Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 3:01:01 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Well paint me green and call me Gumbi. I guess I never tried to do that so I assumed it just targeted bridges.

The best option would be one that is backward compatible. Equally effects old and new scenarios.

You could remake the game so rivers follow hex sides. However, you would also have to have a provision to revert to the 'old' method too so existing scenarios are not automatically worthless. That's a lot of work by a lot of people that would be down the tubes.

I guess the most simple method would be two new tiles. Bridge. One for rail. One for road. But then again, I'm sure that would impact a huge amout of code. If someone wanted to go back and modify an existing scenario they could do so.

In the end the most simple solution would be for players to agree not to blow up non bridge road and rail.

< Message edited by Panama -- 4/2/2011 3:35:18 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1471
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 5:12:37 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What differences have you identified?

You have -- quite without foundation -- asserted that obstacles are not cleared by engineers. That was it.


1. Obstructions/mines can be cleared by non-engineers (by engineers too, of course, but not only by engineers). It is a simple fact of nature that human beings can clear obstructions from roads, especially if equipped with vehicles. Engineers have more valuable tasks to perform than removing obstructions. So, restricting obstruction removal to engineers would be a colossal waste and a sure path to defeat.

2. The percentage chance of bridge repair is completely unrelated to the percentage chance of obstruction clearing.

3. Obstructions affect vehicles far more severely than foot units. Not true for a bridge.

4. Mines cause casualties - and can be ignored at a casualty cost.

5. Can any unit lay mines? Gotta have the things. (Don't just think 2000, think 1900, too - or even 1800).

6. Mines aren't limited to roads. Clearly, mines need their own treatment.

7. Refinements to bridge destruction/repair to handle major bridges differently from minor ones would absurdly mean that a road, running along a major river would be harder to obstruct/clear than one running along a minor one.

8. Bridge Attacks.

9. Ferry Units.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone not being willfully obtuse that these features should be treated separately.

And, remember it's other failing: It does absolutely nothing for existing scenarios. They would all have to be edited in order to benefit. Very few ever would be.

It's even questionable how many new scenarios would take advantage of the new tiles. We still see scenarios designed that don't even set the supply radius. This would be a confusing feature that would be harder to deal with than the Matrix - which would apply automatically.

quote:

You've also -- incidentally -- completely failed to answer the point that there's no reason to think the hexes 'the matrix' will select in fact contain bridges.


That is false. The hexes the matrix will select will absolutely contain bridges. The matrix will assume a bridge wherever a road cosses a river. That's a bridge no matter what the map maker's intent was. Units in the game will be able to cross the river by road at that point. That is a bridge, period.

It will also assume that there is no bridge in any hex where the road doesn't cross the river. There is some chance that the designer may have wanted a bridge in that hex. But to say that there is "no reason" to think he didn't is absurd. There is a very sound reason to think that: That the map designer was compeled to make his map look right. And it would only look right if the bridges appear on the map where they should.

And, remember what the alternative is: To leave it just the way it is now - every river-road combo blowable. And, for that one-in-a-million scenario where it would be critical, the Matrix rule could be made player optional.

And, if the scenario designer is still around and will edit his scenario - or for any new scenarios that will be created, the Matrix solution works even better than the "new tile" solution. Designers would be fully empowered to put a bridge anywhere they desire simply by complying with the Matrix rule. Plus, the result would ensure that it will be clear to players where the bridge is - by the visible crossing of the road over the river.

Finally, don't forget that the Matrix is the easiest to code - even if made optional. QED, once again.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1472
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 5:24:22 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In this shot, planes can target that hex plus the ones above and below it, and any other similar hexes on the map. But there are no bridges there. There are bridges at Duren and Julich, but none in between, yet we can blow the road or the rail.







Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1473
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 8:53:24 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In this shot, planes can target that hex plus the ones above and below it, and any other similar hexes on the map. But there are no bridges there. There are bridges at Duren and Julich, but none in between, yet we can blow the road or the rail.







Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!



Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't. At Duren, you know there is probably a bridge -- but only because the road leaves in two directions (it could be running down both banks, but never mind that).

If if forked off to the southwest only, it might have been on the West bank all the time. Indeed, absent it coming in from the east at some point to the north, there's no reason at all that couldn't be the case. Presumably the road builders didn't stick in gratuitious bridges. If the road was on the west bank to begin with, why put in a bridge when the road leaves the river to the west? Absent any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to assume a bridge at all.

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.

It's not been what I've focused on as I've driven about, but this is hardly an isolated example.

I-5 starts running more or less along the Sacramento at Red Bluff and leaves it at Dunnigan.

