I've been working on the railroad...

It's an open question as to whether railroads have and should have a greater role in Advanced Squad Leader. Probably the most frequently discussed question is armored trains, but this is far less important than the background information which comes into play—most of which is unimportant and perhaps uninteresting in an ASL context. I'll cover three areas of ASL railroading: 1) background knowledge about the role railroads played in WWII; 2) Railroad issues of interest to scenario designers and 3) a quick foray into railroad rules and some ASL related railroad stuff.

Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. While railroads are a rare occurrence in ASL, they were incredibly important considerations for the soldiers and leaders of armies during WWII. Railroads provided logistics that couldn't be matched by any other means. Armies require huge amounts of stuff: food, replacement parts, ammunition, medical supplies. While it is, to a degree, possible to move this stuff by other means and certainly in some cases is necessary to do so, it was generally impossible to move around the massive armies of the forces used in WWII without trains.

Trains also provided mobility which was impossible otherwise. Tanks moved at a snail's pace, at least strategically speaking. While units could move from one part of the front to the other without trains (as they frequently had to do), normal wear and tear would take its toll. Moving an armored unit along the lines for several hundred kilometers meant that valuable parts would have to be replaced—even engines and transmissions. It would also take a very long time, meaning that the strategic situation may well have changed by the time the unit arrived. And when it arrived, it would be badly in need of repairs and reorganization. Even infantry units would wear out if not moved by train and could generally be expected to have lost a great deal of combat readiness if engaging in combat “off the march.”

Think of this: trains determined the size and weight of virtually every combat vehicle in WWII. Because tanks had to be moved by train, the width of tanks was determined by their ability to be loaded onto trains. The Tiger tank's overlapping system of road wheels was designed so that the inner wheels could support the weight when being transported by rail, allowing the outer wheels to overhang in transport, but support the weight of the tank when in the field. The Tiger II also had this system, where transportation tracks were 60cm wide while the field tracks were 80cm wide. I don't know if Tigers ever saw action with transportation tracks, but it obviously increases ground pressure by 25%--a huge amount in a tank this weight. It was an absolute necessity that WWII tanks had the ability to be loaded on cars for transport by train.

And the width of a tank generally determined the length as well. The “steering ratio” of a tank is generally 1.5 to 1.8 to 1. So a tank can be this much longer than wide. Long tracks needed a certain amount of width to turn without causing too much stress in turns. Stress on the tracks meant extraordinary wear and forced the tank to slow to a stop to make turns. This was a primary deficiency on the Churchill model British tanks. This could somewhat be compensated by the width of the track, but in turn this forced a reduction in the size of the turret and the size of the gun in the turret. The “steering ratio is a sort of iron law which all tracked vehicles must obey. Because of the need for rail transport for operational and strategic mobility, it also creates a practical limit on tank size.

The width of the tank determined the size of the turret hole, which, in turn, determined the size of the gun. The German PzKwIII, with its three man turret, generally set the mark for all future MBT's. Early tanks may have found a two man turret acceptable, but it soon became clear that a real battle tank required a loader, a commander and a gunner. As gun size moved beyond 5cm, a tank needed a certain size turret and, therefore, a certain sized turret hole and therefore, a certain width. Thus, it is easily demonstrated that the tank needed to be wide enough to accommodate a three man turret, but its size was constricted sufficiently to fit on a railroad flatbed.

It is very common to say that the three elements of tank design are mobility, firepower and protection. However, strategic mobility and the physical considerations which put constraints on these are just as important. The ability to transport tanks by train placed restrictions on the size and weight of tank design which placed an upper limit on both firepower and protection. Tanks could only be wide and tall enough that they could still pass through railroad tunnels and light enough to be transported by rail or they would, essentially, be stuck in a tactical mode—not transportable in a strategic sense.

