transfers would put modern transportation to shame

[gravyface1]

I've come to the conclusion that troop transfers are too powerful. Having the ability to send a unit halfway across the globe in one turn puts modern transportation systems to shame.

The railnet in Russia was incompatible with German locomotives and the Russian locomotives were either evacuated to the Urals or destroyed by the Germans during the first year of Barbarossa.

In France, after the invasion, the allies had to spend huge amounts of engineering resources to rebuild the transportation network they devastated during the pre-invasion bombing campaign.

Is there any way to decrease the transport range per turn? I could increase the cost to transport units so they'd be almost out of reach and this might even prevent the AI from wasting resources moving an army to one city in exchange for another army.

I might even eliminate transfers altogether (make the cost 9999 if I can) and rely on units mobility and sea transports to accomplish this.

Any thoughts on this?

[n0kn0k]

Operating Railheads can be turned on.

It will limit you to Operating from cities only.

Already enough punishment regarding gameplay.

[gravyface1]

I must have that on already -- I can transport to any city as long as the supply is 5 I think. It's still too quick and/or cheap to do so. Think about how many resources would have to be diverted to moving an army of 100,000 men across the Continent?

[n0kn0k]

It will limit you to Operating from cities only.

Edit: also consider that a turn is like 2 or 4 weeks? Dunno for sure about the exact number. So with raidheads on it will take you 2 or 3 turns, depending on how far you are from a city

[gravyface1]

Well, I'm going to play with it and see where it leads me. I believe it will force you to think more about troop disposition instead of relying on a fat bank account and a Star Trek transporter to save your butt.

[BioWizard]

You should keep in mind that morale drops a lot after operating a unit! I guess it is for symbolizing units reorganization and restructuring. It is not simply teleportation then...

[Blashy]

Winter is 1 month turn, 2 week turns for spring/fall and 1 week turns for summer.

That is good enough for me and the morale drop.

[Iron Ranger]

Where is the Railhead option? I cant seam to find it.

[Blashy]

via the editor.

It benefits the Allies and in someway simulates some logistics issues the Germans had with Russian rail systems.

But it is kinda weird being able to use the train from only 4 locations in all of France (only 4 cities). Just an example.

[gravyface1]

Yes, that does seem a little strange but you can turn it off. I don't have a problem with the amount of railheads generally-speaking, but I do think that the transporting of units should take several turns and be physically represented by the transport range. i.e. if you wanted to move a unit from Paris to Stalingrad, you'd have to spend one turn "preparing" (like the paras) to transport and the next turn transporting, perhaps even to a limited range, like Warsaw or Minsk. I just think that moving 30,000 troops halfway across the globe instantaneously has a negative effect on gameplay -- it's too easy to say "oh no! Allies have invaded France! I better teleport three armies to my major cities now" and have your forces fully-prepared, yet slightly low on morale, in a single turn.

[n0kn0k]

You can also turn operating off in the same way as you turn railheads on

[Liam]

Operational movement isn't accurate but it's really hard to tactically improve upon it. The game level just doesn't support Rails properly nor does it support the many cities and limited transport areas represented in game... For instance, I highly doubt some of the Regions would support 200,000 to 1 million soldiers... Mountains would've killed off half of them due to attrittion regardless of Rail Supply in certian regions, especially during Winter. None of this is properly represented.. It is likely as many men would've died in the way we arrange our troops due to exposure as in combat!!! Even through much of Europe was urban and developed much of what is fought over isn't! Especially in Scandanavia and Russia.

I suggest that Opertional movement be a ton more expensive for regions outside of a Mother Country or it's Zones... Break it down that way, 200,000 from Berlin to Paris is pretty easy. Though from the Urals to Portugal in a few weeks, hmmmmm. Maybe half the men would have arrived and 1/5th their equipment. Perhaps charging extra for distance would solve this and extra for the outside of Control Zone or Major Transport Zone!

HEY and what about SEAPOWER? How could Russia Transport 2 million men to London in 5 weeks? I'd honestly like ot know

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Liam:

Operational movement isn't accurate but it's really hard to tactically improve upon it. The game level just doesn't support Rails properly nor does it support the many cities and limited transport areas represented in game...

