixed cost=45 hexes of rail movement, and you are left with a range of 0 to 55 hexes to expend in a graded manner.

I understand that 45 is an arbitrary choice of yours influenced by MP costs. It is the same as stating that in the planning and execution of a full range train trip (30+70+15MP), 55% of the work hours are expended only in making the physical movement, and 45% in everything else. In reality, I would tend to think that more hours will be expended doing all staff work, loading, unloading, and making all kind of logistical arrangements. Even with those parameters (unrealistic in my opinion), your example gives a difference of (45+40)/100-(45+23)/100=17% of the theoretical maximum (2379). Or put it in another way, you propose a fixed cost of 1071 rail points and 24 additional railpoints for each hex.

Ok, now, I propose a fixed cost equivalent to 200 hexes. For your Division, 1760 railpoints of fixed cost, and 9 for each hex. 2100 aprox to Leningrad and 1970 aprox to Orel. Oh, well, what about 2000 to each one to simplify?

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 65

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 10:56:14 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

By the way, Reconvet, in your self-deluding image of trains going back and forth endlessly without pause, have you taken into account that transport of supplies is using the same rail-grid to supply all intermediate points between two towns? And the trains transporting units from Moscow to Leningrad use the same rails as the ones transporting units to mmm, let me see, Vyshny Volochek. And you are saying that organizing that without colisions is the easy part....

< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/21/2011 11:51:11 AM >

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 66

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 11:22:35 AM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

I must admit that if the distance to be moved is over 40-50 km, I ship them by train. It saves trucks and fatigue and I consider it worth while. But I use my trains for a lot of operational movement including HQs and Airbases which are considered bad by those in the know. In 42 the train capacity is really a non-issue, so the only serious question is if the basic number is acceptable in 41.

I don't see any point to changing an abstract system into another abstract system. In neither case it is based on the number of engines and cars present, nor the number of engines and cars needed nor the track conditions. The number of points available gives the soviet player the ability to shift a reasonable number of factories in 41...around 20 factory points per turn can be moved east and at the same time move around 30-40 divisions around via strategic movement. Given you get at least 10 units per turn reinforcement this leaves you with the ability to move 1 or 2 armies operationally around 40 hexes by rail. You can shift forces in a more substantial fashion including moving all the units of a front again 40 hexes but at the cost of substantially reduced or non-existent factory movement. Such movements are also rarely ideal as the units neither arrive exactly where you want them nor can all units move the same distance in general.

I don't see this as outside of the capacity of the soviets at the time. I don't see it as game breaking since it asks the player to make hard choices. I only see two issues with the situation that are a worth looking into. The first is that units gain experience while embarked which seems a bit odd. The second is that it doesn't appear to cost rail points to keep a unit on the train. So you only pay the loading cost on the turn you switch it into strategic movement, this allows for the second turn movement to be free and since you don't loose the 35 hexs due to loading this allows you to really move the unit in the second week.

Also keep in mind that the German can do this too. It is fully possible for the German player to shift his forces from north to south extremely rapidly. The computer does it a lot as I've seen troops before kiev one week and in front of Lenigrad the next. Panzers by Smolensk one week and on the shore of the black sea the next. So it cuts both ways.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 67

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 11:51:34 AM

Jalla

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

The average German was (still is) a perfectionist, so the idea of trains sitting idle while troops and ammo have to be moved is a big nono. The early war German military machine had so much striking power exactly because of it's efficiency, including it's logistics (at least until it advanced further east). The Soviet Union practised detailed planning of it's whole economy, the rail system being a part of that.

Can you really conceive trains sitting idle for half a week on either side? Sorry, I can't, no way... Negligent railway managers would have to expect being shot on the spot for obstructing the war effort, no?

We surely agree none of us will want to see and manage single train line capacities in this game, but we should get a strat movement pool system which does not imply the notion of inefficiency. Most wargamers try to use all their tools in the most efficient way after all.

Well, I guess you are right about the need for efficiency. However it's not possible to have every train running at full speed at all time, a lot of time trains will have to wait for the line to clear of other trains. This is quite normal, even today. In fact, you could argue that the more you are moving by train, the less efficient the system will be due to congestion. In addition, when a train has a high priority (read: troop trains), it will often cause a lot of other traffic to a crawl to a halt. This cannot be simulated in the game, for good reasons.

You have to understand that empty trains would be held for days, if more important trains were coming down the line. Also, as there were no Centralized train control in these days, the planning of train traffic would often result in inefficiencies as the signalers would have to adhere to a rigid system of timetables and train orders. As many trains has to use the same (limited) line capacity, you cannot conclude that just because you can move 50 trains up the whole length of the line, means you can move 100 trains on a part of the line.

I agree that the amount of strategic movement points available in the game seems too much, and I would welcome a reasonable reduction in total points available. However, I don't think the distance moved should impact the cost. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 68

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 12:19:04 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

You are basing your calculations in MP left. Ok, poor design. If I move first by foot, then I embark, and arrive with 0 MP at destination, the rail cost is higher due to the fact that I made a foot march before?

But anyway, your proposal now it is concrete and I like the idea of a fixed cost, irrespective of distance. You propose that fixed cost=45 hexes of rail movement, and you are left with a range of 0 to 55 hexes to expend in a graded manner.

I understand that 45 is an arbitrary choice of yours influenced by MP costs. It is the same as stating that in the planning and execution of a full range train trip (30+70+15MP), 55% of the work hours are expended only in making the physical movement, and 45% in everything else. In reality, I would tend to think that more hours will be expended doing all staff work, loading, unloading, and making all kind of logistical arrangements. Even with those parameters (unrealistic in my opinion), your example gives a difference of (45+40)/100-(45+23)/100=17% of the theoretical maximum (2379). Or put it in another way, you propose a fixed cost of 1071 rail points and 24 additional railpoints for each hex.

Ok, now, I propose a fixed cost equivalent to 200 hexes. For your Division, 1760 railpoints of fixed cost, and 9 for each hex. 2100 aprox to Leningrad and 1970 aprox to Orel. Oh, well, what about 2000 to each one to simplify?

Sorry, but you're wrong on most of your assumptions.

a) I don't propose any fixed cost for every unit, no way. But we have to work with the transport cost as detailed in each unit's detail window (which is linked with it's current OOB I strongly suppose, which is not fix but can vary from week to week). That's the basis of any flexible calculation because it is the maximum cost for transport costs of a unit in a given turn. Using this we can figure out savings by shorter travels. The only fixed thing is the load cost of 30 strat move points, and that's prescripted by the game, not a choice of mine.

b) You have to realize that there's a difference between unit actions envolved with rail movement and what actions happen on the railway side. What the unit does has only limited influence on how a train is affected. If a unit travels a few hexes on foot before embarking on a train, this has no relevance on train pool size. The consequence of a foot march is only that in this week a lesser portion of the rail pool can be used by this unit (transformation of remaining unit MP into a proportionally reduced strategic movement points), and not that the train pool is diminished due to this foot march. I'm pleading for a more efficient train pool management, so I clearly don't suppose a train will be waiting 4 days while an Inf Division comes walking out of a swamp to the railway station. That's 4 days this train could be used for other purposes...

c) How transport distance can be factored into variable transport costs has to be based on how much time is available for the train-unit-package for travelling. Max distance is limited due to loading and organizing time etc. (load cost of 30 strat move points). Call it arbitrary if you like, it just makes sense to me to use it (not necessary to create something else). Disembarking cost does not necessarily have to be factored in, because a unit can be left on train at the end of the week if it has to travel some more on rails, and if the unit stays on the train then the train is still in use, therefore there cannot be a pool cost saving for an action that is not ordered by the player.

e) Staff work, logistical arrangements etc. are already factored in by the game at the moment (loading cost of 30 SMP, disembarking cost of 15 SMP if disembarkment is ordered), so this already reduces max rail travel distance of a unit in a given week. Realistic or not, cost too high or too low, it's the developpers decision not mine.

f) I don't know what you want to say with your figure of 17%. I see it as 17% pool point savings of the shorter movement distance versus the longer one in my 2 examples, and it shines a light on how much savings should be possible in contrast with the current fixed transport cost as defined in the unit detail window.

g) I definitly don't want a single fix rail movement cost for any unit. I want to get flexible calculations and savings and not a different oversimplification! There can't be a fixed value because there are hardly two units with the same OOB (therefore requiring more or less train capacity per hex travelled) and because different travel distances imply flexible pool costs depending on travel distance.

h) You propose a fix transport cost of 2000 for rail distance. There can be no such thing because OOB vary widely. You can't use my numbers because I used a Tank Div as an example for two different travel ranges. An Inf Brigade would need much lesser transport space, resulting in a much lesser burden on the pool.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 69

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 12:25:29 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

By the way, Reconvet, in your self-deluding image of trains going back and forth endlessly without pause, have you taken into account that transport of supplies is using the same rail-grid to supply all intermediate points between two towns? And the trains transporting units from Moscow to Leningrad use the same rails as the ones transporting units to mmm, let me see, Vyshny Volochek. And you are saying that organizing that without colisions is the easy part....

