User avatar
Philo32b
Captain
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:36 am

Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:52 pm

ERISS wrote:Or okay, an alone train can give MC, but only up to few max %, as it can't leave its railroad to control the region.


That is an excellent idea. I would think 25% maximum would be best, to give enough MC for friendly military units to use the railroad, but suggest a tenuous hold on the region for the reasons you give. At 25% even a single enemy regiment that happens into the territory, taking the MC down 1-2% in a turn, would remove the ability for using the railroad, as the regiment seizes some small section of the unprotected railway.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:39 pm

ERISS wrote:What is badly done in the game, is that MC number is both for railroad and its region: they should be different.
Or okay, an alone train can give MC, but only up to few max %, as it can't leave its railroad to control the region.


In the game, nobody needs control over the region since that does not bring any benefits. Almost all supplies goes by rail, so the railroad is the only thing that matters. So if we were to make different stats for railroad and region control, then we might as well simply get rid of the region control and only keep the railroad control.
For united Russia!

User avatar
Philo32b
Captain
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:36 am

Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:43 am

Orel wrote:In the game, nobody needs control over the region since that does not bring any benefits. Almost all supplies goes by rail, so the railroad is the only thing that matters. So if we were to make different stats for railroad and region control, then we might as well simply get rid of the region control and only keep the railroad control.


My understanding of this idea is that we would have the same stat for both railroad and area control, it's just that trains would be limited to a certain contribution to the area control. Even if the rails are the only thing important in the area, the rest of the area is still important indirectly, because if you don't control the entire area, your hold on the rails is tenuous. Who knows what is lurking just a little ways away from the tracks? Then when a single partisan unit enters the area, you lose enough of your tenuous hold on the area that you can no longer run units through.

Also, you would need MC for areas that don't have rails. MC can affect cohesion, detection, and blocking enemy movement. (At least according to the manual. I honestly wasn't aware of all of these.)

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:26 am

Philo32b wrote:My understanding of this idea is that we would have the same stat for both railroad and area control, it's just that trains would be limited to a certain contribution to the area control. Even if the rails are the only thing important in the area, the rest of the area is still important indirectly, because if you don't control the entire area, your hold on the rails is tenuous. Who knows what is lurking just a little ways away from the tracks? Then when a single partisan unit enters the area, you lose enough of your tenuous hold on the area that you can no longer run units through.

Also, you would need MC for areas that don't have rails. MC can affect cohesion, detection, and blocking enemy movement. (At least according to the manual. I honestly wasn't aware of all of these.)


You got me there with partisans, but I was speaking from the standpoint of a major offensive. As long as you hold on to the main city/depot in the area, you are the person in control since you are the one that can perform special operations and not the enemy. Similarly, supplies on long distances flows by rail commonly, so railroads play a role. However, the countryside does not: often times to the end of the game the countryside remains in the hands of those that held it in the beginning of the game.

Of course, someone could hide an ace in the sleeve(an army in the countryside), but that is rare. Plus, even if someone does that, then those forces won't last long usually, since they are fed from what is carried in their supply wagons. That is why typically major armies in the game just go along the railroad lines. As a result, I have not seen any major battles happening outside of the regions with railroad lines for quite a while. If someone cuts a railroad line in the rear with sufficient forces that came out from the countryside, then the opposing army could use the railroad to come back and strike upon the minor forces of the enemy, and in the following turn go back to its initial target. At least that is the impression I acquired through my experience with RUS.
For united Russia!

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:58 pm

Orel wrote: from the standpoint of a major offensive. As long as you hold on to the main city/depot in the area, you are the person in control since you are the one that can perform special operations and not the enemy. Similarly, supplies on long distances flows by rail commonly, so railroads play a role. However, the countryside does not: often times to the end of the game the countryside remains in the hands of those that held it in the beginning of the game.
forces are fed from what is carried in their supply wagons. That is why typically major armies in the game just go along the railroad lines. As a result, I have not seen any major battles happening outside of the regions with railroad lines for quite a while.

We don't say that railroad do not play a role, but that it does not all by itself.
We're in RUS, where there were many green and makhnovists armies, which often did not need railroad nor supply wagon, as they were at home, the paesants doing their own supply... they were not typically major armies.

You got me there with partisans, Of course, someone could hide an ace in the sleeve(an army in the countryside), but that is rare. If someone cuts a railroad line in the rear with sufficient forces that came out from the countryside, then the opposing army could use the railroad to come back and strike upon the minor forces of the enemy, and in the following turn go back to its initial target. At least that is the impression I acquired through my experience with RUS.

But we talked about the trains, not about an army (EDIT: I'm not right, the thread has twisted): An alone train could not strike back on a force hidding in the coutryside, it needed soldiers coming out from the wagons, and the train could not help them in this task as they had to go farther than the train gun range.
There were often a stall: red/white military control the railroad, black/green civilians control the countryside (the very supply of the region, town had to rely on train fret) (stall if soldiers were too shy going down their armored wagons). We're here on a limitation of the AGE engine, as ingame main towns do the supply, not the countryside as it should... If paesants don't want to bring their goods to red/white town, the town should not deliver supplies by itself.

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:37 pm

Orel wrote:You got me there with partisans, but I was speaking from the standpoint of a major offensive. As long as you hold on to the main city/depot in the area, you are the person in control since you are the one that can perform special operations and not the enemy. Similarly, supplies on long distances flows by rail commonly, so railroads play a role. However, the countryside does not: often times to the end of the game the countryside remains in the hands of those that held it in the beginning of the game.

Of course, someone could hide an ace in the sleeve(an army in the countryside), but that is rare. Plus, even if someone does that, then those forces won't last long usually, since they are fed from what is carried in their supply wagons. That is why typically major armies in the game just go along the railroad lines. As a result, I have not seen any major battles happening outside of the regions with railroad lines for quite a while. If someone cuts a railroad line in the rear with sufficient forces that came out from the countryside, then the opposing army could use the railroad to come back and strike upon the minor forces of the enemy, and in the following turn go back to its initial target. At least that is the impression I acquired through my experience with RUS.


That's mostly true... but it is still necessary to get at least military control of "empty" regions around your stacks on the railroads : if not you could have bad surprise of extermination if, surounded, you don't have any "empty" controlled regions to retreat... ;)


ERISS wrote: We're here on a limitation of the AGE engine, as ingame main towns do the supply, not the countryside as it should... If paesants don't want to bring their goods to red/white town, the town should not deliver supplies by itself.


This should be improved in the next RUS upgrade : all towns, whatever are their size, will produce 10 supply per turn. The global production is the same amount, but this will means that you should need to control the little towns in the country side and can't rely anymore on only one or two big city to keep your supply production...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

Return to “Revolution Under Siege”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests