Going ballistic after this game

[GShock]

...and it's not really a way of saying, i really can't understand how some things work, and i took my time to build the SS about some questions i've built in a test-game (which i actually won). Scenario 4, See the Bull Run.

Now either i am a n00b (or a stupid and both options are available) or something ain't right.

Issue 1: Replacements.

Pocus stated that we need NOT to have moved a stack (or unit) and it needs to be placed at the beginning of the previous resolution phase into a level 3 city (at least). If these conditions are not met, the replacements should remain in the pool (i.e. how can my replacements reach me if i am moving the army or if i am in such a small village that there's no connection with the recruiting facilities?)

Look what happens:




Longstreet is in Manassas. He hasn't moved. He receives CAV replacements. Manassas is Level 1 Town.



Longstreet has moved from Manassas and is now in the region of Alexandria. You can see he moved because there's no trench below the Army Command Stack he moved with (synchronized move) and YET he receives reinforcements again. (in order to find out what was happening i had to cross the info from the log with the roster on the ledger)



Further, unneeded proof after checking the roster, but yet significant SS. It shows where longstreet is (not in town) what he is doing (has moved bc there's no entrenchment below his stack).



Issue 2: Army Mobility in Enemy Territory.

Smith's Stack (composed of Smith himself and a single CAV unit) moves, by train, and in total enemy territory. Problems:

1) Smith and his stack can use rail in total enemy territory.

2) They capture Montgomery and Philadelphia in defensive stance.

3) It takes them a total of 4 days to perform this miracle which includes:

3.1) Requisition of locomotive and train
3.2) Load of horses, equipment and men on train itself
3.3) Control of all the rail exchanges in the regions journeyed through
3.4) Capture of 2 towns
3.5) Requisition of enemy equipment which is added to our supply pools.

I thought defensive stance wouldn't build military control and that with minimal military control you could still sneak but i think this is just too much. If you must be silent, you can't use rails...besides a defensive unit should be unable to capture a city even when it is undefended it has opposite orders if you think...it's supposed to stand and fight *if* attacked but not to conquer a city (which also messes up its stealthy manouvering in enemy territory).

I could understand if Smith himself, during the resolution phase, decided to conquer one or both the cities, but in this case, i should find him in offensive or assaulting stance....which i don't as i show in next SS.




This SS shows the loyalty. As you can see, by the colors it's minimal.
Smith is starting in defensive stance, after having conquered both towns. Unfortunately, i didn't ask for CAV replacements but i guess if i had, he could have received even though those cities are totally detached from my supply chains (which should correspond, imo, to the availability of replacements as well and still *limited to town level 3 or more*). Let's stay on the movement issue now:

1) Smith will arrive at his destination (Baltimore, a Level 15 Town!!!), again in defensive, and again using rail in total enemy territory in 12 days. Less than a turn.

2) Things having happened in this turn show that if AI doesn't reinforce Baltimore it will be lost to my sneaky raiders without a fight. This is absolutely insane...2000 men capturing a city of that size, a *strategic one* with no combat at all and in no time.


Now an "easier" issue. I've tried last night the '61 theater and i was spending my first 40 minutes in evaluating my starting situation (i am *always* CSA and perhaps i ll never even play USA lol). I discovered a little problem with the area around new orleans i documented in another SS.



I saw the blue flag corresponding to naval units present there and i clicked a lot and i couldn't display them...very very strange.

I had to go to the roster to be able to see the ships in the New Orleans Harbor, i selected them from there, and they popped up on the map. I right-clicked and i was unable again to call them back. Actually there is *no Harbor*...at least so it seems. I clicked on the town pixel by pixel and found out the only area you may call the ships from is that very tiny area by the rightmost corner of the square. Is this intended?

I know this thing about New Orleans is just silly one, but the ones i pointed out on movement and replacements, are not silly in my opinion. Actually if the game is supposed to work like this, then AMEN, it's me being a n00b for not knowing (still i don't think it should), but if it isn't I'm surprised nobody had pointed that out yet.

[simovitch]

Gshock, I think some of the issues have to do with you playing a scenario instead of the campaign. I did the same thing - went on a rampage in the Shiloh scenario and discovered that many of the towns away from the main battlefield are not garrisoned. I moved on to Campaigns after that experience.

Rail movement does seem a little liberal to me as well, but there are some abstractions to consider for game purposes which allows my mind to accept it at some level. You must have at least 25% military control in a region to use its rail network, but I think maybe the violation you are seeing has something to do with the scenario settings for those regions (?).

