New building suggestion, railway station. Faster land transport.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New building suggestion, railway station. Faster land transport.

      Well as the title states...

      The idea would be that you can transport some units faster than is the case now. Some units are VERY slow. Like militia for example. Or artillery, anti-tank and perhaps even infantry.

      How about, if you can build a railway station building. This railway building would put the units in a train, and this train would travel across the map faster than most other land units. Say it would travel at 60 km/h. The units in the train, would be vulnerable though. It would kind of be like the transport ship, except on land. So this would happen:

      - Takes time to put units on a train (much like it takes time to put units on a transport ship). This would mean that short distances are traveled faster without a train, because it takes time to load and unload units on to or of a train.
      - Need a railway station in both the departing province and the province of arival. Units could in between just be sent on a course. Asuming railroads would just exist everywhere. In case of upgraded infarstructure the bonus will be added also to train transport. meaning that you do not need level 3 infrarstructure in every province between the start and arival point. Level 3 infrastructure just shows that this province has really good infrastructure.
      - advantages & disadvantages
      - faster transport of slow units.
      - vulnerable units during transport.

      I think it would be a cool feature for the somewhat slower units in this game (infantry branch) and the transport itself would offer a really cool potential strategy of disrupting transports.

      What does the community think?

    • Really good idea, it often frustrates me that new artillery is never able to join the stack already attacking. It would make it easier to deploy an army, send reinforcements and to return with an army in case of an attack. I'm affraid that it would make the winning team even stronger though while they have the longest supply line.

      - Maybe the train should be fast on shorter trips like in your own cores but the further you go from your cores or capital the slower the train starts to go.

      - If you want to split up troops on trains to go to different directions then you would need a changing station.

      - If there is only one station at the start and one at the end, what would happen if one of the two stations gets conquered by the enemy? Does the train return to the station where it started? Do the troop get unloaded somewhere in the middle of nowhere at the moment the station is captured?
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • BMfox wrote:

      - Maybe the train should be fast on shorter trips like in your own cores but the further you go from your cores or capital the slower the train starts to go.


      - If you want to split up troops on trains to go to different directions then you would need a changing station.

      - If there is only one station at the start and one at the end, what would happen if one of the two stations gets conquered by the enemy? Does the train return to the station where it started? Do the troop get unloaded somewhere in the middle of nowhere at the moment the station is captured?
      Hadn't really thought about any of that. Maybe the simplest answer would be that they need a railway station to get on the train and can get of at another railway station somewhat fast. Or anywhere else slower. Like with naval bases being present or not.

      I think the train going slower further away from the capitol kind of dedeats the purpose if it. Having units be vulnerable during transport should be hazardous enough. Also it would especially be something for BIG countries. Like historical map USA or Russia. Or world map bigger countries. Shaving of a day of a 3 day transport would make quite a difference.

      Since the units are in different carts, splitting up or merging should not require additional buildings.

      But yeah like you said. It should give the slower units in the game a bit more relevance throughout the game. Since one's core keeps on being an important production center throughout most maps.

    • Edepedable wrote:

      I think the train going slower further away from the capitol kind of dedeats the purpose if it. Having units be vulnerable during transport should be hazardous enough. Also it would especially be something for BIG countries. Like historical map USA or Russia. Or world map bigger countries. Shaving of a day of a 3 day transport would make quite a difference.
      Imagine that i'm on a 100 player map and my coalition conquered Europe, Russia and Africa. I want to put my troops on the train from France to Mongolia. This means i could bring my new troops really fast to the battle field. This gives me even a bigger advantage as I already have because i'm on the winning side. This would be a serious problem for the smaller players that are defending because that makes it even harder. Plus i don't care if the troops on a train are vounerable because my train network would be so far away that nobody would be able to touch my troops anyway.

      You can see that on big maps this would not be fair towards the other players so the question is, how will you fix that?


      Edepedable wrote:

      Since the units are in different carts, splitting up or merging should not require additional buildings.
      There is, if you want to split up the train to go into two different directions then you will need two locomotives instead of one so you will need a changing station to split the train.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • I think a much more realistic idea would be transport planes, as I think infrastructure is supposed to represent the general idea of rains and all that related stuff. Transport planes were very useful during the war, and designs like the DC 3 went on to have a significant commercial impact. Image not having to just build a train but build airfields, and if it was realistic, the transports would only have a decent range. However, despite being fast and pretty easy to set up, they would have high operating requirements (as is realistic) and be easily damageable (also realistic).

    • The air branch is already powerfull enough in the game. There was no air transport of troops during WW2 on a large scale so it shouldnt be in the game. Furthermore this would even give a bigger advantage to the leading coalition. They would be able to bring the newest troops to the battlefield in a blink of an eye.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • BMfox wrote:

      Imagine that i'm on a 100 player map and my coalition conquered Europe, Russia and Africa. I want to put my troops on the train from France to Mongolia. This means i could bring my new troops really fast to the battle field. This gives me even a bigger advantage as I already have because i'm on the winning side. This would be a serious problem for the smaller players that are defending because that makes it even harder. Plus i don't care if the troops on a train are vounerable because my train network would be so far away that nobody would be able to touch my troops anyway.
      You can see that on big maps this would not be fair towards the other players so the question is, how will you fix that?


