Railway Capacity Too High

[Kensai]

I think you're very wrong in the case of engagement points at least, I run out of them VERY often and have to choose what to do...

Save game please. I always end up having like 20+ by 1915. Really don't know what to do them after a while, other than clicking every possible decision and event I can. There is really no challenge in that.

I don't like it unless we have a way to invest in rail. Since we don't, I'm not sure a sudden halving of it is the way to go.

Didn't you already say that?

Is the rail system really that broken? How many players are complaining that the CP shifted an entire front in a single turn? Right now the justification for any change to the rail pool is simply the size, and there is no evidence that reducing the pool is more representative of the period, better game design, or in any way useful.



I've seen supply usage of the rail pool reach nearly 500 points. I also tend to routinely cut the EP pool close all the way through 1915. After all the diplo frenzy dies down, most of the decisions have been played, generals unlocked, and factories built, the EP game has mostly served its purpose. Is it really so important to find a way to keep it going? Is either the rail pool or EP pool more of an issue than, say, West front entrenchment levels in Africa?

Save game please to study WHY.

Rail points are absolutely critical for supply distribution, so I don't think cutting them down is a good idea. Also, Russia tends to have some issues with moving corps around if they come under heavy pressure from both Germany and Austria.

The supply distribution chunk perhaps should be taken before there is a value given to the player for movement. The player could see a real sum with the possibility of going to negative value in case you wanna abstract a priority of troop maneuvers over supply propagation.

I do agree late-game EP gets to be too high, but up until 1916 I tend to be stretched on them, at least with the Western Entente and Central Powers.

The point is to be A LOT stretched, in order to make decisions that may influence the developments.

Overall rail capacity was pretty high. If local pools could be created or actual usage per region implemented would be better, but reducing capacity is not the solution...

I agree with that. Perhaps costs of rail usage could differ by theater or area, so that moving troops in Turkey could be "costlier" than moving in Germany, in order to abstract the worse conditions and avoid abusing super fast movements in theaters that could not historically supply such movements (Turkey is one).

[HerrDan]

Omg Kensai is in one of those days...do something for us Kensai and please take Turkey in our PBEM!

[Kensai]

Supply stocks would never move around the map and all your troops would starve. Supplies and ammo get pushed around by using up left over rail capacity, I think you maybe are forgetting about this rule.

I don't forget anything. Still there is too much rail capacity. But you can read my suggestion to Altaris in pre-calculating that value and permitting negative values.

EP generation only matters in the turns when all the big events get played. If there isn’t anything to spend them on late game then having a bunch in the pool doesn’t matter. And if arbitrarily cutting them in half due to a desire to cut down on your late game pool then cripples the ability to play the historical events in an historical timeline, then you’ve thrown out history.

They should matter. That's why we have "costs" in various events and decisions, so we can balance them out. Historical decisions and events could cost a little so a player could use them often. Unhistorical and what-if events could cost a lot more. But as it is now, it does not matter at all except for the initial few turns.

This isn’t a game like PON that only loosely follows history and focuses more on the strategy aspects of the game. This game needs to focus on getting the history right or you lose the flavor of the war it is trying to represent.

Historical events could have cheap EP costs.

I’m all for tightening up the pools if it is done intelligently and with history as its goal. But broad arbitrary changes done with little or no thought to historical consequences will ruin the game in my view.

Jim

Who said about "arbitrary changes", Jim? I am talking about serious "scientific" tweaking here. Do not freak out, these proposals go first to the beta testers, but I need to ask publicly about your opinion because it couldn't have been only me that showed EPs and railway points in overabundance.

I would keep the rail system as it is now. As James said, I would only change the railway implementation if there are historical indications to illustrate that the railways aren't done historically correct.
This is primarily a historical sim so it should try to follow that path as closely as possible within the limits of the game engine.

I will search for this historical evidence. Will it be a smoking gun if Germany moved 5 full armies' equivalents from the East in more than 15 days since Brest-Litovsk?

Railway does run out eventually, but I was surprised that I could move my heavy units. Perhaps this is an effect of playing the other AGE titles before?
My impression so far is that it may be too easy. Playing as Russia, the nation that has least capacity, I was surprised that I could still make strategic redeployments of whole Corps.