Well, RAILS sure enough... could.

Make Op Moves more realistic, IMO.

You have a basic rail network,

And Op Moves/Strategic Moves

Would have to "follow the blazed trail"

Of... the rail road.

Supply too.

IOW, say, you could Operate a unit

From Berlin to Konigsberg,

Transport it to Helsinki,

And then, likely, depending on how you

ADD rail roads to your own mod/game,

Force march the unit to Mekilli Lakes area

Where Russian Karelian Front

Is causing incessant consternation.

That kind of thing.

BTW, Liam, your idea of Zones

Is a pretty good one.

Especially "over the seas" movement.

And, would work, especially WRT to sending

Air Fleets - all over the place and gone.

I would prefer it where you have to TRANSPORT

Air units across the 7 Seas.

Or, alternately, they could move

Up to TWICE normal strike range

As part of "re-basing,"

And, assuming a chain of friendly tiles,

Eventually get where they want to be.

**Various penalties and/or bonuses

For Op/Strat moves have been discussed

Since the very beginning.

Who knows?

Maybe some thing new!

And daring and different might appear

Down the John Henry rail road? :cool:

[Colin I]

Dave/others:

For land units why not give them simply a fixed (better than normal) move (Action Points) for OP move, increased for each level of infrastructure and if they start in or adjacent to a supply source (railhead effect) and/or finish in this environment. They cannot use it to enter enemy held territory and it won't work if enemy unit is adjacent (don't like tactical use of OP move).

This is basically a solution similar to that used in classical wargaming for non-combat/strategic movement - can't see why it won't work here too. It uses the normal game mechanics (normal movement rules with an effect like air units for not entering enemy territory), doesn't it so should program OK.

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by Colin I:

Dave/others:

For land units why not give them simply a fixed (better than normal) move (Action Points) for OP move, increased for each level of infrastructure and if they start in or adjacent to a supply source (railhead effect) and/or finish in this environment. They cannot use it to enter enemy held territory and it won't work if enemy unit is adjacent (don't like tactical use of OP move).

This is basically a solution similar to that used in classical wargaming for non-combat/strategic movement - can't see why it won't work here too. It uses the normal game mechanics (normal movement rules with an effect like air units for not entering enemy territory), doesn't it so should program OK.

Excellent propostion Colin I,

And I really like having "infrastructure"

Play a part in movement cost.

We need to make that research area

More valuable, in terms of

"Bang for the buck."

I wouldn't mind also seeing

Engineers able to build & repair

Rail roads,

So that Strat bombers would have

Another target.

[... and BTW, and as corollary,

I ardently AGREE with those

who would like the "naval bombers,"

however configured, to be able

to score hits on any convoy line]

Small % chance to hit, of course,

Yet,

It would add great excitement

(... trying to knock out the rail

from Paris to Brest in '44, for instance)

And equally vital - variablity

To this fast! evolving game.

**Nobody ain't seen hardly NUTHIN' yet!

ANYTHING that can enhance/increase

The... "aesthetic gestalt,"

Is - Jake the Rake, with me. :cool:

[gravyface1]

Colin's idea is a good one. The key here (and I'm sure Hubert et al agree) is to hide the complexity from the surface, whilst still providing enough detail and accuracy for challenging game experience. Some games like OAoW hide no complexity from the user: you have to micro-manage each minute aspect of the game, detracting from the playability (imho) and increasing the length of the turns exponentially. However, having incremental transfer/operating movement increases based on infrastructure level and geography/location -- in addition to supply rules -- would be a welcome addition. It wouldn't make a difference in the interface, but it would make troop deployment much more important.

As for the winter attrition, is there a way to apply the same random "rough seas damage" to units during winter? I have not touched the event scripting and am not sure if it allows unit substitution (land units instead of naval, for instance).

[SeaMonkey]

Changing the Ops move feature, other than playing with railheads, will drastically alter the game balance from the Axis perspective.

If you want to go down this route, my best suggestion would be to limit the amount of units using op moves/turn from Russian terrain.

This is enough to simulate the absence of infrastructure in USSR.

