Harper's Ferry and trains bug me somehow...

[plasticpanzers]

I am thinking there should be a malus for defenders at Harper's Ferry due to it being surrounded by hills and notorious
for having garrisons captured. This might be changed or eliminated by a certain level buildup of fortifications that
would assume that the surrounding hills were heavily fortified as they seldom were.

Trains are an issue that bug me gamewise. I enjoy the feel of 'depreciation' as you lose them to fatigue/damage over
time but the idea that you can move 40,000 men thru an area held by an enemy army on the ground and then assume
the trains return to some pool (going back thru the enemy held area) without loss needs to be addressed.

Also destroying rail lines should be a two level achievment. Level one is destroying tracks. Spending a 2nd continuous
week there would degrade the line even more (destruction of bridges, tunnels, stations, water towers) and cause a small
loss in rail capacity (odd engines and rail cars being caught and burned). Its too easy to fix rail damage and costs nothing
to do so. Has no real detrimental longterm effect that cannot be easily repaired. Perhaps too easily.

[Durk]

Certainly the specific situation at Harper's Ferry is hard to replicate. In game terms, place the defending units inside and you recreate the advantage of the units in the hills. Place them outside and you recreate the situation of a broader defensive position.

Trains must be an abstraction, else the whole game would be about trains, not battles. I like trains, but train schedules must not dominate game play.

Only on a very few occasions were bridges, tunnels and rolling stock destroyed. The 'easy' fix is what happens in the game. Rails destroyed for a bit, but not for long. However, destruction of the rails can have very real consequences to supply, travel and control.

[plasticpanzers]

I can see the limitations of any game engine would effect how much detail can be included. It is just darn odd to see unescorted
trains basically move thru enemy held regions and not be in any danger.

On the bridges, tunnels, and rolling stock I think you are incorrect. Rails, even corkscrewed ones, could be repaired or reforged but
culverts, rolling stock (very important), bridges and tunnels (very hard to replace in most instances) were the items of railroads that
required much more effort. This is why i suggested either two levels of rail damage or better "at it" raiding ability to destroy railroads
in provinces. This is just my opinion, of course, but gained in 50 years of reading on the ACW.

[ArmChairGeneral]

IIRC repairing rail does cost a little bit of WS.

Rail destruction is a short-term tactic for slowing enemy advances and cutting off supply flow to frontline formations in the run-up to battles. For the most part, the game does not allow much in the way of long-term destruction of infrastructure. You must either capture or blockade production in order to affect it in any meaningful, long-term way. If you want to seriously hamper your opponent's supply network, focus on depots rather than rails.