What does it do?
"Allow use of Rail Transport"
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Anthropoid
- Colonel
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Dec 10 2012
- Human: Yes
-
- Board Admin
- Posts: 2918
- Joined: Sep 29 2008
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
It was added along with chemical weapons button to be implemented in a future update.
Eventually it is meant to allow units to travel via rail which would be a faster rate then normal.
In my mind it should be something similar to how you can redeploy troops in HOI III.
Eventually it is meant to allow units to travel via rail which would be a faster rate then normal.
In my mind it should be something similar to how you can redeploy troops in HOI III.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
- Anthropoid
- Colonel
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Dec 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
Kewl. Really liked that in War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition too, though there it didn't distinguish "rail strat move" just Tactical move versus Strategic move. Units had to pack up which took a day or two and then unpack when they arrived. More vulnerable to attack while in strat configuration.GIJoe597 wrote:It was added along with chemical weapons button to be implemented in a future update.
Eventually it is meant to allow units to travel via rail which would be a faster rate then normal.
In my mind it should be something similar to how you can redeploy troops in HOI III.
-
- Board Admin
- Posts: 2918
- Joined: Sep 29 2008
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
I do not know where BG's thought process is on the subject, but it seems to me the easiest thing to do at this stage would be to allow units to bypass normal movement restrictions when you use the feature. Just as there are roads on the map you cannot see, (only major highways are visually represented), they could allow the function to be used assuming there are rail lines which are not visually represented.
When ordered to move via rail, a unit would move at x speed, regardless of terrain type or distance. It would not consume fuel or supplies but would be 50% damaged when it arrived at destination to simulate disorder/packing/bracing and blocking. This function is already in game and is what happens when units are traded without diplomatic MM enabled.
When ordered to move via rail, a unit would move at x speed, regardless of terrain type or distance. It would not consume fuel or supplies but would be 50% damaged when it arrived at destination to simulate disorder/packing/bracing and blocking. This function is already in game and is what happens when units are traded without diplomatic MM enabled.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
- Anthropoid
- Colonel
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Dec 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
Yeah that could work.GIJoe597 wrote:I do not know where BG's thought process is on the subject, but it seems to me the easiest them to do at this stage would be to allow units to bypass normal movement restrictions when you use the feature. Just as there are roads on the map you cannot see, (only major highways are visually represented), they could allow the function to be used assuming there are rail lines which are not visually represented.
When ordered to move via rail, a unit would move at x speed, regardless of terrain type or distance. It would not consume fuel or supplies but would be 50% damaged when it arrived at destination to simulate disorder/packing/bracing and blocking. This function is already in game and is what happens when units are traded without diplomatic MM enabled.
However, it would seem to be a helluva lot cooler IF they actually moved on the rails on the map! Probably a nightmare to program it . . .
-
- Board Admin
- Posts: 2918
- Joined: Sep 29 2008
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
That would require the player to lay rail tracks all over the map. People already complain about having rail and roads on the map.
By making it abstract it accomplishes the same thing and requires much less work/resources from BG. Perhaps as simple as, when this function is used, use these stats. Same formula for capital to capital trade, with one change to movement formula.
By making it abstract it accomplishes the same thing and requires much less work/resources from BG. Perhaps as simple as, when this function is used, use these stats. Same formula for capital to capital trade, with one change to movement formula.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
I suspect by the same argument people will complain if it allow me to move between two locations not connected by rail. Hearts of Iron abstracts infrastructure while this series actually tells me what hexes has what type of infrastructure so the situation might be a bit different. Personally I could settle with either.
There is however the advantage with units moving across that map that such a mechanic could probably also allow for armoured trains and missile carrier units such as the Peacekeeper rail garrison or RT-23 Molodets. I think I read somewhere that Russia was looking for a replacement for the RT-23 and recently also reactivated two armoured trains so I guess such units could have some validity.
There is however the advantage with units moving across that map that such a mechanic could probably also allow for armoured trains and missile carrier units such as the Peacekeeper rail garrison or RT-23 Molodets. I think I read somewhere that Russia was looking for a replacement for the RT-23 and recently also reactivated two armoured trains so I guess such units could have some validity.
- Anthropoid
- Colonel
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Dec 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: "Allow use of Rail Transport"
Well, in real life, in many wars since the early 19th century: control of rail lines for the very specific reason that the control the capacity to move troops and material rapidly from point A to point B, has been an ENORMOUSLY important strategic matter. In order for that to manifest, the "points" that contain rails (in this game hexes) have to be worth contesting. Obviously if one can "strategic rail move" a unit anywhere one wants no matter where the actual rails are on the map, that pretty much destroys that dynamic. I mean: why bother controlling or building strategic rail lines if they don't matter? Obviously they still would serve the function of distributing supplies.GIJoe597 wrote:That would require the player to lay rail tracks all over the map. People already complain about having rail and roads on the map.
By making it abstract it accomplishes the same thing and requires much less work/resources from BG. Perhaps as simple as, when this function is used, use these stats. Same formula for capital to capital trade, with one change to movement formula.
My mentor is supposed to teach me how to "teach" the computer opponent to fight for control of rail lines, but I've got to stop playing this game and get on with my hex map generation stuff!