Self-deluding, thank you very much...

I have no inclination to go look for the manual part which says that the train pool is the total train portion available for troop transports. Supply is handled by the invisible part of the railstock.

There has to be a degree of abstraction in this game, it's not a railway simulation. So all I ask is to make it feel a tiny little bit more realistic, because it really really really SHOULD matter if a train is only used 1 day per week and still has to pay a fixed pool price as if it would be running all 24/7. Plain ugly oversimplification, you can't talk me out of it. Stop trying....

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 70

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 12:42:58 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely
In 42 the train capacity is really a non-issue, so the only serious question is if the basic number is acceptable in 41.

That's the main reason why I opened this thread. In all the pbem I've read Axis troops hit a wall way too early before the first Blizzard season. I see the main responsibility for this in the Soviet's capability to shift around too many reserves too far and too fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

I don't see it as game breaking since it asks the player to make hard choices.

That's an open question to me. Does the Soviet player in a pbem really have tough choices to make? I have yet to see an AAR in which any factories were lost. Plain negligence might cause this, but I don't think a serious player could get into a situation where he has to choose between losing key hexes and losing factories. Only exception Soviet turn 1, where factories have to be moved out of Misk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

Also keep in mind that the German can do this too. It is fully possible for the German player to shift his forces from north to south extremely rapidly. The computer does it a lot as I've seen troops before kiev one week and in front of Lenigrad the next. Panzers by Smolensk one week and on the shore of the black sea the next. So it cuts both ways.

Sure, I only see a problem in '41, as long as the Axis Railway system is not adequatly built up. After the first Blizzard both sides fight with the same weapons. I'd just like to see Axis a bit more successful in '41. Reducing Soviet ability to quickly shift around tons of reserves via rail should help tremendously.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 71

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 12:56:25 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jalla

Well, I guess you are right about the need for efficiency. However it's not possible to have every train running at full speed at all time, a lot of time trains will have to wait for the line to clear of other trains.
...
You have to understand that empty trains would be held for days, if more important trains were coming down the line. Also, as there were no Centralized train control in these days, the planning of train traffic would often result in inefficiencies as the signalers would have to adhere to a rigid system of timetables and train orders. As many trains has to use the same (limited) line capacity, you cannot conclude that just because you can move 50 trains up the whole length of the line, means you can move 100 trains on a part of the line.

All factored in in the base loading cost of 30 strat move points.

We could discuss about making this price more painful, but I'd rather prefer to include rail movement distance into the calculation because it confronts the player more directly with time and space. Do I want to move more troops on shorter distances or do I use my pool for long distance travelling? That's choices a player should have to make. With a fix cost (pool price) for any travel range you just have to decide which reserve units to move to a hotspot, range has too little impact at the moment.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Jalla)

Post #: 72

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 1:41:37 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

Reconvet

a)What you are proposing, perhaps involuntarily, is a fixed cost for a given unit, irrespective of distance, and then an additional distance-related cost. If you load a division and then unload it, you have reduced its SMPs without moving, and according to your proposal it should use rail points. Is that not a fixed cost for that unit irrespective of distance? Perhaps I do not understand your proposal. Alternatively, perhaps you do not understand your proposal.

b)Why doing a 30 hex train trip should use less railpoints than walking 5 hexes and then doing a 30 hex train trip? By the way, in your system the walking division uses MORE railpoints, because after unloading from the train it will have LESS strategic points remaining (walking consumes StratPoints).

c)You included the disembark cost in your example. Remember 100-30-40-15=15 for Leningrad, and 100-30-23-15=32 for Orel. As you see, 30 and 15 are constant values in your calculations.

e)The cost in MP (30 or 45) has to do with the effect of rail upon the unit, not of the unit upon the rail.

f)17% is the saving you get in your example

g)See a. For a specific unit, you are proposing a fixed value plus a certain amount per hex

h)I �propose� 200 hexes (not 2000) for unit. This has nothing to do with OOB. I was using your example knowing that this was the value for that Tank Div in particular.