The ability to interdict rail movement already exists in the bomber role of reducing cities to less than 50% efficiency, denying op moves to that location.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SeaMonkey:

The ability to interdict rail movement already exists in the bomber role of reducing cities to less than 50% efficiency, denying op moves to that location.

True enough, insofar as it goes.

This moment.

Who knows what a modder might?

Wish to incorporate

In some other differenty scaled scenario,

1800 or so - forward,

As with US Civil War.

1) One thing... I can easily foresee

Rails going to places where there are

NO City as hub/terminus,

(IE... from a remote city and then

trailing off into... dead-end)

And you might want to cut that rail spur

To prevent supply to remote units.

Also, you have your VERY long line

From, let's say - Warsaw to Minsk.

Reducing either of those cities SHOULD?

Prevent ANY rail/supply movement

ALL ALONG that line?

No whistle-stop Train Stations in any

Small cities along the way,

As one might imagine it to be?

2) Yer apparent preference is apt,

IF you are using the "railheads" option.

If NOT, then you would likely

Wish to interdict the rail/supply network

Somewhere along the line, eh?

(... same way as you could interdict

convoy lines with a revised naval

dive/torpedo sort of bomber)

In fact, were there to be some rail/roads,

Then,

Our old pal the under-utilized Engineer

Would have - a new! task.

Repairing the network at break-point.

As is, we are apparently destroying

Some part of the transport hub

Located - somewhere

In the generally ruined City?

Are we sure we got that Round House?

Kinda small in relation

To the Big City and its vast environs.

And yet,

Assuming we did hit the tiny target,

Not any way to fix it.

Other than waiting for ONE improvement

Each turn,

Which may never happen

Since the determined Bomber

Could actually keep City @ zero - forever,

Or the rest of the present game,

Whichever comes first.

That likelihood seems... improbable.

IRL War, I mean.

More realistic,

As viable option, IMO, to have your on-map

Rail lines,

(... or air-vulnerable Convoy lines)

Which could be destroyed

At - ANY point, along the path,

And,

Here comes efficient Engineer!

Who could repair - at reasonable cost,

And,

In ONLY one turn,

That particular portion of the line

Has been disrupted.

Therefore,

Rail/roads are indeed an OPtional

Method to simulate... op-moves.

If we had it,

Modded in, or O/W,

I would use it.

INSTEAD of,

Or, a'times - for variety,

THE delightful spice of Life - in addition

To... "rail-heads." :cool:

________________________

**IOW... suppose there is a LONG rail line

From City to City - after all, not a LOT

Of Cities on board, and then the unit could

Op-move ONLY to - the point of disrupture,

And no further... say, half-way from Paris

To Brest, and not all the way

Into, or next to Brest.

_________________________

And, as possibility... allow your Engineer

To BUILD new lines.

For example,

You have the '39 Scenario

With rail/roads ONLY going

From Capital to Capital.

So.

IF you want that line from Paris

To Bordeaux, well,

You have to instruct Engineer

To construct.

I wouldn't mind something such as this

As well:

IF the Engineer connects a rail line

To a resource such as Oil or Mine/mineral,

Or, to a new! Factory Complex sprite,

THEN,

The value of the resources increases

By one.

Building things.

Making your OWN unique game board.

Now that's the ticket! LOL!

**Could even have it where old pal Engineer

Could ALSO

Construct:

1) Airports (... range and recon bonus)

2) Supply Depots (... for "offensives,"

Which, actually were VERY expensive

to undertake... might curtail some

of the helter-skelter ram-rod around, eh?)

3) Shipyards (... for repairs BEYOND

just the one point per turn for smaller ports)

4) Sub Pens (... IRL, there was not ANY

damage to ANY subs in ANY sub-pens)

5) ?????... no limit to the human ingenuity

or imagination, eh?

Now,

Some Old Guard Grogs are gonna opine:

"You want to have Civ 3 or 5 or 7?

Go buy it and play it!"

I say:

WHEN you can be intimately involved

In CREATING a VERY unique and personally

Contrived Map/Environment,

In a game, or,

In your own life (... IE, that new!

kitchen remodeling you finally!

Finished at great effort? So neighbors

actually CLAMOR to come to

YOUR house for dinner? LOL!)

Well,

All to the better.

IMHO. :cool:

[ February 14, 2007, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]