Here's a couple of things to know:

1. In regions with 5% or less military control (i.e. enemy territory), a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there. I think that's how you captured the city when you moved in defensive posture.

2. To get replacements, you only need to begin the turn in level 2+ town, a depot, a fort, or indian village. I think Longstreet fulfilled one or more of these requirements in you SS.

3. I never had a problem clicking on the little blue flag in New Orleans itself to see the fleets. I don't know what happened in your situation?

hope this helps

[runyan99]

I thought defensive stance wouldn't build military control

I could understand if Smith himself, during the resolution phase, decided to conquer one or both the cities, but in this case, i should find him in offensive or assaulting stance....

No, I'm pretty sure units in defensive stance do build military control, and will take objectives if totally unopposed.

As for not going into offensive stance in enemy territory, I think cavalry units are an exception to that rule.

It does look like you had the ability to use rail movement through enemy territory into Philadelphia, and that looks a bit fishy.

[GShock]

Gshock, I think some of the issues have to do with you playing a scenario instead of the campaign. I did the same thing - went on a rampage in the Shiloh scenario and discovered that many of the towns away from the main battlefield are not garrisoned. I moved on to Campaigns after that experience.

I guessed that too...but the point is if the engine is the same, the rules should also be the same. I'm rather curious about your possible explanation because I haven't seen a Campaign yet, honestly. I postponed that moment to when the mechanics and rules will be totally in my grasp and I'm finding this moment gets delayed rather than coming sooner. I would like to know about these issues, if they are scenario related or not.

Rail movement does seem a little liberal to me as well, but there are some abstractions to consider for game purposes which allows my mind to accept it at some level. You must have at least 25% military control in a region to use its rail network, but I think maybe the violation you are seeing has something to do with the scenario settings for those regions (?).

Again...then i think scenarios are no good even for mere training or understanding the concepts of the game. Perhaps if they can't adhere to the campaign rules, they should be suppressed and reformed into tutorials. Still...we're speculating about this...let's see what pocus has to say about it...He's da man.

1. In regions with 5% or less military control (i.e. enemy territory), a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there. I think that's how you captured the city when you moved in defensive posture.

The SS clearly shows i captured 2 this way, moving by rail and never switching from defensive stance...

2. To get replacements, you only need to begin the turn in level 2+ town, a depot, a fort, or indian village. I think Longstreet fulfilled one or more of these requirements in you SS.

Manassas certainly has a depot. I don't see the logic behind indian villages but perhaps that's because otherwise troops in indian regions would never be able to see replacements (which, naturally is what i would like it to be).

3. I never had a problem clicking on the little blue flag in New Orleans itself to see the fleets. I don't know what happened in your situation?

Well...all cities : click on city and all stacks in that city appear tabbed regardless whether they are naval units or not.
N.O : There's no way to make that stack appear...but clicking on the right corner of the square icon. Basically in the SS, where u see the single barrel.

@Runyan: I understand CAV is sneaky by nature...and travels fast...but taking the train seems a bit too impossible to justify such exception. They should go on passive, not on defensive but basically the main issue is that they can move very fast using rail in total enemy territory.

[Pocus]

1. Rail: you can use it if you have 25% MC or better. If you can and you have under 25%, you got a bug.

2. Gaining control of an empty city while in defensive. Yes this is intended. In defensive you are still interacting with the environement. Only passive would have prevented that. But a single militia outside the city would have prevented you from taking it.

3. we are speaking of replacing an element or restoring hits into a weakened one? A depot, level 2+ town is needed to replace an element, and you must be in supply. No supply line is traced to another location though (too much CPU intensive if repeated).

4. you can click on the small blue basin of any city to access its harbor. Or the blue fanion I think. Most of the time there is also a land stack, so you click on the city and this bring all the stacks, naval included, this it is not tricky.

[Dan]

It does look like you had the ability to use rail movement through enemy territory into Philadelphia, and that looks a bit fishy.

I don't know. 4 days to move one region (Montgomery) and then another 5 days to move one more region (Philadelphia). 9 days to move two regions (and crossing a river) does not seem too bad for a cav unit in clear weather. Now, if it was taking only 1 turn to move from enemy region to enemy region, I would say that was a bit fishy.

[GShock]

1. Rail: you can use it if you have 25% MC or better. If you can and you have under 25%, you got a bug.

Here we are talking of a single cav bde (i think it's 2000 men) + 2 star general. I think 25% is a bit too little to allow to use the enemy rail lines (and locomotives) maybe 33% would be more appropriate.

However, the real point is : Can 2013 men achieve 25% military control of a whole region, especially in defensive stance in no time?
How long would it really take for them to achieve it?

How does this thing work...look: I am in region A and control 25% (forget in how long i got it, it's not important now) i must reach region C passing through region B. (25% of region A, in my opinion doesn't mean i can reach the border of regions A/B easily, it should also take more time)

It seems pretty evident to me Pocus i *can't* have MC of region B or region C so the rail segment i should be able to use is just the one taking me OUT of region A (slowly bc i have only 25% control). When i arrive in Region B, i should stop the train, achieve the 25%MC (we can think it's scouting the railway ahead) and then move along to region C where this repeats until i arrive at the town. This can't take 8 days in overall, including the capturing of the 2 cities as I showed in SS.

I guess here: 2013 CAVS... it would take them at least 3 days to get those 25%, 1 more day to embark on train, 1 day to reach border to next region. 3 more days to gain 25% of region B, 1 day to reach "capital town" of region B, 1 day to occupy undefended city, 1 day to arrive to border of region C, 3 days to get 25% control of region C, 1 day to reach the "capital town" of region C, 1 day to occupy it. (i put 1 day to occupy but it should be 1 day every 3 levels of the townsize)

2. Gaining control of an empty city while in defensive. Yes this is intended. In defensive you are still interacting with the environement. Only passive would have prevented that. But a single militia outside the city would have prevented you from taking it.

Yes i Know, this is correct but while taking the city, which is an order the general gives in resolution phase (overriding my def posture order), the stack should switch to offensive (orange) with all the consequences of the new posture applied.

You mentioned a single enemy unit would have prevented me from taking that city so easily, right, but you remember i questioned the ability of independent stacks to switch to any posture.
The extension of your point is that i can take a city with a defensive supply cart as well? Are you sure supply carts (and other support-only stacks) travelling alone shouldn't be auto-set on passive+evade (supply carts along with all other support units)?

3. we are speaking of replacing an element or restoring hits into a weakened one? A depot, level 2+ town is needed to replace an element, and you must be in supply. No supply line is traced to another location though (too much CPU intensive if repeated).

Yes the algorithms burn horsepower. The case i documented is about replacements (men lost and replaced in elements) coming right at Smith's stack in enemy territory (but not in quake wars ).

Perhaps when a town switches side, it shouldn't be elegible for replacements before a month has passed. Would be a nice alternate solution without touching algorithms of supply rules.

[simovitch]

One question -
Dan's post makes a good point. In your SS, how long did it take Smith to travel the route without Rail movement?

You have to be careful in these situations because a unit or stack can still initiate rail movement, pay for it, but never get the actual speed increase if the rail is in unfreindly territory (i.e. you just paid for nothing.)

[GShock]

One question -
Dan's post makes a good point. In your SS, how long did it take Smith to travel the route without Rail movement?

A lot more, but i don't really remember.

You have to be careful in these situations because a unit or stack can still initiate rail movement, pay for it, but never get the actual speed increase if the rail is in unfreindly territory (i.e. you just paid for nothing.)

The SS are sequential. I issued the Rail move order in the first of the documented turns (i started in friendly and supplied area) and by the beginning of next resolution phase, i had captured both cities.

Next SS is next turn, i came back, by rail again. I did pay and it did use it but i didn't really check for the costs since it's a scenario.

Funny enough now that you make me think of it, when we steal the enemy trains, they should pay for our trip with rail points, not us

[Pocus]

About rail I don't quite understand, the SS shows 12 days of travel, with the 'move on road' stamps, are you saying the hosting changed that to 4 days by rail?

Military control is something cav are good for btw.

You can't take an empty city with supports, you must have a combat unit.

[Gresbeck]

Funny enough now that you make me think of it, when we steal the enemy trains, they should pay for our trip with rail points, not us

Interesting points and probably only Pocus can answer. But as far as I see, the system doesn't assume you steal enemy trains when you travel in enemy territory. The system assumes your own trains can travel through enemy territory. And after all, why shouldn't they? If the decalage is the same, nothing hinders you from embarking in your home province and travel until you find an enemy unit. I'm not sure if it's entirley realistic to imagine to travel with only 25% military control (probably it should depend on the level of the infrastructure). That's a point that can be discussed. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think you travel in enemy provinces without requisition of locomotives or trains.

