Rail hub rule change proposal

[deducter]

Currently, city hexes with rails are not very useful. It is almost always faster and more preferable to simply shift troops around on foot. This is it takes a turn to load a unit onto a train and move it, another turn to disembark, and yet another turn before the unit is ready to attack. 3 turns is simply too many in most situations, and railing units around is mostly a gimmick that is used only in special scenarios (Orel) or on rare occasion in MP (opening move of Iron Cross, Red Star, on occasion on Urban Warfare).

I propose instead of the current mechanic, make it so that a unit can embark and disembark at its destination in the same turn, but the unit suffers 50% suppression when disembarked at a new rail hub.. This way, railing units will become much more useful, and with 50% suppression (like paradrops) it will discourage players from railing units right up to the front of the battlefield unless he is prepared to suffer high losses. This mechanic should not be overpowered, because of scarcity of rail hubs in general.

Secondly, a railed unit should only be able to disembark on a friendly city hex. This will prevent gamey tactics of "blitzkriegs" via troops on trains capturing undefended hexes.

[Flaygor]

Firstly, Hello everyone!

Second, I would like to add my support to deducter's proposal.

I tried this out using one of the Arnhem scenarios, where you have to clear Arnhem and then move right down the map to reinforce against oncoming armour from Eindhoven, and found very little advantage from using rail.
In fact, units moving normally were able to help out in other actions along the way if required. I agree that Paratroop rules work and could provide a better system.

The only thing I will say in favour of the current rules is that moving by "foot" uses up fuel and will usually cost you a turn to resupply, this does not occur using rail.

However, using rail is supposed to be a tactical advantage that speeds up movement and this is not always evident as the game stands.

[Anfield]

Id be all for that, I like the rail option, but as was said, that 3 turns to use it is simply to much time in a limited turn based game, so I almost never ever use it, but would like too.

[Razz1]

This has been mentioned before hand.
The designers love small maps.
In fact they are smaller than the original Panzer Corps series.
In PC rail was useful as the maps are larger.

Let's see what happens in Allied corps.

[boredatwork]

1) Why have rail transported troops able to disembark during the same turn at 50% suppressed while truck or half track mounted units are forced to remain mounted at the end of the turn? To me it seems counter intuitive that an antitank, artillery piece, or infantry unit in a truck or HT is less ready for action at the end of a given turn that a similar unit moved via train.

The other flaw is the transported unit does not have the same fear aircraft attacks because it does not have to remain mounted during the enemy's turn.

Why not just have rail units end their turn mounted and (assuming they on a suitable disembarking point) start the next turn dismounted and ready for further action (including remounting for further rail movement) keeping the mechanics similar with how truck transport works? That also makes them suitably vulnerable during the enemy's turn.



2) I would tend to agree with Razz however that rail transport should be a strategically useful tool as opposed to a tactically/operationally useful one. In that context I think the current rail transport is fine, it simply requires scenario designers to design their scenarios in such a way to make such movement useful. Not just by making the maps larger (relative to the number of units, but also by not giving the players "ideal" deployment zones with the entirety of their core immediately on map and in the front line.

On defensive scenarios Orel is a good (and virtually the only) example of deployment zones sufficiently far away from where the units need to be defensively to make rail transport work. Other scenarios could have easily adopted this feature - the Bagration scenarios in particular scream for having the player's force out of position at the start and having to have them railed in as reinforcements to build a new defensive line.

A further change that would add a greater degree of "strategic" elements to the game thus improving the utility of railroads would be giving scenario designers the option to make core slots available in waves - ex the player deploys 20 units at the start of the scenario, then at turn 8 gets an additional 10 slots to deploy reserves - the reserves coming on a specific map edge, whether on offence or defense, would benefit from rail movement to get them to the front quickly.

[deducter]

1) Why have rail transported troops able to disembark during the same turn at 50% suppressed while truck or half track mounted units are forced to remain mounted at the end of the turn? To me it seems counter intuitive that an antitank, artillery piece, or infantry unit in a truck or HT is less ready for action at the end of a given turn that a similar unit moved via train.

The other flaw is the transported unit does not have the same fear aircraft attacks because it does not have to remain mounted during the enemy's turn.

Why not just have rail units end their turn mounted and (assuming they on a suitable disembarking point) start the next turn dismounted and ready for further action (including remounting for further rail movement) keeping the mechanics similar with how truck transport works? That also makes them suitably vulnerable during the enemy's turn.

This is also fine. Making troops stay on trains leaves them even more vulnerable when caught in transit, which is reasonable. However exactly the mechanic is done, moving troops via rail should take 2 turns, not 3. Also that troops on train should not be able to enter a non-friendly city hex.

