What a joke this idea invaders can't use railroads

[Jaybe]

Re: Thank you for making my case

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


The Germans got the railroads running DAYS after the Sovs pulled out even where track was ripped up. The Sovs did the same when ther recaptured. Railheads on both side ran to within a few kilometres of the front. Partisans had a nuisance value but never stopped the German army using the Soviet rail network.

The fact is players have ways of dealing with railways like pillaging them or using partisans. There is simply No reason why invaders should not be able to use open captured track.

Sorry, but that was really funny (like, you must have read a different history than I did).
Most of the rail STOCK (engines and cars) the Germans used had to be converted to Russia's narrow gauge. And the Russian roads? -- what may have been marked on ACCURATE maps as highways were usually DIRT!

Germany was horribly surprised by the state of communications in WWII Russia. They ended up using enormous resources to ATTEMPT to supply their units near the front, and their FAILURE to get supplies to the front cost them many a combat unit because of lack of food, proper clothing, and/or ammunition.

Of course, especially during the Fall and Spring rains, when roads turned to rivers of mud. But in the Winter the roads were a little better because they had frozen solid and they just had to worry about not slipping off the road. Then again, most of their supplies (and transport in general) was in the form of horse-drawn wagons except for the few Panzer and Panzer Grenadier units.

Back to the railroads, a problem is often that it is the rail STOCK (again, the engines and cars), along with the switching tracks that form the bottleneck in the supply chain. And rolling stock is stored in CITIES. And then, if there is a break somewhere in the line (accident, airstrike or partisan interdiction), other traffic can't go around the break -- it HAS to be repaired for the traffic to get through. Russian partisans/paratroops were a MAJOR problem in the German resupply effort, complicating the whole situation which Moscow even managed and coordinated fairly well (e.g., blocking supplies in an area where the Russians were launching an offensive).

Gad, it's been decades(?) since I've read this stuff. Sorry for the 'lecture'.

BTW, what is "Trolling"?

[Jaybe]

Re: Another historical illiterate

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You obviously haven't heard of the famous battle near the Donetz basin city of Stalino in 1943 where an SS panzer division was caught by Soviet tank formations whilst dismounting from trains. They fought off the Sovs.

Bleep, I've forgotten! Was that a location where (1) the front had been stable for a long time and the Germans had built the rail up to there, or was that where (2) the Russians had made a huge breakthrough in the German lines and were (30-50?) miles in their rear?

Or both (1) & (2)?

[Alexander's Horse]

You like myths

The German advance was slowed by the WEATHER not the state of the railroads. In fact, the Germans were using the Russian rail network almost from the first day of the campaign. They were dependent on it precisely because the roads were so bad.

There is a nice vignette about this. Under the Nazi Soviet Pact Stalin was providing the German economy with masses of supplies. On the day of the invasion, 22 June, a time was set secretly by the Germans for the last trainload of goods to be shunted across the frontier at Brest Litovsk. I think it was 3am. When the attack was launched, at about 4.30am, the Germans captured the empty Russian engines and rolling stock and almost immediately began using them to ferry supplies to their rapidly advancing spearheads. The difference in gauge was no more than a minor irritant.

Imagine being on the last train unloaded.

[Tjoepie]

I just hope ( but I'm quite sure they did) Firaxis made sure that one can use the square where railroads are build on but not get the movement advantage for it.

If not, then what if a city is surrounded by railroads?

An other thing: how will we be able to distinguish visually our railroads from the once the enemy build?
It won't be funny if you plan to invade a civ by attacking in a Blitz, only to find out at the moment you use them that you can't because he build those railroads.

And last but not least: if you capture a city will the railroads in those bounderies become your railroads?

As long as these three matters are solved I am for the idea, and I think it will make better gameplay.

[Roland Ehnström]

Tjoepie, yes, they have said that you can't use the BONUS from the railroad - you can still use the square, but you don't get the movement bonus.

To answer our second question, I belive the answer is that the civ who built the RR doesn't matter - what matters is if the RR is within your (cultural) boarders or not.

