Kensai wrote:Ideally we could have a surge in railway capacity as an one-shot event, just to simulate this aspect. Its condition could be the firing of the Brest-Litovsk peace. I really want to see railway capacity decreased for the challenge. It's useless now, almost gamey.
Florent wrote:" There is no challenge apart from the opening 2-3 turns."
And this is normal since the train are used for the moblization in order to release units in game turn 2 and 3 especially.
James D Burns wrote:Supply transport needs LOTS of rail capacity, especially since your one rail pool is responsible for every country in the alliances supply lift.
Merlin wrote:I don't see why we should want anything done to change the rail cap. Until someone can demonstrate its actual use in a game-breaking manner, it remains a non-issue.
Kensai wrote:Railway and Engagement points are super abundant in this game to the point they don't play a role, apart from the beginning. This is unfortunately a fact. Now, we may disagree on the extend on how much there is need to fix this... I would go all the way to even halve these points, but I understand and respect the natural aversion of most players in anything that puts them out of their comfort zone.
Kensai wrote:.... I would go all the way to even halve these points, but I understand and respect the natural aversion of most players in anything that puts them out of their comfort zone.
Kensai wrote:This approach is simply silly. If we are to fix the game-breaking bugs only, then the game should be considered already perfect. No need for any more patches. No, this is not the right stance. Everything can get better, more challenging, more correctly abstracted. Balancing issues need time to get addressed, I am not worrying.
Railway and Engagement points are super abundant in this game to the point they don't play a role, apart from the beginning. This is unfortunately a fact. Now, we may disagree on the extend on how much there is need to fix this... I would go all the way to even halve these points, but I understand and respect the natural aversion of most players in anything that puts them out of their comfort zone.
Kensai wrote:This approach is simply silly. If we are to fix the game-breaking bugs only, then the game should be considered already perfect. No need for any more patches. No, this is not the right stance. Everything can get better, more challenging, more correctly abstracted. Balancing issues need time to get addressed, I am not worrying.
Railway and Engagement points are super abundant in this game to the point they don't play a role, apart from the beginning. This is unfortunately a fact. Now, we may disagree on the extend on how much there is need to fix this... I would go all the way to even halve these points, but I understand and respect the natural aversion of most players in anything that puts them out of their comfort zone.
Kensai wrote:We could even take it out completely.
Kensai wrote:I propose to cut their accruing in half as well.
minipol wrote: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.
loki100 wrote: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.
Highlandcharge wrote:Maybe this is an issue or concern that will be fixed over time as more players give feedback on there games... only then can the ageod guys decide if it needs changing or tweaking..
wosung wrote:Nothing against a reduced cap. But I'd like to have a way to build rail capacity up.
Reiryc wrote:I think it's a bit early to decide how much if at all to reduce the rail capacity.
I don't even know how many rail points are used to transport supplies, do you? Note, I am not talking about moving supply carts, rather supplies.
I'd say we should get a clear idea on how many points of supply are moved per point of rail usage first before deciding whether or even how much to reduce rails.
Highlandcharge wrote:Yes, the last thing I would want to happen would be to break the supply system...
willgamer wrote:Yep! I'm just one of those pathetic players that would be put out of their comfort zone.
It's Late April 1915 as the WE player. When I mouse over the transport points at the top, it shows a total of 978 rail points with 387 needed for full supply. That leaves 591 for moving around. An average 1000 pwr corps seem to weigh anywhere from 125 to over 250. In part, that's because there are some individual units that are quite heavy such as aircraft at 75 each or even supplies and munitions at 8 each. I haven't played the CP, so I don't know about being able to move the entire CP armies in one turn, but you sure can't move much more than 3-6 armies in my game. Plus as the transport needs vary greatly by turn, with some rare turns actually running out of transport (again, for us merely average players), I still need a lot of convincing that there's a problem here. Seriously, to halve the points to (978/2 - 387) = 102 for moving... Are You Just Kidding Me!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests