Infrastructure-Influence on Movement

[Mediator]

Each ten percent of infrastructure less than 100 adds a cumulative 7% of movement time.

So assuming that it takes 100 days to move into a 100% infrastructure province, it would take 107 days if the province were 90% and 170 days if the province were 0% infrastructure.

Effect of infrastructure on fuel consuming units:

Only 100% infrastructure has the same value for non-fuel consuming units as for fuel consuming units. There is a movementtime multiplicator which is:
100/infrastructurevalue which has a cap at 2,3. So moving with an oil consuming unit into a province with infrastructure 50 will take twice as long as with an unit having the same movement value and type which doesn't consume oil.

This penalty is also valid for brigades which use oil. So an infantry with armored car brigade is treated for the infrastructure penalty like a motorized unit.

This penalty is especially ugly since it cannot be modded AND it usually imposes a double penalty on motorized units which usually have higher movement penalties due to terrain (mountain, swamp, etc. which also usually have lower infrastructure).

 

[unmerged(15332)]

Yeah, seems ugly, but wasn´t it this ugly in real life?

Thundering into the wilderness with an armor och mech division was leading to severe penalties both regarding movement speed, mpg, and possibility to feed that dammed division with fuel.

Shouldn´t a good Panzer General be shot in such cases? From my Patton biographies I remember him touring the French countryside in the interwar years taking notes on the road network.

/Sharky

 

[Mediator]

Yeah, seems ugly, but wasn´t it this ugly in real life?

/Sharky

Yes and no. What I don't like is:

1.) Mountain, etc. impose a movement penalty which is okay for me, however the same types of difficult terrain also have way lower infrastructure than clear terrain.

2.) Just consider a clear territory (flat) with 0 infra (= no useable roads to speak of). Why should a tank division take longer than a leg infantry division to move through this area? In fact, I believe both would take the same time since they are moving at the speed of the slowest division component and not the fastest tank. But I know, that there needs to be an abstraction.

3.) Now consider an 70 infra mountain province. So I would say you have enough roads and bridges to move you trucks around, but still you get a penalty for entering mountains plus you get a penalty for using trucks (and the penalty is a + 42%) on roads in mountains.

What I don't like is the effective triple penalty (terrain, infrastructure and infrastructure+oil consuming).

 

[unmerged(15260)]

2.) Just consider a clear territory (flat) with 0 infra (= no useable roads to speak of). Why should a tank division take longer than a leg infantry division to move through this area? In fact, I believe both would take the same time since they are moving at the speed of the slowest division component and not the fastest tank. But I know, that there needs to be an abstraction.

Totally agree. Modern tanks easily go 20-40 km/h in flat terrain. Of course all the DIVs other troops still need to be transported too.Trucks which there will be 1000s of in a MECH/AR DIV are not that great outside roads. But still they should be at least as fast as infantry moving on legs. And a infra 10 province must have at least one road right? Even a leg infantry DIV has a lot of vehicles (the GN walks on foot?? I think not!) or horses drawing carriages, so they should be penalized too!

Maybee infra could have the effect that limited movement speed if too many DIVs were travelling trough the area. Think traffic congestion just like what u hear about many offensives in world war II. A cool feature would be that MP brigades would help here!

 

[mld0806]

Even a tanks on road speed is usually appreciably higher than off road speed. You gotta remember, tons of metal IS going to sink into the ground on all but the hardest of terrain, clear or not, and even on the hardest of ground (exposed stone), you'll experience a loss of traction in the tracks. Muddy terrain? Fuggedaboudit. Certainly a tank will do better than a half-ton truck, but you still read often about tanks having to be towed out of mud by other tanks, and even if the terrain isn't muddy, a lot of clear terrain in parts of the world is not conducive to tank manouver.

Think about the hedgerows in Normandy, that's "clear" terrain, but not exactly conducive to lightning movement. The deserts of Africa were not exactly a piece of cake to move tanks through. Think about trying to walk on the beach (and I know, not all of Africa is of the consistency of the beach, so I don't want to hear it )? Now multiply that by, oh, say 4-600? It's "clear" terrain, but not necessarily faster for the tanks to move over.