2) I would tend to agree with Razz however that rail transport should be a strategically useful tool as opposed to a tactically/operationally useful one. In that context I think the current rail transport is fine, it simply requires scenario designers to design their scenarios in such a way to make such movement useful. Not just by making the maps larger (relative to the number of units, but also by not giving the players "ideal" deployment zones with the entirety of their core immediately on map and in the front line.

On defensive scenarios Orel is a good (and virtually the only) example of deployment zones sufficiently far away from where the units need to be defensively to make rail transport work. Other scenarios could have easily adopted this feature - the Bagration scenarios in particular scream for having the player's force out of position at the start and having to have them railed in as reinforcements to build a new defensive line.

A further change that would add a greater degree of "strategic" elements to the game thus improving the utility of railroads would be giving scenario designers the option to make core slots available in waves - ex the player deploys 20 units at the start of the scenario, then at turn 8 gets an additional 10 slots to deploy reserves - the reserves coming on a specific map edge, whether on offence or defense, would benefit from rail movement to get them to the front quickly.

Philosophically I agree, but this is not practical given the current game engine. Something to think about for a sequel.

I am suggesting a simple change to make a mechanic in the game more useful, as opposed to completely revamping map design and strategic movement.

[KeldorKatarn]

I agree with deducter here. I've rarely used this feature and the only reason is really the 3 turn caveat. Trying to relocate not one but 2 units makes it completely useless, since you waste too many turns.

turn 1: you load the unit and move it, move the 2nd unit into the city
turn 2: you unload the first unit and load the 2nd unit. but since you cannot move the 1st unit after unloading you cannot move the 2nd unit into the city yet
turn 3: you move the 1st unit one hex out of the city to make room for the 2nd. You move the 2nd unit in.
turn 4: you unload the 2nd unit
only at turn 5 you can finally move all 2 units. That's just ridiculous and a waste of time.

[guille1434]

I think the rail transport system could borrow some from land transports: when the rail transport arrive to a rail station city, on the beginnig of the other turn it should appear the transported unit dismounted and ready to move elsewhere by its own. This only should happen if the rail transport ended the previous turn in a city hex, if not, it should start next turn mounted on the rail transport ready to continue its movement to a city.
This way you can:
Turn 1: Load unit on rail transport and move it to another city.
Turn 2: (unit at destination city) move the unit out from city or load again on rail transport to continue its movement by rail.
Turn 3: You can move the second unit by rail to the same destination city.
Turn 4: Second unit is ready to move or attack from its new location.

You can move one unit to the same city one time in two turns.

Just a thought...

[sn0wball]

What I found irritating when using rail transport for the first time in pC was the complete lack of a possibility to dismount from a train outside a city, especially with regard to infantry. Armed soldiers calmly waiting in their waggons and watching enemy tanks approaching, firing on them, without fleeing or firing back ... well, sure, it´s a game, but I don´t see why you can´t dismount from a train outside a town.

[timek28]

What I found irritating when using rail transport for the first time in pC was the complete lack of a possibility to dismount from a train outside a city, especially with regard to infantry. Armed soldiers calmly waiting in their waggons and watching enemy tanks approaching, firing on them, without fleeing or firing back ... well, sure, it´s a game, but I don´t see why you can´t dismount from a train outside a town.

I don't use rail often. In fact I use it very rarely (I recall using it only in Stalingrad in original PC). As there is wast amount of space to be covered, with pockets of defense.

I agree that it is somewhat inexplicable that trains cannot be dismounted outside the city. Mounting in the city is logical but why wouldn't infantry just hop from the wagons wherever it is desirable. I cannot recall if tanks can be transported by train (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but in that case dismounting may be done in the city only (tanks require platforms and such things).

Infantry is different story. But generally rail transport is not very optimal and useful. Also computer uses trains pretty stupidly. A lot of times he just runs his trains into my units (and I destroy them), over and over again. Without even trying to dismount them in the closest city to mine.

[deducter]

[
I agree that it is somewhat inexplicable that trains cannot be dismounted outside the city. Mounting in the city is logical but why wouldn't infantry just hop from the wagons wherever it is desirable. I cannot recall if tanks can be transported by train (I don't see why they wouldn't be), but in that case dismounting may be done in the city only (tanks require platforms and such things).

Tanks most certainly were transported by train. Entire panzer divisions are pulled off the line or sent near the front via train transport. One example: Erhard Raus in command of 6. PzDiv, which was pulled from France to the Soviet Union in Nov 1942 to participate in Operation Winterstorm.

For game balancing purposes however, detraining anywhere along a rail line might be too good. You can quickly concentrate 4-5 units from all different parts of the map to a single area. Rail use is balanced by the fact that rail hubs are needed.

