Question on Engineers: could they build Railroads?

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I`m pretty sure all of you guys have as seen the movie "Bridge on River Kwai".. brilliant stuff. But to me that leaves one question open.. can engineers in WaW build railroad and/or streets? I think esp. of the gap between Tobruk and Alexandria.. or maybe a railway from Finnland through northern Norway. So here are two questions to Hubert and rest of the audience:

(1)

Do you guys think that makes sense? Would you like that feature? I personally would like it, coz it gives more alternatives to the player.. and in reality certain nations build RRs to improve supply.

(2)

Esp. to Hubert: is this feature possible to implement? Or would it be just to diffiult?

[Colin I]

The question is how effective was this. I'd think in Russia it was useful and was done and would be good to add to the game. I'd also like to see faster recovery of damaged infrastructure (eg ports) with Engineer support.

The Kwai Bridge, as portrayed in the movie, was built under hellish conditions. Think engineer build rate should also be penalized for bad supply and weather and if the unit is below strength. Also, leadership by HQ should enhance the rate, some Generals were good at logistics and infrastructure.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Sounds right. Let`s see what the other guys and esp. Hubert says.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I have no problem with it-in principle. Let partisans destroy road and rail networks tho to balance it out. The Axis can build 2 engineers, so the German one builds the West Wall while the Italian one tidies things up on the Eastern Front.

[Lars]

If the scale of the game map was larger in size and the turns shorter in time, I'd say it makes a lot of sense. But as is, there's already a railroad for pretty much everywhere you want to go.

Even if Hubert changed it, it would take a few turns to build that railroad to Tobruk, for instance, and I can't really see a player bothering when he could be building fortifications elsewhere.

[ebitt]

If the scale of the game map was larger in size and the turns shorter in time, I'd say it makes a lot of sense. But as is, there's already a railroad for pretty much everywhere you want to go

I think Lars has hit an essential point. The Soviets had 35 Brigade sized units devoted to rail construction and reconstruction. They were distinct from the normal (Sapper or Combat Engineers)units already in the game. You'd end up with the board covered with engineer units and no room for anything else. These 35 brigades built (or rebuilt) 120,000 kilometers of railroad giving a historical rate of about 50 kilometers (one tile) per month. If you go down this route you need to extend scorched earth to rail resources, not just cities.

[FuChu]

I would like to see it added. I have some ideas for maps that could utilize engineers being able to build railroads or roads. And I asked about this next idea long ago but would like to bring it up again. If engineers can be changed to allow building railways or roads could they be allowed to build port facilities too? I again have ideas for maps that could make use of this.

Thank you

[emf]

Perhaps instead of using the engineers we allow roads and railroad to be built as part of infrastructure technology. Each major power can build one road and/or one railroad per square per month for a certain number of mpp's. Each increase in i.t. would decrease the mpps needed and/or increase the number of road and railroad tiles that can be built per month.

[Liam]

All major powers possessed about the same construction ability. One way or the other... Either through slave labour or advanced engineering

Gary Grigsby had this feature, annoying micromanagement as does HOI

Not a SC quality or trait In my opinion

[PowerGmbH]

I was thinking the same, but the 2 allready mentioned factors are important:

SPACE on the map

COMPLICATED, more with this

So the River Kwai RR was important, as were some other Infrastructure Projects, but Strategically this should be seen as not relevant for an Strategic Game Approach.

Continuing this way, you end up Plannning the evening Meals for your armies, and weather to put Gas or Diesel in the Tank engine...

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Okay, some people seem to think it`s too much micro mnagement.. I would see it in a different way: it`s just an option. And buildung RR´s isn`t more micro management than building a fortification, isn`t it?

Anyway: thx for your thoughts.. most of them go in the same direction as my own thought.. it would be a "nice to have", but it isn`t important enough.

[Lars]

Well, not for the '39 Fall Weiss scenario.

Could be fun for the others.

[Bill101]

As long as it has limited use in a game it should be ok. I think that it will partly depend on the scenarios, and partly on how sensible the players are.

If victory can be brought a lot nearer by building one railroad using one engineer unit then it shouldn't be any more complicated than our current use of engineers, but if multiple railroads are required all over the map then it could be a different matter.

The bridge on the river Kwai is a perfect example of a railway built for a strategic purpose - to connect Burma to Thailand.

[Big Dog]

Not wanting to cause more issues (well, maybe I am), but if you are concerned with engineer railroads and realism, you should require the German engineers to rebuild the Russian rail system as they conquer it becasue it is the wrong gauge for German rolling stock. Captured rail stock was insufficent to supply the troops requiring the Germans to re-gauge the rails to supply their troops. This is partially recreated by requiring the cities to rebuild after capture, but that penalty occurs all over the map, not just in Russia. I remember a very old board game (showing my age) where the Germans had "Todt" units to accomplish just such a feat.

[Guest Mike]

You need to read this about German rail conversion in Russia - it wasn't nearly as bad as people think.

the russians built a few brand new major railways in the war - one went from Astrakhan south to the Caucasus and was apaprently nothign moer than sleepers and rails - no compacted railbed - the trains had to be slow, it was easily cut by air attack, but also easily repaired.

Other major rail addisitons were north from Stalingrad, some around Gorky east of Moscow, and from Archangel to the Finnish border

[Big Dog]

[ December 05, 2007, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Big Dog ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz:

... I think esp. of the gap between Tobruk and Alexandria...