[GShock]

About rail I don't quite understand, the SS shows 12 days of travel, with the 'move on road' stamps, are you saying the hosting changed that to 4 days by rail?

Bingo pocus.
The total days are affected by my move-by-rail order even though the move-marker clearly shows move-by-road. It looks like i couldn't have moved by rail and yet i did. The map shows "move by road" while the days it took me are the ones of the "move by rail". (lack of grey-out rail movement button when stack is in less than 25% MC region but this should also take into account the crossing and destination MC regions)

Military control is something cav are good for btw.

"Historically" these 2 turns show you clearly Smith came from WEST and captured the 2 cities and then he moves SOUTH. So, he can't have had those 25% MC needed (in blue jpg) to go South. It's regions my side never entered before. The tooltip shows Baltimore is 100% USA yet as u see it takes smith 4 days to reach it, exactly as it takes him to reach Chester or Montgomery. From Philadelphia to Montgomery there's a river to cross and Smith gets to a town of my side (4 days), then he enters Chester (100% USA MC) in 4 days, then arrives in Philadelphia (100% USA MC) in 4 days again. Still defensive.

Because of this rail issue, we can't really see if the MC increase is proper or not. Still i think at least 1 day should pass just to occupy the enemy towns and should be more when towns are bigger.

I think MC has to be linked somehow to the speed of movement so as to choose whether you want to increase MC or just march. If you are trying to control a territory, you aren't marching. I don't see how to increase my MC in enemy territory if i travel by train though...

You can't take an empty city with supports, you must have a combat unit.

I still fail to understand how comes then that a support unit, or all-support stack (with or without leader) can switch to non-passive stances. When unaccompanied, these unit-types / stacks should be forced on passive+avoid combat automatically.

[Pocus]

is your resulting turn coming from an unmodded game? I can take a look if yes.

Supports includes artilleries. We don't want to think for players (too much!), so you should have the option to defend as you can with them.

[GShock]

is your resulting turn coming from an unmodded game? I can take a look if yes.

Stock 1.07b behaviour.

Supports includes artilleries. We don't want to think for players (too much!), so you should have the option to defend as you can with them.

When i mention support units that should be permanently on passive+evade i am thinking about all unit types with the exception of infantry and cavalry. I agree with the Arty being considered support.

Do not forget the issue about replacements shown in the second SS. Longstreet receives replacements while being on the move from manassas (depot) and is in enemy region when these replacements arrive.

[Flashman007]

It looks to me that Smith did not use rail movement. Even though you cliked rail and probably got charged the expense it doesn't look like you gained any benefit. This can happen anywhere on the board if you try to use rail where none is availible I think (think rail lines destroyed).

[Henry D.]

It looks to me that Smith did not use rail movement. Even though you cliked rail and probably got charged the expense it doesn't look like you gained any benefit. This can happen anywhere on the board if you try to use rail where none is availible I think (think rail lines destroyed).

If You activate rail/river movement, You always immediately get charged the cost in transport capacity for it, irregardless if it is actually used for movement or not, if I'm not mistaken.

Regards, Henry

[GShock]

Just the perfect excuse now to engage fraps and load the game, Henry. Stay tuned

[GShock]

Ok, this time i wasn't playing but testing so i set the AI on passive. This is not the Loyalty but the MC filter. Winchester is 50%-50% the other main town (i forgot the name sorry) is 25%-75%, the other parts of my route are all 100% USA. As you can see Smith is on defensive stance. His stack is the same as before with just 1 cav bde.



This is my option to go on the road:

1) Smith will arrive in winchester and capture it in 2 days by road. He will proceed to next town and he will reach it in the same amount of time (2 days) despite MC being much worse there. Eventually the town would be captured too if it wasn't garrisoned and, again, there would be no delay in his trip for doing so.

Smith should travel faster or slower according to the MC in the area (1 extra day) and it should take him an extra day to capture 1-3lev town (1 extra day every 3 levels).

If i could work this out, leg 1 would take a total of 3 days (2 normal travel +1 for capture of town.
Leg 2 would take a total of 4 days (2 normal travel + this time it's 25%-75% so it's 1 more day and 1 more to conquer the garrisoned town which in this example im considering ungarrisoned).

2) legs 3 and 4 of my path are in 100% MC area. Smith is on Defensive Stance. He will not engage the garrison of the Lev2 Town. Smith arrives there at the same speed.

