nomorebullshyt
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nomorebullshyt
-
-
Well if you decided to have moving cost money it would be more realistic and in theory great. but if they did that they would have to rescipt every thing and that takes a long time. but if they did do something like that they sould add a resource called "oil or gas" and it would use that resource not money
The only time Points (mps) are spent for movement is when executing Strategic Movement. There is no expense for normal/battle movement. Hence, the exclamation that movement costs are upside down here.
Re: the challenges faced by the IJ Navy strategy and the late war panzers stalled because of lack of fuel (mmps).
The SC engine already incorporates fuel, supply, build, refit, movement in the Build and R&D schedules. That is one reason, I assume, why new ships cost as much as they do to build.
An illustration would be to allow all strategic moves to be free and those of Corps and support units. Armies, Tank Groups, air craft carriers and air units would face the ticking meter of burning mps for their movements and combat operations...for argument sake...one (at least) mp per move and or battle.
-
In a moment of realization, after months of contemplation, I found what it was that made me feel something was going on in SC2 and WW. Here I'll state the issue and ask if it exists in Global (GC).
It's the movement parameters of Movement versus Strategic/Operational Movement. Moving units, air, land and naval in Strategic mode should be the least expensive if not close to free. Units moving via ship and rail road are the most economical means by which to move units and all stuff for that matter.
Least amount of fuel and other assets are needed for Strategic Movement.
Load em up and off they go, the passengers sit in rest for the journey.
It is when units are in the field of operations and combat that all the resources and supplies are sucked up.
i.e. panzers running out of diesel, ammo, oil.
then there is the great strategic planning the IJN had to make time and time again when planning and executing naval operations because of the fuel shortages.
The Russians even managed to rail heavy industries via rail to beyond the Urals, a great feat buy by rail it was economical at every level of consideration.
A critical key for the German advantages in the early part of the war was their Infrastructure. A much improved infrastructure from W.W.1 with the creation of their strategic highway called the autobahn. With a concentric industry, rail and highway network the German military had this as a Strategic Logistical Superiority over all of europe and the world. That coupled with mechanized forces, well trained, equipped military...they were the greatest Military - Industrial Complex in the world.
So? For our SC2 and WaW then, the movement points as they are are upside down. Units should be burning resources (fuel, supplies, food etc.) when moving normally. What schedule of consumption? I do not know...
But that is the issue and the question.
Does Global Conflict use the old movement parameters or has it changed to reflect real world Logistics?
-
Michael Emrys,
If I had to guess, I'd speculate he's referring to the astounding range of weapons found in CMBO that aren't in the other games. Also, I suspect that neither the Med nor the Eastern Front are really of that much interest to him; that the ETO is his bread and butter.
Regards,
John Kettler
:rolleyes:Sorry to disappoint but my primary interests are in the War in Russia.
I'm an American and veteran with a strong personal interest in CMBO and CMAK.
But historically my preference is the Eastern Front. I hope that is understandable.
-
How do you mean "samples"?
Michael
I was referring to the quality or fidelity of the sound efx (esp. weapons sounds) in the CMBO game.
Hmm, would the sound files be compatible for transfer to the CMBB and CMAK games...?
My original query was to find some terrain upgrades/mods for CMBO.
Can someone email them?
-
Can someone recommend a terrain improvement mod?
And, am I the only one that thinks that generally, the weapons samples in CMBO are superior to CMBB and CMAK?
-
Been thinking..."Normandy", if this new CM game is strictly covering the beach and beach heads then it works. But if the game transcends that geography then a title consistent and more descriptive should be substituted:
- CM Overlord and Liberation
- CM Overlord to the Rhine
- CM Overlord to Berlin
Am I thinking inside a dream?:confused::confused:
- CM Overlord and Liberation
-
I have: CMBO, BB and AK. Play and designing scenarios for em at the Blitz as "Bear". Currently I have a scenario using six inch naval guns, direct fire. The battle at Brolo/Naso Ridge, Sicily (Patton's Gambit)
http://www.theblitz.org/h2h_productions/Combat-Mission/action=testing_ladder&lid=1
Thank you Kettler for the heads up. Got em both.