All of this may be interesting, you say, but how can the author convince his fair readers that such information is relevant to ASL? Partially, this can perhaps be chalked up to information pertinent to scenario designers or those very, very rare birds that indulge in DYO. Certainly, if one wishes to be taken seriously in discussions of armor in the Second World War, these are issues about which one must be at least passingly familiar. Before I go on to discuss other more real issues dealing with railroads in ASL, let me discuss these more ethereal concerns. Scenario designers need to be aware about the logistical situation with regards to scenarios they are designing and researching. At least, it they want the scenario to be historically accurate they do. Consider how many scenarios involve the mythical T-35 in the early days of Operation Barbarossa. I think these are generally included in scenarios in order to provide justification for their inclusion in the counter set, but let's say the designer has been diligent and finds a source that says a “heavy tank” was at the action near Smolensk. Considering that virtually all working models of the T35 were in Moscow at the start of the war (they were felt to be useful only as parade tanks by the Red Army to demonstrate Soviet might and technical advancements), that would mean that they had to have been loaded on a flatbed and discharged near the battlefield (at the expense of other, more precious cargoes) and moved to within about 50km of the rail head (which was the extent of their operational range.) Assuming they could move under their own power to the site of the actual battle without breaking down or being spotted by roving air support—a somewhat dubious assumption—you can then feel free to include them in the order of battle. I remain firmly convinced that more T35's are used in ASL scenarios than were ever used by the Red Army.

A quick plug: I would like to talk about the French Char 2c. This was the only production super heavy tank of WWII. There were only eight of them and they were built in Toulouse in Southwestern France. They were utterly and completely cool. Untouchable by all but an 88. They had a high velocity 75mm main armament in a turret (in addition to the 47mm turret of the Char 1) and could cross an astonishing 4 meters of trench. They had an unheard of 500hp engine but still were strikingly under powered. These behemoths were truly land battleships. What's more, they had a clamp on rail transporter on the front and back, so they could be hauled along on a train like an armored boxcar. None ever saw action because, even though they had the rail transporter attachments, they were too heavy and would have caused damage to the rails. All eight were destroyed by the French before the armistice. But we have counters for the Maus, which certainly never saw action, and the ISIII, which probably never saw action, so why not the Char 2c?

However, also consider that, given the railroad situation on the Eastern Front there may well have been infantry or even armored divisions operating outside the benefit of easy access to a rail head. What would the condition of these units might be? Certainly we would expect the unit to suffer from ammunition shortages, but there are other, strategic effects we might expect to see in ASL from a scenario designer's standpoint. Lack of provisions effected troops in a number of different ways which we might express in ASL terms as lower ELR, reduced firepower, increased malfunction and a greater reluctance to move. Stalin, throughout the early part of the war, was obsessed with saving artillery and, therefore, it was among the first thing to be removed when in retreat. Soviet troops were also completely dependent on trains for strategic mobility, meaning that when fighting rear guard actions, troops did so without artillery and without hope of outrunning the Germans if they missed the trains east. Being saddled with a rear guard action generally was a death sentence in the rear guard of the Red Army in 1941. However, the corollary is also true. German tanks far from a rail head would have been reluctant to attack out of fear of outrunning their logistical train. There are a few stories where the German commander pushed his units to the point of them running out of gas, but this would have been the exception rather than the rule. A German commander that ran his unit out of gas was left in a vulnerable position and would have been unlikely to use the last of his fuel without some idea where more was coming from.

Also, Soviet and German railroads used different gauges (width of the track.) This had several important implications. First, railroads captured intact needed Soviet rolling stock and locomotives to be useful. Second, all materiel had to be unloaded and reloaded where the railheads came together. Third, Soviet rails needed to be substantially rebuilt in order to serve German needs.

The Germans did indeed capture a great deal of Soviet rolling stock in the early weeks of the war, but as soon as the 3^rd of July, 1941, the Red Army was aware of the strategic nature of the disaster that befell them and called on Stalin to issue his scorched earth order. After this, much of the rolling stack and many of the locomotives were destroyed before falling into German hands.

The inefficiency of unloading and reloading trains at the frontier became more important as the Germans advanced further into the Soviet interior. The shortage of rolling stock and increase in the ability of the Soviet rail network to service the needs of the advancing army became more and more acute, because Soviet rail lines were not able to accommodate as much weight as the German lines and less and less Soviet rolling stock was available. Soviet rail was built for carrying lighter loads longer distance so simply narrowing the gauge and substituting German trains was not feasible in the short run.