Where are the bridges? Not at Red Bluff. There is one at Dunnigan. There's also one about a hex (depending on your scale) south of Redding, and there's another at Lakehead.

So we've got about a 150 km stretch of road and river. Let's assume we're at 10 km hexes. Counting from the south, call the hexes 1,2,3...15. As it happens, we have bridges (roughly) at 4, 7, and 15. None at 1.

How on earth is your 'Matrix' going to correctly pick these out? Are we about to hear some bafflegarb asserting the bridge at (3) is insignificant? That would actually be the one impossible crossing without a bridge. 7 and 15 would be fordable most times (if Lake Shasta wasn't there).


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/2/2011 9:07:21 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1474
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 9:10:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



1. Obstructions/mines can be cleared by non-engineers (by engineers too, of course, but not only by engineers). It is a simple fact of nature that human beings can clear obstructions from roads, especially if equipped with vehicles. Engineers have more valuable tasks to perform than removing obstructions. So, restricting obstruction removal to engineers would be a colossal waste and a sure path to defeat...


Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.

I suppose if you were having your house remodeled, you'd insist on the roofers putting in the central heating, and the heating guys do the roof -- if that had to be done to make your point. After all, both groups probably could -- eventually, and badly.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/2/2011 9:12:08 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1475
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/3/2011 4:13:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.


Are you serious?! You can actually look at that map section and make that statement? You're that desperate?

Of course there's a reason to assume there isn't: The map designer didn't put one there. And it's pretty obvious that there shouldn't be one in that hex.

And, remember, without the Matrix, all six road-river combos shown on that map section are blowable. With the Matrix, only two are. The Matrix is clearly better, even if in a few cases it might not get the exact location of a specific bridge correct. The way bridge-blowing works in TOAW, number of bridges is more important than their exact locations.

quote:

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.


But the Matrix won't decide - the map designer will. He will be fully empowered to include or omit a bridge wherever he desires - by complying with the Matrix rule. And he will have been compelled to do so anyway, to make the map look right.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1476
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/3/2011 4:20:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.


Whoa! We can't have someone removing a rock from a road who isn't officially certified to do so! You're right, this is comic.

And the engineers can join in if they wish, but I would expect them to have actual engineering tasks to do - like repairing blown bridges. And, of course, if the engineers are a foot unit, a motorized non-engineer unit might actually be better equipped to remove stuff.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1477
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/3/2011 6:52:20 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.


Are you serious?! You can actually look at that map section and make that statement? You're that desperate?

Of course there's a reason to assume there isn't: The map designer didn't put one there. And it's pretty obvious that there shouldn't be one in that hex.

And, remember, without the Matrix, all six road-river combos shown on that map section are blowable. With the Matrix, only two are. The Matrix is clearly better, even if in a few cases it might not get the exact location of a specific bridge correct. The way bridge-blowing works in TOAW, number of bridges is more important than their exact locations.

quote:

See my Colorado River example. Please. For example, no bridge on the Interstate when it leaves the Colorado at Grand Junction. It was on the north bank already, and now it's heading off in that direction. There's no bridge there -- whatever your 'Matrix' might decide.


But the Matrix won't decide - the map designer will. He will be fully empowered to include or omit a bridge wherever he desires - by complying with the Matrix rule. And he will have been compelled to do so anyway, to make the map look right.

The only case when 'the Matrix' could be relied on to correctly designate a road/river combination a 'bridge' would be when the road enters from a non-river hex, coincides with the river for one hex and one hex only, and then exits to a non-river hex.

In that one case, the program already allows the player to blow the 'bridge.' In most other cases, it's unknowable from a TOAW map whether there is in fact a bridge in the hex. Might be in the first river/road hex. Might be in the second. Might be in both.

Your 'matrix' will simply arbitrarily designate certain river/road hexes 'bridges' and others not. There can't be a valid criterion because the TOAW map doesn't supply the necessary information. What's hard to understand about that?

Worse, you would then have designers swerve their roads onto and off rivers so as to comply with the nonsensical criteria that you would impose. Again, they can do that now -- and whatever happened to the sacred cow of already existing scenarios?

It's a terrible idea. You might as well decide that only road/river combinations in even-numbered hexes are bridges. There's no connection with actual reality at all.

I know you will never concede this in a post. I hope you will have the good sense to admit it to yourself in private and drop this idea.

'The Matrix' really, really doesn't accord with reality. It's a bad one. As a predictive device, it's down there with throwing suspected witches into the village pond to see if they float. Honest. I'm telling you as a friend.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/3/2011 7:20:35 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1478
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/3/2011 7:06:20 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Comic. Obstacle removal is one of the prime missions of engineers. At least, it was according to the last STAVKA directive I read.