In short, it's pretty accurate that the more cross country travel a tank division is going to have to do, the slower it will go.

 

[unmerged(8319)]

Yes and no. What I don't like is:

1.) Mountain, etc. impose a movement penalty which is okay for me, however the same types of difficult terrain also have way lower infrastructure than clear terrain.

2.) Just consider a clear territory (flat) with 0 infra (= no useable roads to speak of). Why should a tank division take longer than a leg infantry division to move through this area? In fact, I believe both would take the same time since they are moving at the speed of the slowest division component and not the fastest tank. But I know, that there needs to be an abstraction.

3.) Now consider an 70 infra mountain province. So I would say you have enough roads and bridges to move you trucks around, but still you get a penalty for entering mountains plus you get a penalty for using trucks (and the penalty is a + 42%) on roads in mountains.

What I don't like is the effective triple penalty (terrain, infrastructure and infrastructure+oil consuming).

@1) mountainous regions USUALLY have less infrastructure than clear. What's strange about that?

@2) 0 infra means a lot of obstacles and/or unfavourable conditions for wheeled and tracked vehicles. Unlike what one should think, judging from movies, tracked vehicles can't go everywhere as a whirlwind. And in fact tanks often used roads for their speedy advances. Obstacles or muddy terrain will prove a major slower of tracked (and especially wheeled) vehicles in this historical period. It's perfectly possible that legged units would be faster under such severe conditions.

@3) have you ever driven up a mountain side? I think it's pretty obvious that it should as well slow your vehicles down as use more fuel.

Each ten percent of infrastructure less than 100 adds a cumulative 7% of movement time

I had to read that three times. How about:
'Each additional 10% of infrastructure reduces movement time by 7%' ?

From a playerangle that is easier to understand. Supposing it's correct ofc.

 

[Mediator]

Even a tanks on road speed is usually appreciably higher than off road speed. You gotta remember, tons of metal IS going to sink into the ground on all but the hardest of terrain, clear or not, and even on the hardest of ground (exposed stone), you'll experience a loss of traction in the tracks. Muddy terrain? Fuggedaboudit. Certainly a tank will do better than a half-ton truck, but you still read often about tanks having to be towed out of mud by other tanks, and even if the terrain isn't muddy, a lot of clear terrain in parts of the world is not conducive to tank manouver.

Think about the hedgerows in Normandy, that's "clear" terrain, but not exactly conducive to lightning movement. The deserts of Africa were not exactly a piece of cake to move tanks through. Think about trying to walk on the beach (and I know, not all of Africa is of the consistency of the beach, so I don't want to hear it )? Now multiply that by, oh, say 4-600? It's "clear" terrain, but not necessarily faster for the tanks to move over.

In short, it's pretty accurate that the more cross country travel a tank division is going to have to do, the slower it will go.

I am sorry, but I miss your argument. My argument was, that IMHO there is no point in slowing down tanks (or trucks, halftracks, armored cars or in this game also helicopters) more than walking infantry. Have a look at the figures I posted above and you will notice that tanks are slower in low infrastructure provinces than infantry (even considering that they have double the speed) no matter what terrain it is. And that's not overly realistic.

 

[mld0806]

I am sorry, but I miss your argument. My argument was, that IMHO there is no point in slowing down tanks (or trucks, halftracks, armored cars or in this game also helicopters) more than walking infantry. Have a look at the figures I posted above and you will notice that tanks are slower in low infrastructure provinces than infantry (even considering that they have double the speed) no matter what terrain it is. And that's not overly realistic.

It's absolutely realistic. Two examples:

Hedgerows in Normandy:

The elements of the Big Red One are marching cross country, clearing out German resistance along the way. They've got an armored brigade along to help. Hedgerow in the way, the leg boys climb over the top. The tankers send the first tank through, it gets tangled up in the top of the hedgerow. The leg guys scramble around, while the rest of the tankers sit and wait while the first guy tries and back out. He finally gets out and pushes through, say taking 10 minutes, next tank has an easier time of it, but hits at an angle, slides sideways and throws a track. Now they decide to try and push through a little ways to the left while they fix the track. Next guy is pushing a new hole. Fourth tank goes through following and is hit by a Panzerschrek. Now THIS path through is blocked. Meanwhile, Sergeant Jones' tank refuses to refire after he shut it down while waiting. The little hedgerow that the leg just scrambled over has become a headache to the tanks. This is exactly why the hedge clearer was invented, to ease this sort of headache.

Deserts of Africa:

Rommel is pursuing the defeated British, but knows that battle is possible so he wants to keep his strength together. Oberstlutenant Brinker's tank hits a soft spot and sinks up to it's hull in sand. Two other tracks stop and hook up to tow him out after some digging. Meanwhile, sand and grit have gummed up the engine on Goering's (no relation) tank, and with a sickening grind, they know it's not moving any further today. Knowing that ammunition and fuel are precious, they begin unloading the tank of supplies and distributing them among the remaining tanks in the company. Meanwhile, the motorized infantry's trucks are wading through the sand, engines roaring as their tires sink deep in and going is tough. One wise ass leg private marching past says, "You know? Maybe we don't have it so bad."

There's tons of other historical examples. Ask the Germans how easy it is to move along the icy roads of the Ardennes forest? If their armor had been more effective and mobile, perhaps they would have won the Battle of the Bulge. As it stands, the tanks were inching along on icy roads that their tracks couldn't grip. In adverse conditions, the leg will be the fastest unit on the battlefield, hands down.

 

[Mediator]

You still don't get my point.

Currently the system works like that:

Movement speed is based on clear terrain and 100% infra structure.

1.) When having a different terrain, you get a penalty on your movement speed (according to modifiers.csv) which is already pretty hefty for mountains (and it is different for infantry/armor/mot. infantry/mountain and so on).

2.) When the infra is lower than 100% you get another penalty for your speed.

Till now it pretty much makes sense. You can adjust the speed according to the difficulty of terrain (via the modifiers.csv) and the availability of roads (via the infrastructure value of the provinces).

BUT now

3.) When the unit consumes oil, the infrastructure penalty is dramatically increased (independently from the terrain).

It is the point 3 which makes no sense for me at all.

Hedgerows of the Normandy should lead to reduced infra (80%) and maybe classification as forest. Desert in Africa has low infra already (and a corresponding movement penalty) plus the desert classification (with the corresponding movement penalty). There is no need for an oil using movement penalty in addition to it.

A unit (i.e. a division) moves as fast as its slowest element. If hedgerows or mountains are an obstacle for tanks for whatever reason, they are a similar obstacle for horse drawn carts, infantry men carrying 30+kg of eqipment, trucks, bicycles, horsedrawn artillery, etc.).

 

[LewsTherin]

No actually the system makes perfect sense as it is. Consider the fact that you can have a terrain type that is terrible for wheeled/tracked units (i.e. mountains, marshes, forests etc.), BUT one can still develop the infrastructure in these places sufficiently that these types of units have a relatively easy time getting through them. If you've ever been to the Alps, you can see that they have highways going through them in certain places. This means that tunnels have been dug and bridges have been constructed where necessary. Without these additions mobile units would have an extremely difficult time getting through this kind of terrain, while infantry units would simply march on paths or make their own paths. It slows down their movement but they aren't nearly as hampered by the lack of good roads.

The other thing to consider is the fact that units requiring fuel need an extra amount of trucks moving back and forth carrying fuel and supplies. The extra infrastructure penalty for these types of units makes sense.

So, basically, if you know you will have a prolonged campaign in Russia, for example, it might be worth developing the infrastructure in Poland and in some of the conquered territories.

Oh, and another thing is that the slowest part of a division is not always the infantry, but it is determined by terrain, weather, etc.

 

[mld0806]

You still don't get my point.

Currently the system works like that:

Movement speed is based on clear terrain and 100% infra structure.

1.) When having a different terrain, you get a penalty on your movement speed (according to modifiers.csv) which is already pretty hefty for mountains (and it is different for infantry/armor/mot. infantry/mountain and so on).

2.) When the infra is lower than 100% you get another penalty for your speed.