Finally, it may be enticing to ask why, with such a large body of captured Red Army soldiers available as free labor did the Germans not simply rebuild the Soviet rails to German standards. It is a fair question, but it must be remembered that this was a long term solution and the Germans were not thinking in long terms. Part of the problem lay in the different mass of rail systems involved, apart from simply the different gauge. German trains were heavier and would wreck the Soviet railbed quite quickly. German trains needed refueling and water stops that were closer together than the Soviet system. Not to mention that the Germans needed a very different line of railroad tracks than the Soviets. Bridges and tunnels would have had to have been re-engineered and rebuilt. In short, it would have been akin to completely rebuilding the Red railroad from scratch—even to the extent of relocating settlements.

Germans did not consider railroads because they did not envision having a way to repair them in the short term and they were willing to let the long term take care of itself.

So I would encourage scenario designer to keep the closest rail head in mind when determining the context of the scenario. Hopefully, this brings us to another important aspect concerning railroads in ASL—scenario context. If rail transportation was so valuable in a strategic sense, why aren't there more scenarios that involve rail lines and rail crossings? This may be the late arrival of the railroads in ASL. Let's look at some of the history. There are no rail lines in the early versions of ASL. This has mostly to do with the problems of making a geomorphic map on a hexagonal basis. It is really hard to come up with an aesthetically pleasing 10x35 map that has a railroad going across it. It is a bit like those annoying streams that flow only on one board. No one builds railways like this. Given this aesthetic problem, why write rules that need to go with railroads? If there are no rules or maps that go with railroads, you can't write scenarios in which railroads play a central role.

One of the most important actions of WWII centered around Mga. A few dozen kilometers south of Leningrad, Mga was where the Germans first severed the rail line between Moscow and Leningrad. Around September 22, 1941, the Germans and Red Army fought a number of pitched battles for the city, which eventually remained in German hands and doomed a million people to starvation, hypothermia and cholera. There is a scenario for this, from a third party publisher Dispatches from the Bunker, but according to the excellent ASL Scenario archive there are only four plays. Four plays? Of arguably one of the most important actions of the war? A tragedy. So there are certainly a lot more room for railroad actions in ASL.

Also, the seizure of the bridge at Remagen, March 7, 1945. The fact that it was a railway bridge meant that it proved indestructible and allowed US heavy tanks to cross the bridge over the Rhine was of dramatic importance in destroying the will of the Germans to continue the war. There are a handful of third party scenarios covering this action, but none with more than four playings.

Even when there were railroads, like in Stalingrad and Red Barricades, it seemed easier to write the scenario around the railroad, rather than include them in the scenario. Since railroads in urban settings tended to be at street level, or at least not raised enough to provide any cover, it seemed easy just to wash them out of the artwork.

Then, in 1995, a French Fanzine called “Tactiques” rolled out railroad overlays. Tactiques' railroads were pretty basic and were later re-issued in Doomed Battalions. Ah the good old days, when you spent six hours downloading a graphic file with railroad overlays on your 12.6k modem.

Also in 1995, an American publication Time On Target, which was a really first rate publication, also put out some railroad overlays. While there are an number of quality scenarios I remember from these fanzines, I don't recall what was in the overlays nor do I no what happened to them. I'm a player, not a collector.

While the very nature of railroads make them difficult to include on geomorphic maps (without using overlays), they sometimes have very few implications. Unlike US rails, which tend to be embanked, European rails (at least during WWII) tended to be ground level—especially in urban centers.

With Valor of the Guards, AH finally put into art the idea of the railroad in ASL. It was hardly avoidable, with fighting centering around the Central Railroad Station in downtown Stalingrad. However, here the main concern was the rail cars left in the yards, blocking line of sight, catching fire and generally making themselves annoying, rather than the effect of the tracks, which were at ground level.

But the third party producers were not done. New maps, no longer geomorphic but having a railroad end to end. Rules for armored trains! Elevated railroads, sunken railroads, intercity—all of which make CH's Berlin behemoth virtually unplayable. We can even talk about nifty Japanese railroad tanks that had retractable flanged wheels that let them drive on railroad tracks. Yes in the 2000's when the cost of publishing plummeted things definitely got weird. But, hey, weird is OK.

The biggest change would be years later when Festung Budapest comes out. Now, you've got street cars, embanked railways and railway embankments and even, for you real aficionados, the cog wheel railway. But please, don't forget the roundhouse! All the railroad fun you could hope to have all in one box.