What and where is this CM:N, Combat Mission: Normandy is it?
Awfully restrictive title/subject, but better something than the madness of nothing at all, ehh?
Anyone have a link for CMN?
-
When will we see this game?
Paratroop drops, gliders, star shells, beach fortifications, big naval guns...jeez am I the only one anxious for this?
-
For URD on the difficulty of breakthrough, the Russians faced relatively smart German defense schemes, but at bottom their difficulty in the breakthrough phase was just one of bad tactical doctrine, which they overcame by using a "total dose" in a very messy and inefficient fashion. Which nevertheless usually sufficed, even if it was expensive, if sufficient force was applied. But the belief that the levels of concentration they used were *required* to achieve break-ins (distinct from defeating enemy reserves at operational depth) was false, and every other army in the war proved it. So did their own on more successful occasions.
What do I mean by poor tactical doctrine and a total dose solution? First I'll explain the latter term. It refers to "patent medicine" quackery, at bottom. When you don't have any idea what is wrong with the patient and therefore don't know what specific remedy the situation demands, the quack just takes everything he's ever used with any success and mixes them all together into one "total dose". The patient's body is supposed to respond to the right one, and if all the rest don't do any good, well, those are the breaks. In other words, you simply throw the kitchen sink at the problem, without any idea what object thrown will succeed in doing what. This is a dumb "rich" man's approach to combined arms (rich in a local tactical sense, obviously).
Now, this is very inefficient in force requirements and especially in losses sustained to achieve a given effect. But it will work, at least most of the time, if pushed far enough. Similarly, overpacking a frontage with the wrong weapon doesn't help, it instead raises own-side losses fruitlessly. But if you don't know which arm is the right weapon and which arm is the wrong one, you overload them all. All the wrong ones take outsized losses to no purpose, but the right one does the job.
Getting more specific, if you line up guns wheel to wheel and fire a million shells, you will get the other guy's attention. But you are approximately minimizing, not maximizing, his losses per shell fired. Because after the first 2 minutes, or 5 minutes tops, everyone is deep in their holes or already eviscertated. You then bounce the rubble around a lot while the men in the cellars get a bit deaf, but survive.
Similarly, when you put an entire rifle regiment on-line on a single kilometer and go over the top after the above, you aren't appreciably increasing the combat power of infantry on that frontage, compared to having one battalion there, and that picking its way forward carefully with 2 companies up and those 2 platoons up etc. But you do ensure that every enemy 105mm HE shell fired to defend that kilometer kills or wounds 3-5 times as many friendly infantrymen.
Massing gunfire in tubes, shells, and time simply doesn't linearly add artillery effect. Massing rifle manpower on limited space doesn't linearly add infantry effect. Trying to achieve breakthrough by those means alone is stupid; the Russians did it along with everything else because they didn't know what else to do to achieve breakthrough more readily.
Now, there were elements in the Russian army that knew better, and sometimes practiced it or got their formation to do so. The right way to lead a breakthrough with infantry is pathfinder recon by picked men, for example. The right artillery barrage is one that is short but very carefully planned using very specific and up to date intel on enemy positions, with the attack arriving in some areas while the barrage is still falling in others.
And the right way to use armor in a breakthrough is to commit it very early, heavily massed, on a narrow frontage chosen as to location and timing, so as to maximize surprise, not preparation by other arms.
The Russians had a few poor experiences early in the war (meaning through summer 1942 basically) in which they sent the armor first without any combined arms to speak of and into a poorly recon'ed enemy defense, and lost heavily without achieving break-in. They decided this meant that the right time to commit the armor was the second day, or at the earliest the second half of the first day for a leading echelon, and the right time for an exploitation tank army was more like day 3. This was too clever by half. It was a safety, low variance "play" designed to make sure the carefully prepared armor was intact for its operational exploitation role. But it wasn't the most efficient way to achieve break-in, tactically speaking, and it routinely led to epic losses to over-concentrated leading rifle formations even when the whole thing succeeded. It also typically gave the Germans an extra day to bring reserve panzer divisions to the fully IDed impending breakthrough site. If they had sufficient such reserves for the scale and spread of the attacks, they would therefore stop them soon - and the Russians would feel reinforced in the belief that break-in was the hard part.
This impression was also created by the fact that break *through* (not, "in") cannot be created at will against an enemy with sufficient overall operational strength, without first conducting prolonged attrition operations to set it up, or distracting his reserves to other sectors operationally speaking. This creates the impression that it is a mistake to just launch massed armor at one chosen spot and that expensive prep-work beforehand is essential.
Two time scales are being conflated in that, and two different processes. One being operational attrition of enemy reserves to prepare breakthrough, and the other being tactical break in. If the enemy is already prepared, tactical break in is easy - mass the armor and hit one place hard, armor leading, but with all arms support of course. If the enemy isn't already prepared, instead it is better to nibble and bleed him without even attempting one big breakthrough "push". Premature grand breakthrough attempts that aren't justified by the overall strategic situation, trying to "force" things prematurely, make it look harder than it is and drive the losses higher.
What does the nibbling process look like, instead? Infiltrate one rifle battalion and shell what they can see in the morning. Hold off local counterattacks meant to eject them from the enemy position. Repeat until insane. If you have the strategic odds, one month of that will bleed the enemy to inability to hold his whole front. You have to notice this, and notice where he is too thin, and then hit that spot, not all spots.
Whenever the Russians lead with massed armor on the first day, and carefully prepped the offensive in local intel terms, they broken in as easily as anybody else. They just tried massed infantry on the first day without surprise, N too many times, *as well*.
The characteristic mark of unclever, total dose inefficiency, is that the poor match ups are not *avoided*. The required ones are eventually tried and work. But tactically smart attacks jump right to that "chase" and skip all the regiment-per-kilometer mass slaughter part.
What sort of agenda are you trying to fulfill?
The Bagration Operation was an absolute strategic and operational success. The Russian led armies executed a massive rolling barrage for at least twelve hours with follow up infantry regiments as Reconnaissance in Force. The rest is history: on the third anniversary of the Axis invasion Bagration achieved a 400 mile advance in less than four weeks. From Vitebsk to the plains before Warsaw! And the Ukrainian Front then advanced to Lvov and Brest making the frontage nearly 700 miles wide. Yes, the Russian allied forces lost over 750,000 but the German and Axis lost 350,000 and were all in all thrown out of Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania. War is hell on earth, and when attacking the attacker always takes higher losses because of coming out to kill the enemy is nasty business.
Yes Jason, you are correct, the Russian allies payed a high prices for victory over the axis. Attack after attack against German Nazis fanatics was costly, especially when no one would give quarter.
Your statement "The only cases where you see tank-heavy forces repulsed in the breakthrough fight is early war British and Soviet attacks." is false. Without writing a thesis for you I will refer you to the Axis Operation Citadel. And the Russian Mars Operation had multiple purposes. There were goals for a breakout, but even when it became obvious there would be no breakout, the equally important goal was as an Operational Soak Off of German forces away from Stalingrad aka Uranus which was the Main Event according to Vasilevsky, and everything that needed to be done for surprise and success in the South had to be done, as it was.
-
Interesting idea. I see some possible issues. What if the city is already occupied? This could be too much work to program as we have no idea if the city would be very close to the front line or far back. And there is the potential that the "nearest" city might actually result in an illogical relocation to the other side of a front (such as in North Africa).
I find the design of the game as it is now basically emphasizes always garrisoning cities.
Give the latest version of "Hearts of Iron" a try. I'd be curious what your impression is.
The game does have grid coordinates that would give the engine search ability for a city.
If the closest city is occupied, then unit goes adjacent to that city, preferably the far side.
I do not understand why such a process would be an issue?
I've dedicated too many hours to Waw...I have one PBEM to finish...
Will test drive "Hearts" soon...
-
I have never seen these types of ships purchased in a game.
Due to mass production wouldnt it be cheaper to build X number of tanks with the same material vs a battle group? And while the navel units have indivadual names, in the game perspective dont they represent many other smaller units. After all if we went the route that they are one ship, the subs are horidly over priced, but as a Wolf Pack, or US sub division they fall closely into the right price.
I've made the assumption that the DDs and SSs represent many ships. And I can rationalize that the CAs represent two sister ships since the graphic shows two. Using the heavy cruiser as a benchmark since there is an official reference to one heavy being equivalent to 250 tanks. An average Tank Corps/Army will have 500+ tanks which should equal two Cruisers...the numbers do not add up. It seem arbitrary to me and coupled with the postings that players don't even bother with building ships or repairing them makes the point. Yes, there are tenders, oilers and tug boats etc. but the relative cost in this game scale is what?....20 Mpp?
My conclusion is that the Cruisers should be 200 to 250 points.
Battleship 300 - 350
Carrier 400 - 425
In addition, repair costs make ships obsolete in Waw game parameters.
-
does anyone actually buy cruisers or battleships? i have a hard enough time justifying repairing em. lol..
Not building or repairing ships says volumes...
-
Recently I learned from a British Admiralty 1942 claim that a heavy cruiser is equivalent to 240 tanks. That triggered a memory of Hitler saying, as memory serves, "I don't see a battleship anymore, I see 200 - 300 Tigers".
Y'know where this is going...The Production Cost of a Tank Corps, if there's 500 or more tanks, then the Cost of a Battleship and Cruisers should be less than that of a Tank Corps. My estimation is that the BB in SC2 may be 100 points too much, and the CAs (assuming they represent 2) are 50 or so over priced.
Upon reviewing my Royal Navy film, dated February 1944:
"The ten thousand ton, heavy cruiser is equivalent to 250 tanks."
I only mention this because my review of the build costs for ships, except CVs, seems to be too high. Ships are in inflated by 50 - 100 points.
-
First of all I have been play testing the game in multiplayer, solo and with an opponent.
Originally I proposed a retreat in combat for land and sea. The critical issue for land units is that they disappear into the build menu. This absence of a remnant unit from the battlefield creates such a void that it cascades into a strategic collapse in Africa, Middle east and Russia.
The "Retreat in Combat" is not the main idea, although in naval affairs there can be a debate. But in land combat, my proposed change, is that eliminated units ought to show up on the battlefield the following turn (1 - 3 strength possibly) and at the closest city or Hq from where the defeat took place. This will force the Axis to build more land units to cover the front.
This in fact will improve play balance, add realism and free up Mp from rebuilding a remnant from the build menu for other uses i.e. Diplomacy etc. (where the going is tight). The player will have the option to Reinforce, Upgrade or move the unit next turn. As opposed to the unit disappearing into the builds menu and if rebuilt (at full strength) to reappear two turns later which for some theaters already means that theater is already doomed or lost.
Of course this improvement will enable to code writer(s) to fix the relocation of "foreign unit losses" such as Aussies, S.Africans, Canadians, etc. from finding themselves in the UK.
*I am a veteran of War In Russia, Third Reich, hitlers War and
Clash of Steel... I am only here to seek to make this a better game. My proposal for the relocation of eliminated ground units to a friendly city or Hq is not willy nilly. I have surrendered the idea of Retreat in Combat to the Relocation of destoyed ground units.
-
And rather than the S.Africans returning to Cairo they are rebuilt in England? Too far and fantastic.
-
This keeps coming up also. Except for a high level air unit attacking a cheap corps someplace, it is rare for a single air unit attack to completely destroy a full strength ground unit. What we have in this game system of individual attacks is multiple sequential attacks culminating in a "kill shot" by one unit. Assuming multiple combined arms attacks, why not allow that air unit to destroy the ground unit? And if one air unit can inflict some damage, then multiple air attacks on a single target should also be able to inflict damage and perhaps completely destroy a unit with air attack alone. So what? If air assets are all being used on a few select targets then they are not being used elsewhere. And if there are too many air units or too many at high level, then that's another issue to consider.
This is just another case of focusing too closely on an individual combat and not liking the abstractions. So, don't focus too closely!
Look at the bigger picture and see if overall results over time and across a theater are reasonable or not. Going back to the 'ol Third Reich game, consider if 3 air fleets and an infantry were all attacking an enemy infantry at 3-1 odds and completely destroyed it. Who did that, just the infantry with some air support or maybe just the air units with some token infantry support? Who cares? In the course of that 3-month long seasonal turn you applied combat power to a battle and the results were what the were. Move on. See the forest, not the trees.
Combined arms attacks on ground units is understandable as a way to annihilate a ground unit. Combined arms attacks should always have a bonus in attacks, don't know it there is such a bonus. But, Bomber and Tactical Air sorties should in no way be able to eliminate a ground unit. That was a fact proven by World War 2. Air force alone cannot vanquish the enemy any where any time; i.e. Berlin, London, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Operation Goodwood, Casino, Malta etc.
-
I think we'd actually find it more frustrating if a 1 strength unit couldn't be destroyed by air attacks.
I see a unit's destruction as representing the loss of its combat power, as it has effectively disintegrated and the survivors need to be taken out of the line, rested, re-equipped and reinforced by replacements from the depots. As a result it will be out of the war for a period of time, and that's the end result that this game gives us.
I appreciate the abstractions of the "unit destroyed" routine in the game. I am encouraged that there is some agreement here. But, it is not logical for the remnant of an
Army of Corps to goto an alternate reality, the basis of the unit remains. Rather than have it go off board, my view is that when it is "eliminated" or rather shattered, the remnants of the ground units should merely be routed into the zone of the nearest Hq or friendly City of national origin (supply source), i.e. a destroyed German shattered in Russia would reappear in Greater Germany or German proper.
The oddity of a Aussie or S.African unit shattered in Africa and rebuilding in Britain makes my case most clear. The remnant ought to show itself immediately in a secure Commonwealth held rear area in the Middle East theater.
Treating the unit this way keeps it real and "in the game" as a remnant occupying a real place on the map rather than disappearing into the build menu.
-
Hey that's what grumpy old guys are here for!
Rather than the cadres showing up on the map, the virtual cadres are assumed to be forming the new units at reduced cost and build time. May not be perfect but works OK. Better than before in SC1 with no rebuild advantage.
Another retreat perspective is the old AH Russian Front game. In that game combat occurred in the hex. Encircled units could move to "attack", accept a soakoff loss, and continue to "retreat" through the encriclement lines and back into friendly territory. Point is there are many possibilities and hard to say what is "right" and "wrong" in a game design. If every game was the same, that wouldn't be very interesting.
Yes, The Russian Campaign is a great classic board game.
I concede that the retreat idea has gained no support here. And I appreciate that such a routine would involve too much coding.
Returning to the issue I have with WaW is the Combat Result which you kindly noted here. Here is the breakdown:
A unit is "destroyed", in two weeks it returns to the Purchase Menu at a reduced price for a full strength (10) rebuild. That is a good game routine/feature. Rather than allowing the Combat Process force units into oblivion and reappear for rebuilding/reinforcing, it would be far better to "Shatter" the ground unit and have it reappear at the closest Headquarters or City to where the unit was "Shattered" by the enemy.
There are important benefits from my experiences with the game (SC2 and WaW):
1. The losing player would have a unit to garrison a city and/or add to it's perimeter.
2. The losing player might save points, depending on the reduced strength level of the "Shattered" unit, and possibly apply those points to Intel or Diplomacy etc.
3. Exceptions to this "Shattered unit retreat", would be ground units on islands...another?
4. The Shatter retreat process would also help to lighten the fantastic combat results when air and/or naval bombardments eliminate land units. <sigh>
*My gaming preference is SC2 over WaW...IMHO
-
I disagree that adding retreat to combat results would solve the problem of tech upgrades creating absurdly bloody combat results.
I also disagree that on a one week scale a combat force as large as an army could / would respond to the approach and engagement of superior enemy forces and be able to organize a retreat of 50 miles or more (keep in mind that because of the sequential usage of units a defending unit might be hit multiple times in a single turn, if each of those times resulted in a retreat that unit might be driven back say 150 miles (three retreats) which is completely absurd.
Now that I'm thinking about these issues, I think a better solution would be to dramatically increase the cost of reinforcing units (and building new units) while at the same time reducing losses in combat significantly. Unfortunately this does tend to mean a fairly substantial redesign of the game, it couldn't be done very well by just modding.
"The Russian 4.Army retreats approximately 300 miles in 24 days." -
West Point Atlas Volume II
This is a quick check, in SC2 scale: 100 miles/week.
During the Napoleonic Wars that is reasonable march or retreat.
-
Then how would you simulate encircling and capturing units? (which results in the loss of the cadre and leaves nothing to rebuild)
If the surrounded unit is cut off by units with strength at 7+ then the unit is toast and goes off to rebuild menu.
If the unit is cut off by enemies with strength 6-. Then if it is destroyed (shattered) then remnants would reappear at a randomized strength (1; 2; or 3 randomized) logically at or about the nearest friendly HQ or City. This remnant would be on the following losing player "Units Arrived" meunu or be assigned by the AI to the nearest HQ or city, and that too can be randomized.
-
Maybe, it depends on the system. I would not claim retreat is a must-have fundamental feature for every game. My all-time favorite AH Third Reich board game had no retreat or step-loss feature; the CRT was either AE, DE or exchange with no in-between. Combat results were HEAVILY abstracted and unrealistic, and yet the overall ebb and flow of the game managed to be a pretty good simulation of the ETO struggle.
All? No, you need to go back and read again what I wrote about the loss calculations. But even if all these things were "fixed", ie revised calculations and introduction of retreats, all you do is move the goalposts for this game and then begin to argue about the limitations on unit types and force pools and other issues. Like no stacking, no combined arms odds-based attacks, etc. etc. It remains a game and not a simulation.
I have been relatively happy with recent game results from my A3R mod as far as that overall ebb and flow of the game is concerned. Individual combats remain abstract, but results over time appear fairly historical and realistic. See, this is the beauty of the Editor and ability to mod the campaigns. Players can make adjustments to achieve more of a simulation effect, or add more flexibility for a wilder game. :cool:
Thank you pzgndr. Your reference to the ol "Third Reich" does cause me to recall how well it played. The retreat in combat may not be the main issue. It is the void created when a unit disappears. It is most noticeable in the Russian Front play balance. Rather than having a "destroyed" unit disappear for a turn and show up as a build. I believe it would be better for it to reappear in the next turn either adjacent to a HQ or in or about a city, within 'x' number of spaces from the space where the unit was shattered. The cadre and remnants of such units should, in my view, still be present somewhere and in some form (reduced strength of course) on the map.
Thank you pzgdr
-
pzgndr, I agree the tech advance system is too crude and bloody for my preferences. I would like more steps and yet not have it become so bloody. Certainly weapon systems became more lethal as the war progressed, but tactics adjusted too (historically as firepower has increased the density of combatants has decreased). I'm not aware of any huge change in loss rates from the beginning of the war to the end of the war. In fact look at the early campaigns.... Poland, France, Barbarossa... huge enemy forces were defeated very rapidly. If anything (at least in Europe) the results at the end of the war were less "bloody". Air bombing might be an exception as the larger bombers delivered larger bomb loads and wreaked incredible destruction on the German cities (but that was also due to *more* bombers).