Till now it pretty much makes sense. You can adjust the speed according to the difficulty of terrain (via the modifiers.csv) and the availability of roads (via the infrastructure value of the provinces).

BUT now

3.) When the unit consumes oil, the infrastructure penalty is dramatically increased (independently from the terrain).

It is the point 3 which makes no sense for me at all.

Hedgerows of the Normandy should lead to reduced infra (80%) and maybe classification as forest. Desert in Africa has low infra already (and a corresponding movement penalty) plus the desert classification (with the corresponding movement penalty). There is no need for an oil using movement penalty in addition to it.

A unit (i.e. a division) moves as fast as its slowest element. If hedgerows or mountains are an obstacle for tanks for whatever reason, they are a similar obstacle for horse drawn carts, infantry men carrying 30+kg of eqipment, trucks, bicycles, horsedrawn artillery, etc.).

I get your point exactly, I'm just disagreeing with it.

Lower infrastructure as a base is going to slow all units down, leg or motorized/mechanized. It will hurt armor more than leg, however.

There are a lot of factors going into off road movement than just pure speed. Regardless of terrain, tracks are thrown, vehicles get stuck, suspensions break under the wear, vehicles bust drive shafts and transmisions when they bottom out, and grip can be drastically reduced.

All units will move slower in mountains, proportional to the lack of infrastructure. An armor or track unit trying to move through mountainous terrain without infrastructure will be much slower than leg. They have to wind back and forth trying to find a passable route, and even a passable route will be much more difficult. A 4-5% grade with lose scree and rock leading to the only pass within 3 days march is a tough and tiring climb for leg, but a difficult and almost insurmountable obstacle for a tank. If a tank were even to think of getting up, it would have to be with tow cables attached to solid anchors to help with propulsion.

Even in open terrain you have streams and smaller rivers. A tank or truck fording a river is a risky prospect. If it's a soft bottom ford, the tank can muck down and needs to be towed out. If it's a thin ford, this blocks all movement for the rest of the unit until it's cleared. In a hard bottom ford, a motorized or armored vehicle can slide off sideways or hit a sinkhole and break an axel. Once into deep water, the track is stuck until towed out. This takes at least one if not two or more accompanying tracks. Either way, a driver can go too far one way or the other and get stuck.

You can also see lower infrastructure in Europe as representing some of the small towns that make tank manouver on roads difficult or impossible. "Hell, sir, the road runs right through that town, but it narrows down pretty tight outside the center of town. We can get the trucks through, the half-tracks will be a tight fit, but there's no way the 132'd Heavy Armor can make it through. We can't move around to the left because it's very marshy, but there's a stream ford about a mile off to the right. It's thin, and it'll be slow, but it'll get us past."

The lack of infrastructure penalty represents far more than just actual movement speed. There are a ton of factors that go into movement more than just "how fast can they go". It's either a movement penalty or a manpower reduction based on breakdowns.

 

[Mediator]

Very nice then:

1.) Infantry '45 is slower than Infantry '43 in all territories except infra 100 (Infantry '45 consumes oil, the others not).
2.) Air cavalry is slower than armored cavalry in all territories with infra 70 or less (the absurdity should be obvious).
3.) You are better of in adding normal artillery to infantry than SP Artillery except for infra 100 and 90.
4.) For infra 50 and lower, infantry is faster than armor (Russian steppes we come). For infra 60 it depends on the terrain.
5.) As soon as you attach armored cars, tank destroyers, self propelled artillery to infantry, you slow them down when you aren't in a 100 infra province.
6.) Motorised Infantry is slower than leg infantry in infra 60 and lower and in many cases (terrain depending) even in higher infra.

The question now is, why did anybody motorise their armies when it is quicker to walk (or have horses) in 80% of the world? At least we know now why Barbarossa failed (too much armor, not enough infantry; Motorised Infantry is slower in almost all of SU than leg infantry!).

 

[unmerged(3221)]

Mediator: have you suggested a change to this in the suggestions forum ? Your list of the occasions where this does not make much sense should be a compelling reason to at least examine this issue.

I'm going to use inf with eng bde as my standard as that seems to be the best unit to use in lower infrastructure provinces. As Germany I just fought with them and took an unguarded Moscow in about 6 weeks as it moved and fought fast in all those forests between the Baltic and Moscow above the Dvina (?) river. (That was my last game on normal).

 

[Mithel]

Excellent work Mediator!

As far as I'm concerned the biggest problem is that a single infrastructure value also is an extremely important factor for supply. Thus if we try and "fix" a province to improve movement rate, we may very well cause more problems by making it too easy or too hard to supply.

So while infrastructure impacts both movement and supply we can not adjust them independently.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Great that you noticed this. I was playing Britain and noticed in Africa that I was constantly being out manuevered by the Italian infantry. I was simple lost as to how this could happen. Then I noticed the my motorized/tank units moved slower than my Infantry units, say what. All my reading of Africa was that if you did not have motorisation you were at the mercy of your attacker as he could move around you and you would not be able to move fast enough to stop him. Well we have that wrong.

I do believe that there is are only three brigades worth building. Engineers, Military Police, and Carrier Air Groups (CAG). Everything else is a complete waste of time and supply.

 

[Mithel]

Definitely a few changes are needed.

I'm not sure I agree about the brigades. As Paradox shipped it, attaching an armor brigade to an armor division cuts the "softness" value dramatically thus taking armor from being junk (stupid to build) to being very powerful. Brigades need to add flavor and strategy, they shouldn't fall into the "don't ever build them or always build them" category.

 

[Mediator]

Mediator: have you suggested a change to this in the suggestions forum ? Your list of the occasions where this does not make much sense should be a compelling reason to at least examine this issue.

I have made a post in the suggestion forum, but it quickly moved down the pages. I will copy paste my observations from this thread (which were made after the post on the suggestion forum to validate my statement) into the thread over there.

 

[Dalwin]

Yes and no. What I don't like is:

1.) Mountain, etc. impose a movement penalty which is okay for me, however the same types of difficult terrain also have way lower infrastructure than clear terrain.

2.) Just consider a clear territory (flat) with 0 infra (= no useable roads to speak of). Why should a tank division take longer than a leg infantry division to move through this area? In fact, I believe both would take the same time since they are moving at the speed of the slowest division component and not the fastest tank. But I know, that there needs to be an abstraction.

3.) Now consider an 70 infra mountain province. So I would say you have enough roads and bridges to move you trucks around, but still you get a penalty for entering mountains plus you get a penalty for using trucks (and the penalty is a + 42%) on roads in mountains.

What I don't like is the effective triple penalty (terrain, infrastructure and infrastructure+oil consuming).

For your case #2, don't consider it the tanks themselves that cause the unit to be slow but rather the logistical elements of the unit which are mainly trucks.

I know that infantry divisions also have a logistical tail, but they are less dependent on it for movement than are fuel consuming units. To make this even worse, fuel trucks don't do as well without roads as some lighter trucks that could carry food or ammo to infantry units.

 

[Mediator]

For your case #2, don't consider it the tanks themselves that cause the unit to be slow but rather the logistical elements of the unit which are mainly trucks.

I know that infantry divisions also have a logistical tail, but they are less dependent on it for movement than are fuel consuming units. To make this even worse, fuel trucks don't do as well without roads as some lighter trucks that could carry food or ammo to infantry units.

My apologies if this sounds rude, but I'm a bit tired from the "consider this, consider that" answers in this thread.

It is a question of playability when in whole of Africa and most parts of Sovietunion Mountain troops with Eng-Brigade are the fastest units (except Armored Cavalry). It completely removes the point of motorisation.

@ your argument:
1.) I agree when we are talking about infra 0. However from infra 10 onwards there have to be some roads which these (at those times not so heavy) fuel trucks will use.
2.) Horses cannot be that faster than slow moving trucks.

 

[Cavalry]

I found that some time canceling a move and restart it later will make that move very faster. My semi-motorized cavalry will take months (estimated 3 months) to go from Danzig to Stetting because the infra of Steting is about 2% after heavy fighting. Now Stetting has 80% infra, I cancel the move and restart then the cavalry come 3 days later! So the game take the infra at the beggining of the move for calcultinng only!