Bounding Fire even includes a number of semi-geomorphic boards that are heavily influenced with rails. The Into the Rubble pack features a couple of really handsome maps in which railroads are prominent.

I have said before that as do-it-yourself map-making technology advances, we'll see far more historical maps for individual scenarios. Lots of players already print maps (with larger hexes) for individual scenarios. As this goes on, expect for railroads to start playing a more significant role on the ASL battlefield. Also, keep in mind that many of the railroad rules are largely cosmetic.

Let's take a moment to discuss what can still might be covered. I fear that some third party will have to at least try an armored locomotive. For reasons explained below, this really is problematic in an ASL setting. Yet the idea of trains with T34 turrets spinning on top would seem to be too much of a draw. I hope they defend themselves against this impulse. However, one thing that could be really interesting is a canal-rail overlay. All across Europe, there are old canals which frequently used railroad locomotives to pull barges up a particularly challenging stretch of river. It seems that these would be formidable defensive obstacles.

Armored trains provide a problem. The reason for this is that armored trains were primarily designed to move artillery. Yes, they had anti aircraft guns, but generally they were for firing heavy guns at great distances and did not get involved in tactical firefights like we see in ASL. They had to be kept away from direct fire because even the most heavily armored locomotives could easily be penetrated by an AP shell. And the thing about trains is that they are all about momentum and, given the time span of the average scenario couldn't get moving or stop within the space of a map board. The mathematics of train stopping distance are really complex (S = -(U + b*td ) 2 /2(a + b) - U*td - b*td 2 /2) and rules concerning speed, starting distance, stopping distance and rail bed grades would make the very few examples of armored trains being in direct fire combat have such super long SSR as to make them unplayable. Having said that, I'm sure CH will give it a go. Armored trains are a strategic asset. If you want to toy with Thor or Odin, you'll need a different game.

With all this in mind, an important consideration about trains in ASL is scenario design should be around logistics. How far is the action taking place from the nearest friendly rail head? The farther it is, the greater the logistical problems. This might result in a lower ELR, ammunition shortage and, in the case of vehicles, fewer vehicles ready for action. If a history talks about an armored platoon, consider reducing the number of vehicles, as it is unlikely that a platoon would include 3/3 vehicles 200km from a rail head.

The corollary is that in defending a rail head or important rail junction there is likely to be flack or divisional assets assigned to the defender. These areas almost always were guarded by flack and were the easiest place to load and unload divisional artillery. Replacements mustered near rail heads, so it is more likely that companies in this area were near full strength.

Finally, look closely at actions near rail heads, junctions or even rail lines. These were often desperate affairs, desperately fought for and inspiring desperate tactics and dogged defense. There should definitely be more of these.

In addition to the big things like the importance of a certain rail junction (there are actually lots of these in the Soviet Union), think about the small things as well. The British advisers with the French Resistance were told to concentrate on specific components—like couplings for switches—because bombers could take out the factories where these were produced once a month or so and therefore completely undermine the German ability to replace these components, creating railroad entanglements and delays with a minimum of exposure to the partisans and the bombers. There are a lot of great scenario ideas here.

It is easiest to break down railroad rules in three different ways. The first is railways that are transformed roads by SSR. The second is with overlays. Finally, there are some specific map details on historical maps.

There really aren't a lot of scenarios where roads are changed to railroads by SSR. I remember one that I playtested in a Russian Civil War pack. The object was to blow a railroad bridge protected by Imperialist American troops. I don't remember how it turned out. The problem is that most ASL roads aren't good

The second method is overlays, and there are more scenarios using overlays than you would think.

RR1: 40 scenarios, 5 official

RR2: 28 scenarios, 4 official

RR3: 20 scenarios, 2 official

RR4: 19 scenarios, 5 official

RR5: 9 scenarios, 2 official

RR6: 16 scenarios, 6 officials

RR7: 18 scenarios, 2 official

RR8: 21 scenarios, 4 official

RR9: 6 scenarios, 1 official

This is not to say that there are this many scenarios. Many of them use more than one overlay. It also comes from the ASL Scenario Database, so it may not be all inclusive. But, at least to me, this is a surprisingly large number of scenarios. Obviously, the quality of these scenarios is pretty uneven, but even looking only at official scenarios this is a pretty good list. I've played a couple using overlays and most recently I played Liberation Day from Friendly Fire. The rails didn't come into play very much, but they were important as defining one of the victory locations. But it was a first rate scenario, as almost all the Friendly Fire scenarios I've played are.