And yes, supply is abstracted in an invisible portion of the railpool. But that does not mean that you can design a strategic transport system as if supply did not exist. Your trains to Smolensk from Moscow should live together with the trains to Minsk.

< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/21/2011 2:28:47 PM >

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 73

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 1:52:30 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

That's the main reason why I opened this thread. In all the pbem I've read Axis troops hit a wall way too early before the first Blizzard season. I see the main responsibility for this in the Soviet's capability to shift around too many reserves too far and too fast.

I don't think this is primarily a rail issue, and I certainly don't think the mechanics need to be changed. To move a unit up takes around 3 weeks if it is starting in deep reserve. I am actually slower since I find it gamey to leave a division on the train in refit mode and know it will gain both experience and troops. That is absurd to me. Being moved by train is disruptive not the reverse.

But to stop the Germans you need more than just plopping troops down on rail hexes. They won't have a chance to dig in, and that means they last a single combat. Two TOE 100% tank divisions, plus a Rifle division in a lvl 2.x fortification lasted a single battle, included in that battle was a 3rd Tank Division as reinforcement, that was 650 soviet tanks to around 340 german...they lost 4 I lost 400. So if they are just plopped down they accomplish only being a minor speed bump, a very minor speed bump. I've seen a single Pz division mow through 4 rifle divisions in a row in the woods with low entrenchment values so I don't see this as a consideration at all.

Interior lines are an advantage to the defender. But as the soviet player you reach a limit...a point where you have to draw lines in the sand and start saying "This far, and no further." So even your ability to get units out of harms way comes to an end. For me that is the main advantage of the rail network, when you decide to fall back to the next fighting line you can rapidly shift your forces by rail into their new positions and shift the "engineering units" to the next line. It is how I conducted a series of phased withdrawals with the SW front. The turn I went to do it with the Southern mud hit and that clobbered my plans and nearly made the whole thing a bloody disaster and fiasco since suddenly I had to hold territory longer then I had planned.

A lot of the trouble I see is that the German player is ignoring the rail line layout. Both from the perspective of capturing vital rail junctions to cut off the enemy escape and from the point of view that they need to capture it to ensure supplies reach their forward panzers. I am not sure how much of what you feel is a problem is the fault of the system and how much is the fault of the players.

quote:

That's an open question to me. Does the Soviet player in a pbem really have tough choices to make? I have yet to see an AAR in which any factories were lost. Plain negligence might cause this, but I don't think a serious player could get into a situation where he has to choose between losing key hexes and losing factories. Only exception Soviet turn 1, where factories have to be moved out of Misk.

Then they make a choice that factories are more important then troop movement. You can't move significant troops by rail and still move out all your factories each turn. Kharkov has 4 Heavy Industry, 20 Vehicles, 16 Armaments, plus the tanks. That is 20,000+60,000+48,000+30,000 (or so)...more than you have in a single turn. The soviet player, to not loose factories, is devoting at least half of his rail transport capacity (and probably closer to 60%) per turn for the first 6-7 turns. Your newly arriving reinforcements take a further 20,000 per turn to move up. That leaves you with around 40,000 rail to use for operational shifting.

That is around 2 armies per week you can move to adjust to the enemy. And in general you will take another week to get them from the rail head to the fighting line. So you have to plan ahead. Moving a reinforcement group up basically across the map took me 4 weeks but I de-trained them every week. And it still took them a week to get into the line after all that.

Any turn, and there are some when you need to serious strategic re-deployment of your forces will absorb the near totality of your rail.

Now could the rail value be reduced? Yes, I think it could. By up to 15% probably though I think you would really see the pinch of the full 15%. Historically as far as I ever recall the German's over ran very few of the soviet factories, they largely did get them out by train. Also during the critical first two weeks your train capacity is halved. I can state clearly there were a few weeks in july or august where I used my rail capacity down to less than 500 points. And in the first months of the war I rarely had more than a few thousand points left, which I would then use to move a single factory. I also had a schedule and plan for my factory evacuation. The only thing is I use rail for a lot of small distance shifting to spare trucks and fatigue, plus I moved HQs and airbases by rail when possible, otherwise I've no idea how you can shift the damaged planes with you.