Following the same concept, leg 3 would take just the 1 day penalty for going in full enemy territory, 0% MC. So its total time should be 3 days.
Leg 4 would take 3 more days for the same reason.

The total of this trip, if things were better simulated, conquering 2 towns would be : 13 days, on the road (don't forget that in this example we're considering town 2 ungarrisoned).



Here's second option, using rails. According to the MC, only legs 1 and 2 can be travelled by railway. This is correct, and also correctly paid. As you can see, it now only takes me 6 days to perform the "miracle".

This is perfect as it is but for the missing delays. Following the aforementioned procedure, nothing would change in the rest but i would save 2 days. More appropriate than 6 total days would be the 11 total days needed.



This is what happens next. I am in 0% MC area and you can see during the resolution phase, correctly Smith reverted to offensive stance. We can see:

Rail movement button is not inhibited by the MC, this causes the (incorrect) payment of rail points but no change in the leg icon (correctly). The main issue, even more important than this is that i am now able to capture 2 unguarded towns in just 4 days.

Following the same logic as before, it would take me 2 days to reach the first town + 1 penalty for MC, + 1 day to capture the first town for a total of 4 days. Then Smith would move to next leg, 2 more days + 1 MC penalty + 1 day to capture the town makes 4 more days. The total trip would last 8 days instead of four...exactly the double. Actually, with infantry moving, i would double the MC penalty but u see, 8 days to conquer 2 cities is possible, 4 days is miracle.

Now, recapping, Pocus made me see that the movement icon is the indicator and not the rail icon on the stack. Misleading, oh yes...if he's not travelling by Rail there shouldn't be any rail icon on his stack, my button should be greyed out and i certainly shouldn't be paying the rail points.

More important than this, is the fact that a single raider, unchecked, can perform miracles in no time, especially if it's a cavalry unit.

[Henry D.]

...
Now, recapping, Pocus made me see that the movement icon is the indicator and not the rail icon on the stack. Misleading, oh yes...if he's not travelling by Rail there shouldn't be any rail icon on his stack, my button should be greyed out and i certainly shouldn't be paying the rail points.

More important than this, is the fact that a single raider, unchecked, can perform miracles in no time, especially if it's a cavalry unit.

Playing the Union mostly, I agree with the sentiment about raiders .

But I don't really have a problem with the way the transport orders are designed now. The icon shows me that I have enabled the stack to use rail/river movement somewhere along its movement path. That is especially useful when moving units not directly sitting in a region with a shore or a rail line, that may enter such a region at some point on their way and there make use of the order. To check if they will actually use it (and that You are not wasting transport capacity), You just have drag the stack to it's destination before issueing the RR/RT order and observe the displayed number of days the march will take without. Then activate the transport order You wish to use. If the number stays the same, well, then the special order just won't shorten the movement time because you have not enough control of rr on the way, they are destroyed &c, and the expended transport capacity would be wasted. In that case You just de-activate the order and You instantly get it "refunded" (and sometimes the movement order is erased entirely and You have to drag&drop the stack again, but that's another matter).

Sounds a bit complicated, spelled out here, but it is really simple, the simplest way to have it without complicated additional coding, I daresay...

Regards, Henry

[GShock]

On the contrary Henry, it's quite clear and right.

It's also right how it works now but for the fact you spend points when u don't use the rail. I think it's a bit misleading in overall considering also the "focus on move" of the resolution phase. The stacks actually move and keep icons with them (i.e. entrenching, or using rail when the stack actually isn't) so you don't really understand. I mean i certainly am confused...it takes time to get used. I will remove the focus on the move from now on.

It's really minor minor glitches...but the fact you can capture 2 cities in 4 days with a single cav unit is really ugly...I'm guessing what a fast mover or very fast mover could do then....

[Pocus]

Stock 1.07b behaviour.



When i mention support units that should be permanently on passive+evade i am thinking about all unit types with the exception of infantry and cavalry. I agree with the Arty being considered support.

Do not forget the issue about replacements shown in the second SS. Longstreet receives replacements while being on the move from manassas (depot) and is in enemy region when these replacements arrive.

Ok, if you have the save around, send it please: support@ageod.com

For now, it is working as intended to be able to get a replacement while moving. This would be a major change I believe to prevent it, and it can always be said that the replacements were anyway waiting in the town you are passing by, so why stop? It is not like you need to train the replacement to incorporate it.