I was surprised about the fact that my heavy guns and even Corps can even be redeployed in 1 turn (using redeployment feature).

How did you manage to do that? (not the redeployment, to finish your railway points)
Can you post the save game to see what movement(s) you made? It is important to study such accounts to understand how people finish their railway pools.

agree, also the late game EP situation is of no importance, as post 1916 there is relatively little to use them on. You are constrained in the earlier stages which is what matters.

At first sight, playing the EE, I was surprised at the relatively high rail allocation. Then realised that was because I was used to the situation in Revolution under Siege when you are dealing with an already badly degraded rail system that has just been illogically fragmented according to the vagaries of power in the early stages of the Civil War. Tsarist Russia had a substantial and functioning rail net which the game seems to represent very well.

Equally, as above, you can undermine your supply distribution if you consistently push your troop movements to capacity, so I'd say it all works pretty well as it is.

I did exactly that in RUS, but only with the Drang Nach Osten scenario where the Central Powers can move a lot of stuff by rail. If you overdo that there, you can have bottleneck problems. I haven't been able to reproduce such extreme behavior in EAW.

loki100, if you have a save please!

[lycortas2]

Not to derail this thread any further but i have just started playing the game and i have not reached a point yet in mid '15 with the CP where i have not been able to purchase everything costing EP's available on any given turn.

[HerrDan]

Not to derail this thread any further but i have just started playing the game and i have not reached a point yet in mid '15 with the CP where i have not been able to purchase everything costing EP's available on any given turn.

You probably don't use much of your EPs then, or we're playing different games...

[Kensai]

Νο, I think he is actually right. Unless you really play ALL possible EP-consuming decisions EACH turn, chances are that by 1915 you start accumulating more than enough to the point it is not influencing anything anymore. Do you have a mid-15 save game that shows the opposite!? And I know that by 1915 you can start using the R&D decisions as well, but still it is more than enough to cover them as well.

I have started a new EE game to do some "stress tests" on the railroad pool of EE.

[Merlin]

Is the rail system really that broken? How many players are complaining that the CP shifted an entire front in a single turn? Right now the justification for any change to the rail pool is simply the size, and there is no evidence that reducing the pool is more representative of the period, better game design, or in any way useful.

I've seen supply usage of the rail pool reach nearly 500 points. I also tend to routinely cut the EP pool close all the way through 1915. After all the diplo frenzy dies down, most of the decisions have been played, generals unlocked, and factories built, the EP game has mostly served its purpose. Is it really so important to find a way to keep it going? Is either the rail pool or EP pool more of an issue than, say, West front entrenchment levels in Africa?

Save game please to study WHY.

What? Why would you want a save for something that's routine? Play the game through into 1917 as the CP or even better, the WE, and check your rail supply usage. After 70+ turns of building stuff, the supply requirements get quite high, just as one would logically expect.

I also think my objections are worth repeating: Where is the historical proof that the pools are too high? Where is even one single complaint of the system being abused? Why is this particular issue, out of all the things AGEOD has to deal with just two weeks after a new release, more important than anything else?

Right now the argument for changing the pool consists of this: "I can't use the whole thing, so it can't have been modeled correctly and needs to be changed." This is our standard for action now?

[Ebbingford]

Railway does run out eventually, but I was surprised that I could move my heavy units. Perhaps this is an effect of playing the other AGE titles before?
My impression so far is that it may be too easy. Playing as Russia, the nation that has least capacity, I was surprised that I could still make strategic redeployments of whole Corps.

I was surprised about the fact that my heavy guns and even Corps can even be redeployed in 1 turn (using redeployment feature).

I think only leaders and support units, engineers, signals etc but not artillery, should be able to be redeployed. If you want to move any corps etc, then you should use the move by rail order.

[James D Burns]

I will search for this historical evidence. Will it be a smoking gun if Germany moved 5 full armies' equivalents from the East in more than 15 days since Brest-Litovsk?