[KeldorKatarn]

I think it is realistic that even infantry cannot dismount. I know most of you think of infantry as just foot soldiers, but that is not even close to the truth. We're talking about roughly bataillon sized units here. They have heavy equipment, machineguns being only the lighter stuff. They have mortars, light infantry artillery guns, trucks. Also what about the ammunition and the guns? They do not travel with them, all that stuff is loaded up in the trucks or in packages on the train. Even if they dismount, it'd take them forever to unload all that stuff in the middle of nowhere. And then what? You cannot defend as infantry in open ground just sitting there. If you want to attack you need mortar and gun support, which is loaded up on the train and you cannot unload. if you defend with just your rifles and MGs... where? On open ground? You need to dig in and all the equipment to do that is loaded up on the train.
So even though on first glance it might seem silly, a transported unit, even infantry, is completely defenseless, so that concept is very realistic.
(And yes I've been in the infantry)

You must imagine what "dismount" means in PzC terms. Once a unit dismounts it is 100% ready. it can fight it can move. If you would dismount such a unit from a train in the middle of nowhere, on realistic terms it would be 90% suppressed because it has hardly any fighting capacity, and it would be unable to move (because all heavy equipment cannot be moved. The horses the lighter transport cars, all that is loaded up.
You don't have any close recon because even your binoculars are packaged. You don't have any communications because the radios the batteries the cables the distribution rack... is all on the train packaged. You have hardly any ammunition because your supply stuff migth actually not even be on the same train.
You have no tents so where do you sleep? You have no command center because those tents and their equipment is packed up. You don#t even have a kitchen because all that supply stuff, the stoves, the huge crates of food... all packed up and too heavy to unload without the equipment available at a train station.

So you are sitting there, cold, nearly no ammunition, no food, no place to sleep, you cannot dig in, you don't have any heavy weapon support, no communication, you hardly know where you are and enemy troops, fully equiped and ready are coming in.... good luck with that one

[sn0wball]

I think it is realistic that even infantry cannot dismount. I know most of you think of infantry as just foot soldiers, but that is not even close to the truth. We're talking about roughly bataillon sized units here. They have heavy equipment, machineguns being only the lighter stuff. They have mortars, light infantry artillery guns, trucks. Also what about the ammunition and the guns? They do not travel with them, all that stuff is loaded up in the trucks or in packages on the train. Even if they dismount, it'd take them forever to unload all that stuff in the middle of nowhere. And then what? You cannot defend as infantry in open ground just sitting there. If you want to attack you need mortar and gun support, which is loaded up on the train and you cannot unload. if you defend with just your rifles and MGs... where? On open ground? You need to dig in and all the equipment to do that is loaded up on the train.
So even though on first glance it might seem silly, a transported unit, even infantry, is completely defenseless, so that concept is very realistic.
(And yes I've been in the infantry)

Ok, that makes sense. I was thinking about armed soldiers jumping from a train, all guns blazing, but yes, given the scope of the game you are right.

This reminds me, there were Japanese scout cars which could swap railway wheels for road wheels in a few minutes, weren´t there? This could be an interesting concept for Pacific Corps (at least if it features the invasion of China).

[ThvN]

This reminds me, there were Japanese scout cars which could swap railway wheels for road wheels in a few minutes, weren´t there? This could be an interesting concept for Pacific Corps (at least if it features the invasion of China).

The one you mention was a very specialized vehicle, the Type 2595 Armored Railroad Car "So-Ki". It had both railway wheels that could be lowered and adjusted to different railway track widths (gauge), and normal tracks.



The Germans also tested a similar vehicle, based on a Panzer IIIN.



Yes, I spend to much time on the internet.

[guille1434]

There was Japanese 6x6 or 6x4 wheeled vehicle which had railroad wheels hung from its sides, ready to be used intead of the normal pneumatic tires, it was called (or may be it was the name of the manufacturer) the "Sumida". It was a unit present in Pacific General...

PS: I found it!

[ThvN]

Yes, I've seen that one before, nice find. But didn't these actually came mounted with very large railroad wheels as standard, and the tires you see hanging off the sides could be slid over these rims to give limited on-road mobility? I'm not 100% sure, though, there were many very odd vehicles around in those days.

The scheme you describe, exchanging the whole wheels, was done on several other vehicles. a few examples:

BA-6 (other BA types as well) Here shown while changing the wheels:


Panhard 178 (captured by Germans)


Autoblinda AB40

[guille1434]

Indeed, the sumida was a mainly a railroad vehicle, and it had special rubber tires to use mounted on the railroad steel wheels... By the way... nice photos!