For your third question, the answer is surely "yes". If you capture a city, then you can use the RR within the (cultural) boarders of this city.

IMO, this is a great new rule. It makes your boarders much more important, and I think it is also fairly realistic.

Peace!
-- Roland

[Tjoepie]

Thanks Roland !

Thanks Roland, I must have missed those answers...
Nice to have a friendly guy here that helpes you out , and not tell you are a moron to have missed something.

These forums are becoming so big I should take time off to read them all

[redstar1]

I think what people are forgetting in this issue is the fact that CIV is a turn based game. Imagine playing a game of Civ in the world today. In Civ2 a Japanese unit could disembark at Vladivostok and use the railroads to attack Madrid in the same move, virtually unhindered. Surely on the way there it would encounter some resistance. I think the new way of doing things is going to help in defending your cities and make warfare all the more realistic as well as requiring more of an element in planning your attacks.

Dave

[Grumbold]

Railroad use in a 1 turn = years game is a nasty subject that has already been exhaustively discussed. You should not be able to invade a foreign country and have troops travel around in enemy territory by train. That is patent nonsense. Supporting your own troops in territory you have already captured should be perfectly possible. We have already debated many different ways of trying to strike that balance. Using the borders is not a perfect answer but it is certainly an easily determinable one which is in keeping with the Firaxians 'keep it simple' approach.

[Wexu]

This is silly.

Not able to use enemy occupied tracks makes perfect sense, I think it's historically accurate enough that only one side can use the same tracks at a time.
Both sides sitting in the same train?

AND REMEMBER, you can use those tracks after you have conquered the nearby city. I think even the Germans weren't using other's railroads when the nearby lands were full of enemy troops? Think about coming with a train full of Germans in the middle of the Russian held city. Side A just can't run their trains in the middle of B's territory as in CivII, that was far more unrealistic than this new idea.

Alexander's Horse, I think Civ3 is not a right game for you.

PS. Sorry about my bad English.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

In civ II you could dewstroy your own railroad... that is the equivalent of Russians destroying railroad behind them... this change is rrather strange??? well I guess they want us to be peaceful builders after all....

[Hydey]

Horse is lucky that there will be no MP as everyone would be kicking his arse while he tried to use a railway.

[Triped]

*is starting to realize that too many people care about history*

[kittenOFchaos]

"Sir! We are at war with France and England!"

"We must hurry or we'll miss the train to Paris...it leaves in 10 minutes"

Comeon even Hitler took 5-6 weeks to beat the France...Even British Rail aren't that slow that Berlin to Paris takes 5-6 weeks.

Seriously you use railroads in territory YOU control you moron and if it is held by the enemy you have to take it off them and roads and railways are the first things to be defended and at bridges primed with detonators to prevent capture.

In ww1 the germans didn't march across belgium for their health!
In ww2 tanks weren't just a waste of metal and petrol! You have to capture the communications before you can adequetly use them...the same is with civ3...you have to take the city that "controls" the land and make it yours before you can "ship in" the vast amount of men, equipment and supplies rail allows to be moved.

So you'll not be taking the next train to my capital...or why not take the plane -it's quicker!

[TJW]

Come on, can anyone here honestly say that they can realistically imagine a big army marching up to someones border, loading all their equipment onto a train, tanks, artillery and all, then driving through this territory to the nearest city, disembarking, setting up the attack then attacking....it just doesn't happen.......

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

Seriously you use railroads in territory YOU control you moron and if it is held by the enemy you have to take it off them and roads and railways are the first things to be defended and at bridges primed with detonators to prevent capture.

In ww1 the germans didn't march across belgium for their health!
In ww2 tanks weren't just a waste of metal and petrol! You have to capture the communications before you can adequetly use them...the same is with civ3...you have to take the city that "controls" the land and make it yours before you can "ship in" the vast amount of men, equipment and supplies rail allows to be moved.

So you'll not be taking the next train to my capital...or why not take the plane -it's quicker!

I agree. Borders=Control. Certainly a civ would not allow enemies to load up on trains/roads that they control! Once you have control (or no one does) over an area than the rails/roads are fair game.