Limiting things to an upper limit of only what Germany achieved throws out the rail capacity of all other powers in the CP alliance major and minor powers alike. Unless you split out the pools so every single country has its own unique rail capacity, you are always going to be able to achieve far more than was achieved historically due to the fact you have a pool shared by everyone and can focus your efforts where needed. Split up the powers into their own factions and I’d back your calls to reduce things if it is found the pools are larger than what was historically possible. But for now I think you are calling for something based on a desire to make the game harder to play, not based on a desire to get the history right.

Jim

[Merlin]

Split up the powers into their own factions and I’d back your calls to reduce things if it is found the pools are larger than what was historically possible. But for now I think you are calling for something based on a desire to make the game harder to play, not based on a desire to get the history right.

I agree. I see the current trend in this debate as altering the pools "just because."

The argument based on moving huge numbers of troops in a single turn is something of a fallacy as well. Given the front-driven nature of the game and the need to maintain an actual line, everyone is going to have corps and armies in regions with no railroad. The idea that a player could transfer something like the bulk of a front in one turn is kind of ridiculous when half the units are going to need to travel 1-2 regions just to have access to rail movement. Then you have to move them to where they are needed, and let cohesion recover. If, say, Russia collapses and the CP player wants to send the German armies west, it's still going to take 4-5 turns to get them all in action, and there is no player here who can change that without perfect predictive knowledge or taking advantage of Athena to pre-position his forces on the rail lines. Even moving within a single front can be problematic, especially when the rail lines run more or less perpendicular to the general line of advance (Alsace, I'm looking at you).

[loki100]

loki100, if you have a save please!

Hi Kensai

calm down a wee bit. You have a view and opinion, which is wonderful. Seems that no one else agrees with your logic.

as ever, in SP, you can invent your own constraints to your play if you feel things are too lax, I'd also guess, as ever, these things are perfectly moddable, if you feel the need to alter the basic game.

Roger

[Lynxyonok]

Question... Would it help to carry over the two rules from RUS? Depletion of rail pool and having to unload if enemy was present at destination. Also, as far as I recall, units fought at a disadvantage if intercepted during transit. One last suggestion: make units lose 10% cohesion per each area crossed by rail.

[John Sedgwick]

It would be nice to have separate rail pools for e.g. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, or if that's not feasible, maybe make their troops weigh more for rail transport purposes?

[DrPostman]

I think capacity is realistically high enough. The devs say coding for nationalities would
be too big a chore. It's not really broken, now is it?

[HerrDan]

I think capacity is realistically high enough. The devs say coding for nationalities would
be too big a chore. It's not really broken, now is it?

No it isn't, so it's just completelly unimportant whining.

[Aurelin]

I'd like to see the historical justification for lowering the rail. Otherwise I'd just as soon leave it.

[Kensai]

What? Why would you want a save for something that's routine? Play the game through into 1917 as the CP or even better, the WE, and check your rail supply usage. After 70+ turns of building stuff, the supply requirements get quite high, just as one would logically expect.

Because it is NOT routine. It's probably routine in a game where no units are lost and you build/recruit the kitchen sink. After 70+ turns of building stuff I still have a lot of rail points for the most urgent movements (an army here and there). Even after you subtract the supply requirements.

I also think my objections are worth repeating: Where is the historical proof that the pools are too high? Where is even one single complaint of the system being abused? Why is this particular issue, out of all the things AGEOD has to deal with just two weeks after a new release, more important than anything else?

Where is the historical proof of the pools are too low or just right?
Certain things are set in order to have a balanced and challenging game. If these are out of proportion (too high or too low) they lead as in situations that simply don't play a role.

Right now the argument for changing the pool consists of this: "I can't use the whole thing, so it can't have been modeled correctly and needs to be changed." This is our standard for action now?

Right now I simply ask the rest of the players to look at the obvious. I don't need to prove that I am not the elephant in the room and I don't really care if I am the only one among all players that have noticed this and is bugged by this. It is OBJECTIVE. If you feel that by late game you are low in rail supply points (or engagement points for that matter) please PRODUCE that save game and post it here to study it further under future release candidates.

You try to convince me of something where I tell you it's simply gamey. Thus, let me see your point in a practical way, by showing what movements you wanted to do and ran out of railway points, cause I never EVER do under normal circumstances.