But this is probably something that should be adjusted by difficulty settings rather than code changes since the number seems to me to be at the least fairly close to an acceptable value. Which isn't surprising since I'm sure it was adjusted by play testing.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 74

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 2:46:30 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

Oh Lord, do I have to work out exact code elements to get my message out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

a)What you are proposing, perhaps involuntarily, is a fixed cost for a given unit, irrespective of distance. If you load a division and then unload it, you have reduced its SMPs without moving, and according to your proposal it should use rail points. Is that not a fixed cost for that unit irrespective of distance? Perhaps I do not understand your proposal. Alternatively, perhaps you do not understand your proposal.

NO, not I am proposing fix transport costs for any rail transports, it's a game design decision: The 30 SMP for loading and 15 SMP for unloading are given by the game and are an abstraction for getting the train to the loading place, for getting - you might guess it - soldiers, weapons, supply and ammo stock on and off the train and for whatever train transport execution time the developers might interpret into these values.

You are right that this is time not available for the train to actually roll merrily on his tracks to his destination, but 30+15 SMP is time during which the train can't do anything else. It's not something I choose randomly to calculate, it's given by the game and must be included in any calculation of unit+distance specific rail pool costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

b)Why doing a 30 hex train trip should use less railpoints than walking 5 hexes and then doing a 30 hex train trip? By the way, in your system the walking division uses MORE railpoints, because after unloading from the train it will have LESS strategic points remaining (walking consumes StratPoints).

In my example the unit started on a rail track. It might have been clearer if I had chosen another one. Of course if a unit starts loading for it's rail journey with 70 SMP and ends it with 15 after unloading, then the difference, 70-15=55, should be used as basis for how long the train was absorbed for the job, and only 55% of the unit's max transport cost (as seen in the unit detail screen) should be deducted from the strat movement point pool. I hope I didn't make another math mixup, I'm not less tired than when I posted a few hours ago...

But I really have no inclination to get examples for each possible combination of loading/unloading/walking before loading/walking after unloading/.... Just get my message that transport distance should be calculated by the program for a more realistic transport pool cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

c)You included the disembark cost in your example. Remember 100-30-40-15=15 for Leningrad, and 100-30-23-15=32 for Orel. As you see, 30 and 15 are constant values in your calculations.

Brilliant, point for the candidate. Because I unloaded the unit both times to get comparable numbers as an example. Time during which the train was not available for something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

e)The cost in MP (30 or 45) has to do with the effect of rail upon the unit, not of the unit upon the rail.

Not quite. The unit is loading and unloading, therefore the train has no time to do something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

h)I �propose� 200 hexes (not 2000) for unit. This has nothing to do with OOB. I was using your example knowing that this was the value for that Tank Div in particular.

I'm not quite sure I understand your proposal, you seem to aim for a fix value for distance travelled? Anyway, I can't see why travelled distance should be a fixed value per hex. It has to vary according to the OOB of the transportet unit. An Inf Brigade takes less space on each and every travelled hex than a Tank Div on it's journey over the same hexes --> Tank Div has to be more costly for it's travel miles than the Inf Brigade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

And yes, supply is abstracted in an invisible portion of the railpool. But that does not mean that you can design a strategic transport system as if supply did not exist. Your trains to Smolensk from Moscow should live together with the trains to Minsk.

Developers decided that supply trains are invisible and have no relevance for the unit rail movement pool available.

Maybe think of it like having some additional supply wagons clinging to your troop train, or having supply train railway usage factored into loading and unloading cost abstractions given by the game (waiting time for the troop train coming from Moscow to let pass the supply train going to Moscow).

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 75

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:09:16 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

Reconvet: oooh, your contrastable number-based proposal does not exist any more?

Ok, we are at the beginning. What is your proposal?. Same example, please, Moscow-Leningrad-Orel. Because perhaps what is negligible for me is very important for you, and we are talking about the same 5%, and we do not realize we are of the same opinion.

As you began your thread by stating that rail movement might need additional programming, please do not feel constricted by the 30MP points needed to embark...Are you going to make the calculations without loading and unloading? Rail cost will be a direct function of distance?

Do you really think that the loss of mobility of the units is the way the game simulates logistics of the rail-network?