      There is, if you want to split up the train to go into two different directions then you will need two locomotives instead of one so you will need a changing station to split the train.
      True, though my reasons for implementing train transports would mainly be to keep the infantry branch relevant throughout the game. The balance exists in that everyone can do it. Also "really fast" might be a bit of an overstatement. Faster, definately but it would not be nearly as fast as flying. A good way to counter these transports could be unexpected flankings with the help of spies or blitz advancements while the train is unloading.

      I think taking the amount of locomotives into account is a bit much on the micromanaging. We also do not need to worry about having enough transport ships when we split up a big stack of units in the middle of the sea.

    • Well, my opinion:
      This is an AMAZING idea for big countries like USSR. You are bordered (germany isnt a border, but it is very close) with two rivals on literally two different sides of your country, and if one attacks you, it is a real pain to transfer troops to the other end of the map.
      This can work with normal countries ex. France. I want to attack Italy, and if i make a unit in Metz, it takes too long to transfer it to Gap or some bordering state with Italy. The embarking shouldnt take too long and it should depend by units: putting a regular infantry isnt really hard (in a real life situation): all you have to do is show your ID and sit on the train. While with units like Heavy tanks, it should take a bit longer. The railroad would make bring sense to the railroadgun. It should be able to be made with Infrastucture. But there should be a catch:
      There should be a difference beetwen a train station in a small town that is only used as a passing route, and a BIG railway intersection in a big state: IMO, if you want a big, modern railway you should waste some manpower too: there are a lot of personnel working there and probably some security guards too. There is a problem with bombings: some dude could rocket my railway and break it, thus i will need to make another one all over again. A great idea thought.

    • I really like this idea, maybe the best I read here.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • Militia are designed to be slow. It saids it in the info for militia. Countries like U.S.S.R. should get the thing because it is way too big. It takes literally 1 day to get from this end to the other.
      Criticism is the key to being proud but empathy is the key to being successful.
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost
      Ask not what your countrycan do for you, ask what you can do for your country. John F Kennedy
      Time is beyond our control, and the clock keeps ticking regardless of how we lead our lives. Priority management is the answer to maximizing the time we have. John C. Maxwell

    • Railroad station and airport should increase production in provinces they are in. Also you should consider having railroad station as condition for making railroad gun too.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • patriota75 wrote:

      Railroad station and airport should increase production in provinces they are in. Also you should consider having railroad station as condition for making railroad gun too.
      So it is kind of like a structure.
      1. A structure that connects thing and moves faster
      2. It may take too much time trying to do build stuff.
      3. Consider these problems and see if you change it, it may be easier for everyone to agree.
      Criticism is the key to being proud but empathy is the key to being successful.
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost
      Ask not what your countrycan do for you, ask what you can do for your country. John F Kennedy
      Time is beyond our control, and the clock keeps ticking regardless of how we lead our lives. Priority management is the answer to maximizing the time we have. John C. Maxwell

    • But why should it be a structure? One could argue that Infra already does that. What if it is a unit (a train unit, like the transport ships), that you can build?

      Then this unit has a really quite fast speed, easily at least doubling the speed of infantry units in hills/mountains, has limited capacity (say, 2-3 units), travels only in provinces with at least Infra Lvl1 (to give an incentive to build Infra even in non-productive provinces), and has a quite reasonable load/unload time.

      I would also like to see something resembling trains in the map, gives a more WWII feel.

    • I had multiple reasons for suggesting that you need a building to put troops on a train.

      - building requirements would give it some sort of availability at a given time in the map. Maybe it could be a researchable building or maybe the train required would be a researchable like the transport ship.
      - needing a building would make troop transports somewhat visible to enemies. Meaning they can plan to disrupt transport lines, figured this would add balance and require more strategy. Adding the option to infra would make troops transports less visible to enemies.
      - requiring a building would of course mean you need to put in resources. Spend resources for faster transport is what you would be doing. Again that would require strategy.

      Those were my main reasons really.

    • This thread is like durians. Some of us like it so much and others do not. It might lead to strong arguments... But it will really help for country that our big, consider that. For countries smaller than Ukraine, they should not have a railway. They should be aloud that when they reach a about of province so that it will be useful.
      Criticism is the key to being proud but empathy is the key to being successful.
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost
      Ask not what your countrycan do for you, ask what you can do for your country. John F Kennedy
      Time is beyond our control, and the clock keeps ticking regardless of how we lead our lives. Priority management is the answer to maximizing the time we have. John C. Maxwell

    • i think the station is required , in station army enters and at station leaves train. I like the idea very much.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.