Limiting things to an upper limit of only what Germany achieved throws out the rail capacity of all other powers in the CP alliance major and minor powers alike. Unless you split out the pools so every single country has its own unique rail capacity, you are always going to be able to achieve far more than was achieved historically due to the fact you have a pool shared by everyone and can focus your efforts where needed. Split up the powers into their own factions and I’d back your calls to reduce things if it is found the pools are larger than what was historically possible. But for now I think you are calling for something based on a desire to make the game harder to play, not based on a desire to get the history right.

Jim

There is no reason to split the railway pools, this could be too much work. As I suggested earlier, something easier can be applied: making railway movements in certain theaters costlier. The engine could check on the region where the train movement begins its journey (after all all regions are under a theater tag). According to the Theater the cost could be different in order to abstract the lesser infrastructure/means.

Right now, as CP, the moment Turkey comes into the alliance, you can move all its armies by rail at once, something logistically impossible back then (they couldn't even do it in the 1920-22 Greek-Turkish war, imagine 6 years earlier). Anyway, this may need some engine changes and time that Pocus might not have, thus we could simply decrease (if not halve!) the railway points in the meantime.

Hi Kensai

calm down a wee bit. You have a view and opinion, which is wonderful. Seems that no one else agrees with your logic.

as ever, in SP, you can invent your own constraints to your play if you feel things are too lax, I'd also guess, as ever, these things are perfectly moddable, if you feel the need to alter the basic game.

Roger

There is nothing really to relax about here, Roger, I am already relaxed. And as I already said, I can (and will) obviously decrease the railway points in my own game the same way I doubled the supply consumption and attrition in PON (which was too lenient there as well). This is not the issue.

The problem here and the reason I passionately defend my position is that you (plural) are trying to convince me that there is NO problem, without ever producing a single save game to say: there you go, here I couldn't move my armies as CP by rail everywhere I wanted when it would have been historically possible.

So, indeed, as HerrDan said, are we playing different games? Railway and engagement points are simply TOO many in this game. At least as the CP. As I said, I am currently stretch playing the EE. For the moment, I find it extremely nicer that I cannot move all armies at once, seems much more realistic that I have to make choices which units will be zoomed and which walk.

[wosung]

Some IRL info for Germany:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostfron...telm.C3.A4chte

From Dec. 1917 to Nov. 1918 from the East Front 63 German Divs went to the WF, 3 Divs to the Balkan. From Jan. 1918 to Aug. 1918 from the EF 25 Aus-Hung Divs went to the Italian Front, 5 IDs to the Balkans.

At the begin of the Kaiserschlacht in March 21 1918 at the EF there were still 53 German Divs and 13 independet Bdes, more than 1 Mio. men (8th, 10th Army, Heeresgruppe Kiev). Until autumn 1918 another 25 divs (500k men) were transfered from the EF. In Summer 1918 Aust Hung still had some 200-250k men in the East (2nd Army).

David Stevenson, With our backs to the wall: Victory and defeat in 1918, p. 36:
Germany WF: (Nov. 1917) 3,25 Mio. men. (1. Apr.) 1918 just over 4 Mio.
German Ostheer, Balkans, Turkey: (Nov. 1917) 2 Mio. men. (Apr. 1918) 1,5 Mio men.

Autumn 1917: German Ostheer 85 Divs. WF: 147 Divs.
April 1918: German Ostheer 47. WF 191 Divs.
On the WF 1918 most of the Ostheer was not used as attack force but to substitute WF Divs for the attack force on quiter sectors.

I'm not sure that train capacity was the limiting factor building up the WF with Ostheer Divs:
-It was a political decision to keep a large force in the East grabbing and occupying the Baltics and Ukrainia.
-In the West Ostheer Divs were used as Stellungsdivisionen not attack divsions, indicating lack of training and material.

So, the IRL transfer from East to West ammounted to:
Some 35 divs from Dec. 17 to April 18 (4 to 5 months, 8 to 10 turns).
Some 25 to 30 divs from May to Nov 18 (7 months,14 turns).
But, maybe different from WW2, under WW1 WF conditions those weren't exactly mostly elite formations.

The question is how many divs could have been transferred from East to West in what time.