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 76

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:09:17 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

That's the main reason why I opened this thread. In all the pbem I've read Axis troops hit a wall way too early before the first Blizzard season. I see the main responsibility for this in the Soviet's capability to shift around too many reserves too far and too fast.

I don't think this is primarily a rail issue, and I certainly don't think the mechanics need to be changed. To move a unit up takes around 3 weeks if it is starting in deep reserve. I am actually slower since I find it gamey to leave a division on the train in refit mode and know it will gain both experience and troops. That is absurd to me. Being moved by train is disruptive not the reverse.

Gamey or not, it's possible and I'd bet it is being done by most human players. I just can't imagine why else even experienced Beta players get stalled early as Axis.

If you plan ahead 2 turns and raildrop you reserve units in checkerboard formation in difficult terrain (swamp-railhex for example), you get a major speedbump thanks to ZOC, forcing your foe to bring up Inf or weaken his valuable spearhead assets, allowing your other reserves dropped further back to dig in on a tougher fallback-line.

I'd really like to hit home my point in a pbem. Me Soviet, a current Soviet player who defends the current strat movement system as Axis. I'd document my strat movements and factory evacuations. This might open either my eyes or those not seing the current imbalance it creates in pre-Blizzard '41.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 77

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:12:15 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 78

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:13:28 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Reconvet: oooh, your contrastable number-based proposal does not exist any more?

Ok, we are at the beginning. What is your proposal?. Same example, please, Moscow-Leningrad-Orel. Because perhaps what is negligible for me is very important for you, and we are talking about the same 5%, and we do not realize we are of the same opinion.

As you began your thread by stating that rail movement might need additional programming, please do not feel constricted by the 30MP points needed to embark...Are you going to make the calculations without loading and unloading? Rail cost will be a direct function of distance?

Do you really think that the loss of mobility of the units is the way the game simulates logistics of the rail-network?

You just don't get it, do you, that loading time (30 SMP) is time during which a train is absorbed and can't do anything else? This number has to go into the calculation of strat movement pool cost, plus the time the train in underway to the destination plus eventual unloading time (15 SMP). If you fail to see the concept, I'm sorry.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 79

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:15:01 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

Oh, I'd love to see their results versus experienced Soviet players like you, believe me.

Or play you, you Axis, me Soviet (only AI exp).

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 80

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:20:38 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

Is there an AAR around, played with a reasonably new game version, against a Soviet player alternating checkerboard delays with line defense?

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 81

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:24:32 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I think you are conflating several things here. Namely, checkerboards and rails. If checkerboards are a problem, then all this theorycrafting about railroads won't really do a whole lot to resolve that problem.

(I'm not saying that I have a problem with checkerboards. But this entire thread has a fairly major post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy going on.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 82

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:30:00 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciate the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Edit: while I was writing this, Flaviusx has made a similar point in a much more elegant way.

< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/21/2011 3:35:11 PM >

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 83

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:31:03 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think you are conflating several things here. Namely, checkerboards and rails. If checkerboards are a problem, then all this theorycrafting about railroads won't really do a whole lot to resolve that problem.

(I'm not saying that I have a problem with checkerboards. But this entire thread has a fairly major post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy going on.)

Of course these things are correllated. Overblown Soviet strat movement capability directly results in overproportionned capability to

a) Place and spread out delaying checkerboard defense units
b) Place plenty of reserve units further back to dig in, be it in line, in depth or in a stronger checkerboard
c) Shifting sizable reserves as blocking forces ahead of Axis spearheads.

You are a master in this, please don't pretend you have encountered any Axis player with working tactics that could beat the shift speed of Soviet reserves...

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 84

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:34:30 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciaty the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Oh please, compare WiR with WitE. Come on....

Go on believing today's strat movement is well thought through. I'll go on believing they took a coding shortcut here which will feel ugly as long as transport distance is not factored into strat movement cost.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 85

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:38:07 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

You could reduce the Soviet rail capacity by half, and I could still do what I want to do by and large, Reconvet. You are exaggerating the amount of units that get redeployed strategically by rail. Also, many Soviet units arrive as shells and necessarily are easy to move around before they get built up.

Factory evacuation is a different story, and rail capacity acts as a constraint for that in practice. If you reduced that cap, then yeah, we'd see more industry get captured, and if that's your main purpose, then fine.