The rule book says that railroads are exactly like paved roads with a number of important exceptions. In fact, there are so many exceptions that it is hard to see how they are like paved roads.  [EXC: The MF/MP cost to enter a RR hex is different from that of a paved road (see 32.3); Dash, Road Bonus, Road Movement rate, and the -2 Manhandling DRM for crossing a road hexside are NA; and Hidden Mines may be placed in a RR hex]. These are a lot of beefy exceptions, but let's go through them.

Movement along RR hexes does not follow the road movement line on the Chapter B divider, but the applicable line corresponding to railroad movement. Also keep in mind that along rail lines, the elevation is always considered to be at the base level of the railroad, as described in the SSR (usually SSR #2.) So if the road goes up a hill, if it is converted to RR it is a sunken railroad remaining at the lower level. I don't know of any scenarios like this, but if you are designing a RR into a scenario it is important to keep in mind. Essentially, for RR movement, your infantry gives up road movement when moving along RR and non fully tracked vehicles will pay a much higher movement cost.

Because a RR may also be on an embankment, this may also change the movement costs. Let's talk a little about embankment. An embanked RR is like a Chapter F hillock with a railroad on top of it. Elevated RR are simply RR on a different level higher up while a sunken RR is the opposite. Chapter B 33.12 provides for railroads moving up or down hills, but frankly, in the space of ASL, a change in level along a railroad more than a half a level is ridiculous. So a lot of the ASL rules simply make no sense. This would constitute a grade of about 6% over eight hexes, which would be a world record.

You can't dash across a railroad, although why this is the case is never justified. It is more difficult to push a gun down a railroad than a paved road. You can also place mines in a RR hex. Tracked vehicles attempting to cross an elevated railroad hex from a lower level must pass a bog check. For halftracks, it is a +1 bog check. Other bog checks, like a wall or hedge, or a mud/deep snow check, are separate. This, also, is not justified. A RR hex with a wall in deep snow would, therefore, be a bog check nightmare.

One of the more important parts of a railroad is that entrenchments are not allowed. With an embanked railroad hex, the immediately opposite hex is in LOS—unless a unit in that hex is entrenched.

The third type of railroad in ASL is in the historical modules. Each map brings a bit of flavor. Briefly, I'll go through the ones I've played. Red Barricades has a couple of railway embankments running down the Russian Right which provide a bit of cover for Germans coming on the map from the West. Valor of the Guards has a much larger complex of rails that are covered in abandoned rolling stock. Festung Budapest has a wealth of different types of railroad features. The in-production Ponyri game also has some embanked railroads, which serve to cut some lines of sight as well. There is also the CH giant Berlin map, which I have played on (hardly enough to justify it's mammoth cost) and am reluctant to comment on.

Related to this is the Bounding Fire Production maps A and B, which are included in Into The Rubble. I'll throw these in with the historical maps because while they aren't exactly historical, they are rather limited in their application. The scenario I've played is on Map A, ITR7 Rebounded Spirit.

Red Barricades' railroads are the same as walls, with the exception of the crossings. They don't play much of a role in the game, other than blocking some ground level line of sight which allows the German to make a play for the map board edge on his right without being subject to too much interference. There are lots of upper level locations in RB, but for the Germans any cover is good and in most of the games I've played, the railway embankments provide at least a psychological divider that entices the German to advance on the right flank to get around and attack the factories from the side, rather than grinding through them.

Valor of the Guards' railroads are much more extensive. These are not embanked, like in Red Barricades, but at ground level. They are, however, dotted with rail cars, which act like wooden buildings and provide the Germans with valuable (albeit tenuous) cover in the early stages—especially in the assault on the main train station. So the rails themselves don't have much effect, but littered with railway wreckage they provide cover for advancing Germans and hiding places for marauding Bolsheviks. Rail cars can be wrecked and burned, changing their status. Rail cars can also be bypassed, but really, in Stalingrad, with Molotov chucking antifascists running around, do you want to be caught in ambush terrain in bypass?