[GShock]

Out of my last "seeing the bull run" game, again i come back with something unexplicable (again).

Are there specific parameters stopping armies from assaulting a town?

In this savegame, i ve got a corps committed on that town, just north of winchester (whose name i keep forgetting to note down!) in offensive posture.

One turn passes, two turns pass and the breach is done, i order the assault switching the corps to assault posture and no assault happens, i keep the stack on assault posture, click next turn...and again no assault happens...

Am i doing something wrong, do i miss something in the rules? The only thing i can think of, is the stack totally missing arty units.

1.07d, savegame available.

[Pocus]

a bug I believe, see 1.07e. My apologises for the inconvenience.

[GShock]

Little bug...



Unit recruitment showing 25 Victory (points) I think it comes from the Financial Page text. Well i will list all the strange things i see in this thread and will use the one on my first campaign to discuss with players about gameplay.

[Rafiki]

That line is a summary for everything you're doing, both recruitment, replacement and political options. E.g. money will also be affected by various options you may be playing, so IMO it is showing things the way it should

[GShock]

That line is a summary for everything you're doing, both recruitment, replacement and political options. E.g. money will also be affected by various options you may be playing, so IMO it is showing things the way it should

Understandable but should then read either 25 Victory Points or 25 VP and not just 25 Victory

Let's call it little typo then

[Rafiki]

I'll second that

[Guru80]

I know this is old but I was reading in the last 1/4 of Volume 1 of Foote's novels and came across something.

This is my option to go on the road:

1) Smith will arrive in winchester and capture it in 2 days by road. He will proceed to next town and he will reach it in the same amount of time (2 days) despite MC being much worse there. Eventually the town would be captured too if it wasn't garrisoned and, again, there would be no delay in his trip for doing so.

Smith should travel faster or slower according to the MC in the area (1 extra day) and it should take him an extra day to capture 1-3lev town (1 extra day every 3 levels).

If i could work this out, leg 1 would take a total of 3 days (2 normal travel +1 for capture of town.
Leg 2 would take a total of 4 days (2 normal travel + this time it's 25%-75% so it's 1 more day and 1 more to conquer the garrisoned town which in this example im considering ungarrisoned).

2) legs 3 and 4 of my path are in 100% MC area. Smith is on Defensive Stance. He will not engage the garrison of the Lev2 Town. Smith arrives there at the same speed.

Following the same concept, leg 3 would take just the 1 day penalty for going in full enemy territory, 0% MC. So its total time should be 3 days.
Leg 4 would take 3 more days for the same reason.

The total of this trip, if things were better simulated, conquering 2 towns would be : 13 days, on the road (don't forget that in this example we're considering town 2 ungarrisoned).

According to Foote, a CSA Cavalry took 17 towns in a month and another took 11. So it isn't all that wrong that you can do it in game. If they are enemy towns they will most likely revolt and take it back right after you leave anyway.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[willgamer]

Concerning "control" of a region and Rail movement:

25% seems rather low to allow full unhindered rail movement within a region, yet I can see why the designers wanted to allow some rail movement by both sides if a minimum level of control is being met. I toyed with the idea of 51% to limit the rail usage to only one side, but that has some drawbacks too.

Now, of course, at the moment, I'm constantly thinking "Railroads", (I can't imagine why, ", but I have come across an idea that might be sort of compromise, but it would involve some code changes, so it depends on AGEod and company wanting to take the time for this, although it might be applicable to future "AGEod" games that include Rail systems.

The normal cost for rail movement is 1 MP per region, however this should only be applicable when moving thru a region that is, let's say 81 - 100% controlled, reflecting little or no in-region rail transit interference. 51 - 80%, might be 2 MPs, and 26 -50% 3 MPs. These percentages are just suggestions, but you should get the idea.

The increasing cost would reflect increasing in-region interferences by increasingly hostile populace, etc. This type of graduated rail utilization would make much more sense than the all or nothing 25% breakover point, which sometimes allows some rather bizarre ahistorical movements.

Regards

If the "railroad" part of the game is to become more detailed, then I contend that the North should be given advantages that reflect its historical wartime superiority. Its rails and equipment were greatly superior to begin with and the South had no one like the incomparable Herman Haupt.

For starters, see: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gabel4/gabel4.asp ; books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-0142456-3306210?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=herman+haupt .

As currently abstracted, since the North can take greater advantage of the rails due to its greater resources anyway, I believe AACW gets it about right.