Well, this really was done during the war. The line alreasy went as far as Mersa Matruh pre-war, and working on and off it was extended to Tobruk by May 1942. Construction was done by a series of approx bn-sized units (only one at a time) who were specialised and dedicated RR contruction units. It was pretty basic - again the sleepers went straight onto the desert, with no road bed, except where necessary to build up over depressions, etc.

One (1) mile of newly-laid track per day was pretty standard in the desert assuming trained men and adequate supplies of materials.

Samples:

* Similla to Misheifa, 92 miles, 6 months, May-Nov 1941

* Misheifa to Capuzzo via Halfaya, 68 miles, 3 months, Nov 41-Feb 42

* Capuzzo to Belhamed, 72 miles, 59 days, 3Apr42 - 31May42

Overall: 232 miles in 12 months, or about 20 miles per month.

[ December 05, 2007, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Edwin P.]

I would like to see engineers have the ability to build 1) Railroads and 2) Airfields

1. Railroads - Build at a rate of 1 tile per 2 months. Useless unless until it connects two cities. You can build 4 tiles per Infrastructure Tech Level - to keep the map from being overrun by rail units.

At infrastructure tech 2 you can build 8 rail tiles, at tech 1 you can only build 4.

2. Airfields - You can build 1 airfield per Infrastructure Tech Level. Airfields serve as a source of supply, and you can airlift corps into or out of an airfield to/from another city.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

2. Airfields - ... Airfields serve as a source of supply

Nice idea, but are there any examples of that actually being done? Edit: done at anything other than a bare subsistence - or lower - level for units of Corps size or larger.

you can airlift corps into or out of an airfield to/from another city.

Nice idea, but are there any examples of that actually being done?

[Lars]

None that I can think of. But, the idea does have merit in one respect.

"Any air unit on an air base can function normally regardless of weather."

Would reflect the fact that everybody else is operating off of grass strips in forward bases, hence the reason they're stuck in the mud.

As Allies, can think of two that would get built in the UK for the Bombers for sure. As Axis, might build one in France for an interceptor to help counter the raids, perhaps one or two could be useful by both sides in Russia, depending on situation.

[Liam]

You guys again are getting way of tract, because of the Massive Rail Network and the Strategic Implications of having Engineers, a unit meant to make, makeshift rail-barges-bridges-Clearing minds-antitank traps-etc...etc... a brigade more than an actual unit attached to every unit in any Major World War Power. Some more than others. Perhaps we should make Engineering a TECH instead and reflect the true historical aspect

On top of all this as anyone thought of how much Havoc Partisans reaped upon Rails in WW2! In WW1 and WW2 they probably hammered more supply and transport Capacity that one than actual uprisings... Causing all sorts of Communication issues as well

[JonS]

Hmm. So you want the cartoon version of history? Ok, crack on.

[Liam]

If you want the qualities of History, buy Hearts of Iron II the most detailed WW2 strategic/tactical/trade game in history currently released. Though there is 1 more title even more detailed supposedly coming for release. Strategic Command 2, and I should emphasize Strategic, was never meant to be a HUGELY MASSIVE tactical warfare game. Not that it doesn't present some joy and some level of maneuvering and neatness. The true depth of the game is it's simplicity and abstraction from reality. As even HOI2 is a RTS-RolePlaying game of WW2. Not a true Historic model, but the closest in History yet released for a PC. SC2 is so far the finest Strategic Release in a whole unique Genre. Games such as Third Reich, High Command, Etc..

None of these games are history, right now Rail Repair is handled by turn-based Economic Cost. It is represented. Every time you add in something you must weigh it's Balance. Grand Strategy requires a Great deal of Balance, why there was 6 patches to get the Original SC2 Vanilla some equality, as GamePlay is superior to History or Reality and that is why we play SC2.

P.S. http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=296

if you want true history this Matrix Game will be the most detailed game I believe next to HOI, it'll be finished when I'm grey

Originally posted by JonS:

Hmm. So you want the cartoon version of history? Ok, crack on.

[ December 06, 2007, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[FuChu]

I am for engineers being allowed to make railroads, and as Blashy pointed out even airfields and I would still like to see them be able to make ports. I am not trying to ruin the great maps Mr Cater and others have made. But I would love to see these items so other people includeing myself can make some unique maps to play. And for the people who state it would ruin the maps already in SC2, why could there not be a function to turn on or off these addons? I know Mr Cater is more than smart enough to be able to do it. The big question is will he ever find the time to do it with all the requests we all make on him.

If it is needed my reason for wanting engineers to build ports has to do with an a Pacific Island hopping series. And I tried putting in ports already existing in different formats but it did not work out and definately ruined the whole idea in my mind.

And now Blashy brings up the airfield idea!!! Woohoo that would give me even more ideas to play around with.

Thank you

[SeaMonkey]

You know FuChu you are right, and many of the other posters here have some excellent ideas.

I would love to see many of these suggestions incorporated into SC but there is just one problem.

Even though I don't play against the AI, many people do, and in fact probably the majority that own SC only play the AI. Therefor we must remember that even though these extra features seem mundane when thinking in reference to human usage, they are highly complicated to code for the AI to use competently.

Hence, I believe we all need to keep that in mind when making real suggestions that we would like incorporated into the game features.