MOST IMPORTANT Military Transport system is missing . TRAINS

[Von Thoma]

... even nowadays most of the time TRAINS are used for military Transportation ...

we have AIR AND WATER now, we even have RAILROADS , so what we need are RAILROADSTATIONS and a command for units "Transport" by train" ...
would be cool, that the unit travels to the next RAILROADSTATION, changes it appearance to a train and travels to the next RAILROADSTATION nearest to the arrival point !
(No need to follow the railroads, BUT would be cool )
While the unit travels by train IT USES COAL instead of petrol and travels at a fixed speed (depends at the techlevel development for railroads ... or global Techlevel )

TRAINS HAVE BEEN the most important transportation unit at that time to conquer a country ... you needed it, even if you are GB (you needed to transport all your units to a harbor first)

THX

[bluestreak2k5]

Your units already automatically move by rail if it is shorter then taking a road. You can notice this in Eastern Europe the easiest where there is less roads and more rail.

Units move faster on road, so it has to be a route that is obviously shorter with rail.

[Aragos]

Discussed until exhaustion in the SRCW board.

[Balthagor]

If you can find the old thread, I'll transfer it to this project's section and close this thread.

[Von Bismarck]

I stumbled on this thread and I have to say I have always been a fan of trains and their role in supply/transport of goods and troops in world conflicts. Seeing how transport of infantry units is portrayed in this game makes me think there should be room made for train facilities, i.e. rail-head to rail-head transport options with the affect of increasing supply for those interconnected facilities. It would bring another immersion detail to the game if the rail transportation system were given more import. Rail-heads would obviously benefit troop movement, but also afford another target for strategic bombing. In the supply role, it could supplant the need to build so many supply depots and air bases if supply could be extended by a rail-head facility.

I am no authority, but rail transport should be faster than truck and slower than air transport, but less expensive than either at least when equal amounts of goods/troops are considered.

[Kristijonas]

Trains should definitely be faster than roads for foot infantry and artillery. Slower or same as roads for mounted anything.

[geminif4ucorsair]

Trains should definitely be faster than roads for foot infantry and artillery. Slower or same as roads for mounted anything.

Not correct.
Rail moves fastest if the distances are in the 300-km and longer ranges. This is a function of two issues: 1] fueling necessary for road-bound vehicles, especially tracked; break-downs (maintenance headaches) caused by long-distance travel for tracked vehicles in the era up to @ mid-50s.

When one considers that a tank vehicle had but 100-200-km range in the '30-40s, that meant fuel trucks had to accompany any unit moving on roads - at night travel, if required for rapid deployment to a new area - and the accident rate tripled (on average) for vehicles.

Loading a battalion onto a train took @ a day, if it was a mech or armor unit - with lots of vehicles to get on flat cars.
Despite the time involved, it saved on maintenance and accidents in road travel, along with high transit speeds (av. @ 35-45km/hr).

Since there are no automatic "loss rates" from operations in Supreme Ruler, everything arrives in great shape when road travelled, but BG was provided earlier with standard road travel average speeds for a battalion unit, and presume these are programmed into the road travel calculation. [Similarly, there are no "operational losses" for aircraft operations either.....).

Will post the specifics on common transportation standards (load times, etc.) later.....