-The Schlieffen railway plans were perfected for years. Transportation from the East front not that much.
-In 1914 arguably there was more cavalry and horse transport on the West front than in 1918. Horses need lots of fodder, which had to be transported. OTH, in 1918 more ammo had to be transported than in 1914. Arguably under worse conditions:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wirtschaftsgeschichte_im_Ersten_Weltkrieg#Transport-_und_Kohlekrise
German transport and coal crisis

In the fall of 1916, the transport and coal crisis, which lasted until the spring of 1917 began. The railway infrastructure had previously been largely ignored, although the railroad had become the main means of transport, after the IWT was declined because of the blockade of the seaports. Additional requirements by the transport of troops, weapons and ammunition intensified after the war, Romania joined in August 1916, the requirements of the railway. With the Hindenburg program came the collapse. The infrastructure nonsensical construction of industrial plants (steel production in the Ruhr area, further processing to Berlin, transportation to the front) also claimed high track-laying capacity. Increasingly, there was a lack of manpower to unload the wagons. In September 1916 there was the first serious disturbances in the coal transport in the Ruhr area in October further production cuts in armaments factories according to the overlapped quickly to the whole kingdom. The coal transport largely collapsed. Loaded trains were stuck or could not be unloaded. As of October 1916, a central organization of the transport system was attempted, but hardly achieved effects, but led to more bureaucratic confusion. The requirement in the press military control of the railways was not made, the deputy commanders continued their troops but to unload the trains. In addition, the OHL tried to force the construction of tracks and trains. As Stood inland waterways because of the heavy frost in January and February 1917, the crisis deepened further, there were more underground transport barriers imposed to untangle the mess. Although the damaged production continues, but relieved the railroad.

With subsidence of the transport crisis has become increasingly clear that even in the coal production prevail significant problems because many miners had been called. Still there and mainly because of the Hindenburg program a high support should be maintained, the pits were in poor condition, which now also had an impact on production. Also put into service in February 1917 carbon Commissioner could not improve the supply, but rather increased the bureaucratic chaos. Ultimately led the railroad and coal crisis to failure of the Hindenburg program. The arms and ammunition production fell in January and February 1917, which was one of the reasons for the retreat on the Western Front on the "Siegfried Line".

[minipol]

Where is the historical proof of the pools are too low or just right?
Certain things are set in order to have a balanced and challenging game. If these are out of proportion (too high or too low) they lead as in situations that simply don't play a role.

First and foremost they need to be realistic and preferably historical.
Then game balancing comes in, to an extend.
I wouldn't want to play a historical sim that caps whatever because it wants to be a ejoyable game. I want realism.
WIth mods, it should be doable to go from historical to a more restrictive model if that is what you like.

But first we would need historical numbers, and that might be hard to get.
How can you find out if troop movements weren't carried out because rail capacity was too limited?
Not that easy. And we would need several examples for each side as a 1 time occurence could just be a coïncidence.

[Merlin]

Because it is NOT routine. It's probably routine in a game where no units are lost and you build/recruit the kitchen sink. After 70+ turns of building stuff I still have a lot of rail points for the most urgent movements (an army here and there). Even after you subtract the supply requirements.

Ah, no:


That's from the big Paradox PBEM, with Plan XVII, and the Moltke Plan, so most of the British forces are on ships in transit to Egypt. Notice how supply is using almost 300 railcap? Now land the Brits, add the Italians, add the Americans, a few more army's worth of troops, and a lot of artillery. Now you have near 500 railcap for supply alone by 1917, which is the only thing I claimed.

Where is the historical proof of the pools are too low or just right?
Certain things are set in order to have a balanced and challenging game. If these are out of proportion (too high or too low) they lead as in situations that simply don't play a role.

You know what? I just don't really care if it's too high. There, I said it. Until someone breaks the game with the rail pool, I. Don't. Care.

AGEOD games are full of abstractions. That's what makes for elegant and fun design. Even monster games like WITP-AE are full of abstractions. CW2 completely hobbles the Union in 1861 and 1862, gives the CSA enough resources to industrialize and pave every road in the South with steel, and still manages to be the most historically accurate and fun ACW game available today.

