Military control and railroad use

[runyan99]

1. Rail: you can use it if you have 25% MC or better.

I think this number has to go way up. As it is, if a contested region is 50-50 controlled, then both sides can use the railroads at the same time, which seems like a ridiculous situation. I mean, are Confederate trains going one way, and Union trains going the other?

I've got a new game I am playing as the Union, and this 25% rule allowed me to move troops very quickly through regions of Kentucky in 1861. This despite the fact that I violated Kentucky's neutrality, the state is hostile, and the regions the rail runs through are nominally controlled by the enemy! But, I do have 25% control, so the rails work.

Given the rigid and fragile nature of a railroad network, I would think it would be available only in peaceful regions which are firmly under control.

I think it would make more sense to raise the number to 75% controlled. This prevents rail use by either side (or both sides) in contested areas.

[jimwinsor]

I think it would make more sense to raise the number to 75% controlled. This prevents rail use by either side (or both sides) in contested areas.

This would be a heavy play-balance blow to the Union if adopted.

If you looks at my Grand Campaign AAR, I am having a hell of a time keeping western rails open to the Union for supply and movement in Ky and Tn. Low Union loyalty is causing control to drop everywhere, every turn. It is a challenge just keeping a stretch of rail above 25%.

You raise the threshhold to 75%, and what is already a major hassle will become unmanageable for the Union.

[runyan99]

There is no reason a human playing the Union side cannot garrison rail lines in hostile territory with militia to keep them controlled. I understand this would likely be a problem for the AI.

In the interest of preventing both sides from using the railroads in Kentucky and Missouri, what about at least 51% control?

[Mangudai]

I think 51% is a good idea.

[GShock]

/me agrees on 75%.

[Guru80]

I think this number has to go way up. As it is, if a contested region is 50-50 controlled, then both sides can use the railroads at the same time, which seems like a ridiculous situation. I mean, are Confederate trains going one way, and Union trains going the other?

I've got a new game I am playing as the Union, and this 25% rule allowed me to move troops very quickly through regions of Kentucky in 1861. This despite the fact that I violated Kentucky's neutrality, the state is hostile, and the regions the rail runs through are nominally controlled by the enemy! But, I do have 25% control, so the rails work.

Given the rigid and fragile nature of a railroad network, I would think it would be available only in peaceful regions which are firmly under control.

I think it would make more sense to raise the number to 75% controlled. This prevents rail use by either side (or both sides) in contested areas.

Lucky bastard I violated neutrality of Kentucky and have no use of the railroads whatsoever even though I held the entire state. Everywhere it was 99% to 1% and VERY SLOWLY going the other way no matter how many units I had in a region. To get from LOUSIVILLE (edited, wrong city) down to Bowling Green could take up to 30 days in poor weather marching even though I had troops stationed along the railroad hoping to gain its use before my assault south...didn't happen and ended up changing my plans and did an amphibious assault only to lose the commander of my Army and my Corps to run run for the hills, no longer having Corps status as their commander lay dieing on an embankment.

I definitely regret not having use of those railroads ;-)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

Pretty possible to do both options...as....options in the game setup