I'm relatively new to the forum and I'm sure this thing had to be discussed before, so I'm going to start by asking -
was there ever any justification made for lack of railroads/highways on the map? I mean I know there's an issue with fitting it to the scale of the map (especially in places where the transport network was dense) and that there is this abstract concept of insfrastructure on the state level.
(edit - I repeat, I do realize it's present in the form of infastructure concept. Please do not inform me of this fact. My point is how poor job it does, as it works as a meta represantation of magical 'strategic redeployment matrix' that allows you to transport at similar warp speed anywhere. Like, seriously - ANYWHERE, at a lightning speed. So, NO, there is no transportation network represented in this game, just some voodoo shit that allows you to deploy from China to Egypt in roughly a straight line over Himalayas in circa 2 weeks. Moreover, mobility wise, it has 0 influence on the way you wage war (supply is a different story), whereas IRL it was a crucial aspect of planning and conducting military campaigns. Armies fought and moved along major communication lines. And it's neither hard nor complicated to change it.
I can't resist an impression that it is something that obviously should be included and it would enrich the game as hell. I'm doing my second run invading the USSR as Germany and it just feels silly sometimes when I'm establishing offensive plans and marching orders for my armies and all that guides me are VP's and enciclement opportunities. I mean, they could just include really only super duper major railroads and highways and it would really change the way you plan and fight.
Not to mention it just makes the game version of the war so detached from realities of the period. One silly example - there is this patch of land , "land bridge', between Daugava and Dnepr rivers, roughly around Smolensk and Vitebsk in Russia. It's commonly known as the Smolensk Gate, because for centuries all the major East-West wars - Polish/French/German armies marching on Moscow and vice versa - played out intensely in this area. There are no major water obstacles and terrain is relatively high/dry and flat. It was the major route for armies in 1612/1812 and it remained so in the WW2. In 1941 the fate of Barbarossa was largely decided there, during the fighting for Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow highway and railway going through the area. It was the natural and obvious path for German Panzer groups, as the terrain North and South of if was unfavorable for armor. Yet, in game, moving through the area makes no sense. The area is covered with forest, and German tank divisions are much better off moving South of it. Since the breakthrough happens usually South of Minsk (plains), you have to push a bit and then turn South, only to turn East again. Despite the fact that it requires crossing the Dnepr, your tanks still end up getting to Moscow quicker, because there's a patch of plains there
I mean, seriously? Terrain was important, but so were the god damn roads, especially the ones running along the centuries old communication routes.
Adding major communication routes could but doesn't have to be done together with the rework of supply system. Even without it it'd really enrich the operational planning layer of the game. Just some bonuses for movement, especially serious ones for armor and motorized. Moreover, it would really allow to resolve another major issue, which bothers me since the 1st day I play this game. The magic ability to do strategic redeployment of huge armies anytime anywhere. It's just silly. It's just so incredably stupid that I can punch a tiny whole in the front and then pump in tens of divisions behind enemy lines in the blink of an eye, anywhere. That should only be possible using major tranportation routes and would really make fighting for them important, like IRL. I'm sure some experienced players have views on the topic and I'd welcome somebody laying out a convincig argument against railways. I mean, Paradox made a cool game, they're not stupid. But this is such a painfuly obvios ommision that I just can't wrap my head around it.
was there ever any justification made for lack of railroads/highways on the map? I mean I know there's an issue with fitting it to the scale of the map (especially in places where the transport network was dense) and that there is this abstract concept of insfrastructure on the state level.
(edit - I repeat, I do realize it's present in the form of infastructure concept. Please do not inform me of this fact. My point is how poor job it does, as it works as a meta represantation of magical 'strategic redeployment matrix' that allows you to transport at similar warp speed anywhere. Like, seriously - ANYWHERE, at a lightning speed. So, NO, there is no transportation network represented in this game, just some voodoo shit that allows you to deploy from China to Egypt in roughly a straight line over Himalayas in circa 2 weeks. Moreover, mobility wise, it has 0 influence on the way you wage war (supply is a different story), whereas IRL it was a crucial aspect of planning and conducting military campaigns. Armies fought and moved along major communication lines. And it's neither hard nor complicated to change it.
I can't resist an impression that it is something that obviously should be included and it would enrich the game as hell. I'm doing my second run invading the USSR as Germany and it just feels silly sometimes when I'm establishing offensive plans and marching orders for my armies and all that guides me are VP's and enciclement opportunities. I mean, they could just include really only super duper major railroads and highways and it would really change the way you plan and fight.
Not to mention it just makes the game version of the war so detached from realities of the period. One silly example - there is this patch of land , "land bridge', between Daugava and Dnepr rivers, roughly around Smolensk and Vitebsk in Russia. It's commonly known as the Smolensk Gate, because for centuries all the major East-West wars - Polish/French/German armies marching on Moscow and vice versa - played out intensely in this area. There are no major water obstacles and terrain is relatively high/dry and flat. It was the major route for armies in 1612/1812 and it remained so in the WW2. In 1941 the fate of Barbarossa was largely decided there, during the fighting for Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow highway and railway going through the area. It was the natural and obvious path for German Panzer groups, as the terrain North and South of if was unfavorable for armor. Yet, in game, moving through the area makes no sense. The area is covered with forest, and German tank divisions are much better off moving South of it. Since the breakthrough happens usually South of Minsk (plains), you have to push a bit and then turn South, only to turn East again. Despite the fact that it requires crossing the Dnepr, your tanks still end up getting to Moscow quicker, because there's a patch of plains there
I mean, seriously? Terrain was important, but so were the god damn roads, especially the ones running along the centuries old communication routes.Adding major communication routes could but doesn't have to be done together with the rework of supply system. Even without it it'd really enrich the operational planning layer of the game. Just some bonuses for movement, especially serious ones for armor and motorized. Moreover, it would really allow to resolve another major issue, which bothers me since the 1st day I play this game. The magic ability to do strategic redeployment of huge armies anytime anywhere. It's just silly. It's just so incredably stupid that I can punch a tiny whole in the front and then pump in tens of divisions behind enemy lines in the blink of an eye, anywhere. That should only be possible using major tranportation routes and would really make fighting for them important, like IRL. I'm sure some experienced players have views on the topic and I'd welcome somebody laying out a convincig argument against railways. I mean, Paradox made a cool game, they're not stupid. But this is such a painfuly obvios ommision that I just can't wrap my head around it.
Last edited:
- 12
- 7
- 5