If there is a problem here, it's not with the rails.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 86

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:43:08 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciaty the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Oh please, compare WiR with WitE. Come on....

Go on believing today's strat movement is well thought through. I'll go on believing they took a coding shortcut here which will feel ugly as long as transport distance is not factored into strat movement cost.

No, I could believe that distance matters much, when you show that to me. For instace, with your (sadly now retired) suggestion we could make some advances. Perhaps the system seems well thought to me because I have not seen another, so I will wait for your ideas.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 87

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:46:54 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You could reduce the Soviet rail capacity by half, and I could still do what I want to do by and large, Reconvet. You are exaggerating the amount of units that get redeployed strategically by rail. Also, many Soviet units arrive as shells and necessarily are easy to move around before they get built up.

Factory evacuation is a different story, and rail capacity acts as a constraint for that in practice. If you reduced that cap, then yeah, we'd see more industry get captured, and if that's your main purpose, then fine.

If there is a problem here, it's not with the rails.

I don't say it doesn't need planning skills (where to place and fill up the shells), but in the last days I've seen posts of Soviet players claiming to be able to easily to shift several full sized armies via rail every turn. Even a mediocre Soviet player should be able to hold his own with these tools, while I see experienced Axis players despair in their pbems...

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 88

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:54:22 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Reconvet: oooh, your contrastable number-based proposal does not exist any more?

Ok, we are at the beginning. What is your proposal?. Same example, please, Moscow-Leningrad-Orel. Because perhaps what is negligible for me is very important for you, and we are talking about the same 5%, and we do not realize we are of the same opinion.

As you began your thread by stating that rail movement might need additional programming, please do not feel constricted by the 30MP points needed to embark...Are you going to make the calculations without loading and unloading? Rail cost will be a direct function of distance?

Do you really think that the loss of mobility of the units is the way the game simulates logistics of the rail-network?

You just don't get it, do you, that loading time (30 SMP) is time during which a train is absorbed and can't do anything else? This number has to go into the calculation of strat movement pool cost, plus the time the train in underway to the destination plus eventual unloading time (15 SMP). If you fail to see the concept, I'm sorry.

The bottleneck is not a Division loading in a station (multiple railways), but the line connecting the points. And yes, I fail to see your concept.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 89

RE: Strat movement & game balance - 1/21/2011 3:58:50 PM

abulbulian

Posts: 1047
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

Is there an AAR around, played with a reasonably new game version, against a Soviet player alternating checkerboard delays with line defense?

Yes, I believe that ComradeP and notename have an AAR. This is a good example of a novice sov player vs a vet axis player, even notenome acknowledged this at the start of the game. According to ConradeP notenome is using 'Sir Robin/Robinovich' strategy and just withdrawing his line back east and avoiding any large traps. As I already know from my human vs human game, if the sov are able to start the winter offensive with these troops it means big trouble for the axis. I had removed about 4 mil of the sov army before winter bliz in my game and still got smacked around by sov units for 12 turns blizzard.

IMO, essentially what you'll see as the 'norm' will be a low exp sov player with a single strategy to just pull back east will give even the most vet axis player a hard time. I know some people don't want believe the game is in an unbalanced state, but I have real data from at least one game know. Starting March 1942 the sov player already has 2x soldier's and 4x planes than the axis. Yes, some of those may be inferior of course. But all these units are now in a line that is already 4-5 hexes deep almost everywhere but extreme North. With some guards and shock army units back as reserves. I not sure what kind of summer offensive is possible in 42 for the axis player even if he has a decent 41. Also, the sov player still has 2 months of snow/mud to dig in more.

I'm not bringing this up because I'm some axis 'fanbon'. No, I just want the possibility for the axis player to do better than historical if he outplays his opponent. Currently, with the harsh blizzard mechanics any advantage the axis player may have gained in 41 if he did well is nullified. Even if the axis players is smarter than Hitler (not hard to do) and stops offensive operation in Autumn and attempts to dig in and rest his units. You'll still suffer as badly as did historically if when all the historic factors that cause the disasters of that winter don't exist.

It might take some time as these games progress and more people have similar experiences and real data, but I do believe some future changes will happen to balance the game a bit more. BTW, playing an AI sov opponent will not give you any insight into the axis problems I've just conveyed. It's a great AI, don't get me wrong, but still no substitute for a decent human player which is fine.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 90