Rail capacity is a minor issue, and honestly, I'd rather have more general pictures.

[Offworlder]

Actually rail capacity was not much of an issue in WWI when it was next to impossible to interdict movement behind the lines, except in the immediacy of the front. Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone has the numbers as the CP to transfer entire armies from one front to another. Playing mostly up till 1915, I was unable to disengage major forces from the west to go east (or vice-versa). At most, new formations would be earmarked to one front or another, but on the whole that's the extent of the decisions I can take.

If anything, the rail cap actually compensates for something which cannot be accurately portrayed in the game - the size of advances. After 1914 and till 1918, advances were limited to a few miles at most. In the context of this game, an advance anywhere essentially amounts to the taking of a province. The rail cap as it stands allows a player to rapidly re-create a front from existing forces at hand and try to solidify the line, as was done in WWI. (this is obviously impossible against the megastacks that just go on a rampage towards Luxembourg it seems )

[Highlandcharge]

I agree, rail capacity is a minor issue, I would rather the time was spent on the medium and heavy artillery ROF/ammo issue and the testing and re-balancing of the game if needed after the changes...

[Kensai]

First and foremost they need to be realistic and preferably historical.
Then game balancing comes in, to an extend.
I wouldn't want to play a historical sim that caps whatever because it wants to be a ejoyable game. I want realism.
WIth mods, it should be doable to go from historical to a more restrictive model if that is what you like.

But first we would need historical numbers, and that might be hard to get.
How can you find out if troop movements weren't carried out because rail capacity was too limited?
Not that easy. And we would need several examples for each side as a 1 time occurence could just be a coïncidence.

wosung's post above yours is a good start though. From what you can deduce, there were problems in the Reich's railways. Perhaps not as big as in the Russian one, nonetheless important.

Ah, no:
That's from the big Paradox PBEM, with Plan XVII, and the Moltke Plan, so most of the British forces are on ships in transit to Egypt. Notice how supply is using almost 300 railcap? Now land the Brits, add the Italians, add the Americans, a few more army's worth of troops, and a lot of artillery. Now you have near 500 railcap for supply alone by 1917, which is the only thing I claimed.

You are kidding me, right? That's perfectly normal and you still have a LOT of points for rail movement. Ever tried the Russian side? I want to see something similar for the Germans or the West Entente. They should have to CHOOSE only a few concurrent rail movements, otherwise it's too gamey, easy, and probably even historically inaccurate.

You know what? I just don't really care if it's too high. There, I said it. Until someone breaks the game with the rail pool, I. Don't. Care.

That's what I wanted to hear. You don't care. See, this is the difference: I care!
I care about AGEOD games because they somehow get all aspects right in a realistic way. With so many railpoints the abstraction is not as good for CP and WE.

AGEOD games are full of abstractions. That's what makes for elegant and fun design. Even monster games like WITP-AE are full of abstractions. CW2 completely hobbles the Union in 1861 and 1862, gives the CSA enough resources to industrialize and pave every road in the South with steel, and still manages to be the most historically accurate and fun ACW game available today.

Rail capacity is a minor issue, and honestly, I'd rather have more general pictures.

It is a super major issue because it allows for historically IMPOSSIBLE movements such as the one of the Ottoman armies altogether I described earlier. But even the German armies would have difficulties if we consider wosung's post.

Actually rail capacity was not much of an issue in WWI when it was next to impossible to interdict movement behind the lines, except in the immediacy of the front. Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone has the numbers as the CP to transfer entire armies from one front to another. Playing mostly up till 1915, I was unable to disengage major forces from the west to go east (or vice-versa). At most, new formations would be earmarked to one front or another, but on the whole that's the extent of the decisions I can take.

Disengaging the forces is another aspect, but not the one in question here. What I am saying here is that you can probably move all disengaged armies at once to the East or viceversa if you wanted.

If anything, the rail cap actually compensates for something which cannot be accurately portrayed in the game - the size of advances. After 1914 and till 1918, advances were limited to a few miles at most. In the context of this game, an advance anywhere essentially amounts to the taking of a province. The rail cap as it stands allows a player to rapidly re-create a front from existing forces at hand and try to solidify the line, as was done in WWI. (this is obviously impossible against the megastacks that just go on a rampage towards Luxembourg it seems )

But you can perfectly do all that with half the railway points, you know that, right? Small movements of independent corps is actually the realistic depiction of using the railway system to "plug the holes".