Sneaking up on the Central Railroad Station in Stalingrad is fun and easy...

Finally, let's take a short look at Festung Budapest, which has a wealth of railroad features. To be honest, I haven't played a great deal of FB, a few scenarios and a single campaign game, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I want to emphasize several areas that really stood out in my campaign.

Keep in mind that tramways do not count as railroad hexes in a road. However, they do make a road a boulevard.

Note especially FB13, which allows fortifications to be set up in railway hexes. Since rail hexes are treated as paved roads (except for mines) and entrenchments are not allowed in paved roads, you would be led to believe that this isn't possible. But a very strange justification was given in the footnotes that circumvent this in Festung Budapest. This makes lots of raised railways very useful places to dig in, especially around the cogwheel railroad station.

Cogwheel railroads are driven by gears to allow light rail to go up steep inclines, such as castle hill in Budapest.

Looking up Castle Hill in Budapest

These areas are pretty key in the opening of CGII The Swept Away City. The longer the Axis can bottle up the Soviet attack here, the better their opportunity of holding on for a win. The embanked railroad hexes are pretty key, providing excellent oversight for dug-in units.

One area you cannot dig in is G38, the underpass. It is, however, a key location with a nasty level 1 building right behind it. The Axis should make every attempt to prevent the Reds from moving through this hex.

The rebuilt underpass in Budapest

Another key RR hex in FB is NN14, the turntable. It should make a formidable bastion as a skulk point that is immune from overrun. I haven't used this part of the map, but an anti-tank ditch surrounded on four sides with wall? I love it as a defensive strongpoint.

There is also a turntable in Berlin: Tyrant's Lair. I have also not used this part of the map. I will say that while the cost of Berlin: Tyrant's Lair has run me on the order of $100 per scenario played, the map is breathtaking and, would it not involve a divorce, I would certainly hang it up in my bedroom to waft me off to sweet dreams at night.

In short, there is a lot of fun train stuff in ASL, but a lot of it doesn't make it on the boards. Train stations were vital operational objectives for expanding logistical networks. Train tracks were points of sabotage and embankments important defensive positions. Why wouldn't you want to have some trains in your game?

There are, in BTL, elevated railroads that you can walk under, U Bahn rails that you can treat as tunnels (provided they don't get flooded or crumble in on your head) and ground level rails galore. One scenario I played allowed a Tiger to set up in the Anhalter station. Alas, my group found it impossible to play.

I'll leave this right there.

Railroads are coming into their own, particularly in HASL. Third party efforts really seem to be willing to take on the challenges that railroads provide because of the relative importance they had at the operational and strategic level. Because designing historical maps is easier today than it was 20 years ago, and will likely become easier and less expensive in the future, it is going to become even more accessible in HASL. The question is, will railroads become the impetus for any HASL, rather than just a feature?

Before I finish, I would like to add one bit about miniatures. If you are looking for something to go with your GHQ miniature vehicles, you will want Z scale trains. There isn't a great deal of product out there on military Z scale trains and what there is is heavily bent toward the German (and hypothetical) end, but there is some available and certainly you can buy some track to supplement your miniature table. Check out http://www.z-panzer.com/.

Hopefully, this article gives you some idea about the direct and indirect importance of railroads in ASL. If nothing else, bandying about words like “steering ratio” and explaining how it is limited by the need for rail transport will raise your stature in bars and lunch rooms of tournaments and local gatherings. But scenario designers can benefit from a little bit of knowledge about railroads. Hopefully, I provoked a little thought about scenario design with regard to railroads, whether we are talking about Burma, Russia, the Ludendorf bridge or even Iran.

Basically, one can't go wrong with considering a railroad to be an important indirect influence on the scenario, considering supply and location. However, getting overly complex with railroads leads to many problems and should best be avoided. Personally, I respect what Bounding Fire Productions has done. I don't particularly mind the rail cars included in VotG. FB may have been a stretch. Mainly, when a scenario designer wants to include RR you can't go wrong with good old overlays or HASL maps from MMP. After this, players need to be wary when looking at scenario selections that have RR.