I'll always be a little "disagreeable" because SC2 is designed as a game and what I desire is a simulation.
Please read Post #19. I think it offers food for thought...
Thank you
-
This is an important point. It's a game. The other thread haggling about what specific tanks or airplanes represent each tech level and whether their appearance is historical or not is just getting down into weeds that don't mean anything. It's not a simulation.
As a game it's fun and there's adequate WWII historical flavor. IMHO, one way around the "bloody" combat results associated with the high tech levels is to restrict research to just a couple levels or not have any research at all. #1 reason being there is no "relative difference" calculated between attacker and defender tech levels. Both loss calculations account for increasing tech levels for either side, which both increase over the course of a game, but do not cancel themselves out. Thus two L5 units will beat the heck out of each other worse than two L0 units will, whereas intuitively you might think the results should be more consistent?
The issue of Bloody results addresses the point I make here.
The combat "reality" of SC2 is:
A unit is portrayed as lame and ignorant. It will sit in the battlefield and take air strikes, artillery, armor attacks, lose 30, 40, 50% of strength even before the enemy tanks and infantry have begun their work. No problem, that unit will sit, and sit and sit and get wiped out. And then rebuilt from scratch next week and wait weeks or months to see it again. The Combat result not only effects the situation on the map, that destroyed unit will now suck up MPPs on the Purchase schedule along with it's "lost" upgrades in tech.
It is not a question of Game versus Simulation. I consider the idea of retreat in combat as a fundamental feature of war gaming. If the relatively simplistic board game of forty years ago demonstrates that combat will cause units to retreat just as in real combat then shouldn't a computer game in 2009 offer the same?
A retreat probability will remedy all the differences in weapons technologies that have just been mentioned in this thread.
-
They've effectively been interned by Vichy French forces.
It's a harsh lesson, but the moral of the story is to not have any non-French units in the area that will become Vichy France when the fall of France is imminent. I once lost a bomber that way, and I have never done it again!
Yes, I can understand the French fall out. But the UK South African Division?
Look at the bigger picture and see if overall results over time and across a theater are reasonable or not. 
Have movement logistics changed for Global?
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
Is there a new version or patch for SC2 and/or WaW I'm not aware of?
My game requires the expenditure of points for Operational Movement.
("No one here seems to be playing the same game version I have?")
That is why I said that the schedule for paying points for Operational Movement and not for normal/combat movement was "upside down".
Logistically, and logic seems elusive...Operational Movement i.e. railroads and ship transport is the most economical in comparison to normal/battle movement in the real world. I doesn't matter if the trains are running on coal, oil or electricity. Moving a division by rail is cheap and fast compared to moving cross country on roads and off roads and having to supply the men, horses, trucks. Either way Readiness is sacrificed, but that's not the point.
I suggested that the strategic costs be removed and a simple schedule (of those same nation resource points pool) be spent on normal movement.
How to assign those costs, that is which units consume what amount of mps is the next decisive step.
Or! Why not have a Locomotive pop up at a city when a player wants to use rail transport. Similar to Sea Transport. And allow the travelling unit to freely transfer to a ship when it arrives at a port city via rail movement...hmmm. Makes a target rich train, ehh? Realistic use of air for rail interdiction...Yes, that just came to me...
But the fundamental correction to paying for Operational Movement ought to be eliminated. Normal movement should have the burden of being paid for in Production Points (mmp's). That shouldn't be a monster task and would be more realistic which would result in a benefit to the Production Pools for the Axis and USSR. i.e. The allies land in France, the Axis player needs to use Operational movement for seven units in Russia. The cost will be well over 100 Production Points.