I agree, rail capacity is a minor issue, I would rather the time was spent on the medium and heavy artillery ROF/ammo issue and the testing and re-balancing of the game if needed after the changes...

There is no "minor issue" if you care about historical accuracy and good game abstraction. I would rather have the time spent into fixing easily fixable stuff and then tackle the most difficult ones.

[Kensai]

First and foremost they need to be realistic and preferably historical.
Then game balancing comes in, to an extend.
I wouldn't want to play a historical sim that caps whatever because it wants to be a ejoyable game. I want realism.
WIth mods, it should be doable to go from historical to a more restrictive model if that is what you like.

But first we would need historical numbers, and that might be hard to get.
How can you find out if troop movements weren't carried out because rail capacity was too limited?
Not that easy. And we would need several examples for each side as a 1 time occurence could just be a coïncidence.

wosung's post above yours is a good start though. From what you can deduce, there were problems in the Reich's railways. Perhaps not as big as in the Russian one, nonetheless important.

Ah, no:
That's from the big Paradox PBEM, with Plan XVII, and the Moltke Plan, so most of the British forces are on ships in transit to Egypt. Notice how supply is using almost 300 railcap? Now land the Brits, add the Italians, add the Americans, a few more army's worth of troops, and a lot of artillery. Now you have near 500 railcap for supply alone by 1917, which is the only thing I claimed.

You are kidding me, right? That's perfectly normal and you still have a LOT of points for rail movement. Ever tried the Russian side? I want to see something similar for the Germans or the West Entente. They should have to CHOOSE only a few concurrent rail movements, otherwise it's too gamey, easy, and probably even historically inaccurate.

You know what? I just don't really care if it's too high. There, I said it. Until someone breaks the game with the rail pool, I. Don't. Care.

That's what I wanted to hear. You don't care. See, this is the difference: I care!
I care about AGEOD games because they somehow get all aspects right in a realistic way. With so many railpoints the abstraction is not as good for CP and WE.

AGEOD games are full of abstractions. That's what makes for elegant and fun design. Even monster games like WITP-AE are full of abstractions. CW2 completely hobbles the Union in 1861 and 1862, gives the CSA enough resources to industrialize and pave every road in the South with steel, and still manages to be the most historically accurate and fun ACW game available today.

Rail capacity is a minor issue, and honestly, I'd rather have more general pictures.

It is a super major issue because it allows for historically IMPOSSIBLE movements such as the one of the Ottoman armies altogether I described earlier. But even the German armies would have difficulties if we consider wosung's post.

Actually rail capacity was not much of an issue in WWI when it was next to impossible to interdict movement behind the lines, except in the immediacy of the front. Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone has the numbers as the CP to transfer entire armies from one front to another. Playing mostly up till 1915, I was unable to disengage major forces from the west to go east (or vice-versa). At most, new formations would be earmarked to one front or another, but on the whole that's the extent of the decisions I can take.

Disengaging the forces is another aspect, but not the one in question here. What I am saying here is that you can probably move all disengaged armies at once to the East or viceversa if you wanted.

If anything, the rail cap actually compensates for something which cannot be accurately portrayed in the game - the size of advances. After 1914 and till 1918, advances were limited to a few miles at most. In the context of this game, an advance anywhere essentially amounts to the taking of a province. The rail cap as it stands allows a player to rapidly re-create a front from existing forces at hand and try to solidify the line, as was done in WWI. (this is obviously impossible against the megastacks that just go on a rampage towards Luxembourg it seems )

But you can perfectly do all that with half the railway points, you know that, right? Small movements of independent corps is actually the realistic depiction of using the railway system to "plug the holes".

I agree, rail capacity is a minor issue, I would rather the time was spent on the medium and heavy artillery ROF/ammo issue and the testing and re-balancing of the game if needed after the changes...

There is no "minor issue" if you care about historical accuracy and good game abstraction. I would rather have the time spent into fixing easily fixable stuff and then tackle the most difficult ones.