Yet, in pursuit of your argument, you would have the engineers ignore the obstruction, and those lacking the equipment and expertise do the job.


Whoa! We can't have someone removing a rock from a road who isn't officially certified to do so! You're right, this is comic.

And the engineers can join in if they wish, but I would expect them to have actual engineering tasks to do - like repairing blown bridges. And, of course, if the engineers are a foot unit, a motorized non-engineer unit might actually be better equipped to remove stuff.


This is the same as 'the Matrix,' in a way.

Rather than concede that you have taken up an ill-considered and indefensible position, you just cling to it.

Of course, while debunking 'the Matrix' merely requires that you take a drive in the country or look at a road map, debunking your assertions about engineers would require reading some military history or looking at some statements of military doctrine. Reading a bit of detailed military history would probably suffice. I'd go find passages and quote them -- there were several in the Glantz book I just read on Kharkov.

However, it would be dull, I already know what's there, and you wouldn't be affected in the least.

You know...occasionally I propose some idea and it swiftly becomes apparent that it's ill-conceived. Won't work, doesn't improve matters, doesn't accord with reality, whatever. It happens to the best of us.

When that happens I drop the idea.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1479
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/3/2011 7:42:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		As so often happens in this situation, where Curtis digs in and vociferously defends a claim regardless of its merits, we've gotten away from the central point.

In fact, there are all kinds of locations where a road should be 'destructible' and reasons why it could be 'destructible.' River crossings are a good one -- but as illustrated, they're hardly a unique case. There's also the case that a river may not be otherwise militarily significant -- but does create a dandy bridge to blow. Also illustrated.

Since military circumstances vary, and since a TOAW map cannot provide sufficient information to determine where such points are or aren't, and since designers have different goals, the only improvement that's worth pursuing is to allow designers to freely designate which roads can be destroyed and which can't. Obviously, the default would be river/road hexes only -- which would leave current scenarios unaffected.

Pending someone raising some fresh consideration, that's just the way it is.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1480
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/4/2011 5:17:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Your 'matrix' will simply arbitrarily designate certain river/road hexes 'bridges' and others not. There can't be a valid criterion because the TOAW map doesn't supply the necessary information. What's hard to understand about that?


Again, it is not arbitrary. It designates the hex as a bridge if the road crosses the river. That's a sound reason because the map maker was compelled to make the road cross the river at the bridge for appearance purposes.

And, again, the only alternative is to leave it just the way it is now - with every road/river combo blowable. Now, that truly is arbitrary. And very bad for scenarios. The Matrix is clearly a big improvement over that.

Anyone looking at that map section shown above can easily see just how ridiculous you're being. In effect, you're saying there never was a problem at all. We were all just delusional. Well, we weren't. The problem is real and the Matrix is the only solution that fixes it for existing scenarios.

quote:

Worse, you would then have designers swerve their roads onto and off rivers so as to comply with the nonsensical criteria that you would impose.


That's one way. Or meander the river. Or a combination of both. Or add a stub tributary. The latter wouldn't be any different, for game purposes, than using a dedicated tile.

In all cases, though, it is better to do that, because it clearly shows the players where the bridge is. And, personally, if I were modeling a road through a canyon, I would want the road and river to swerve - since they actually would be doing so in reality, with the resulting increase in transit distance.

quote:

and whatever happened to the sacred cow of already existing scenarios?


The Matrix will benefit the vast majority, if not all, existing scenarios. But, for the chance that there's one that it would harm, it can be made player-optional.

quote:

I know you will never concede this in a post. I hope you will have the good sense to admit it to yourself in private and drop this idea.


Actually it's the reverse. And it's gone beyond obvious. You're now being forced to descend into buffoonery. I don't really have any sympathy for you, though. You put yourself in these situations.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1481
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/5/2011 7:59:35 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Actually it's the reverse. And it's gone beyond obvious. You're now being forced to descend into buffoonery. I don't really have any sympathy for you, though. You put yourself in these situations.


In context, this statement is mildly incredible. It's my belief that you're not actually stupid enough to believe this, therefore, you should seek help.

On reflection, if you do believe this, then you should really seek help.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/5/2011 9:30:06 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1482
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/5/2011 9:26:35 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Maybe I'm just being optimistic...

Go to the editor, open the magnified view. Now scroll to the bottom of the available terrain types. Now open the normal view.

See all those blank charcoal grey hexes at the bottom of the available terrain types? Are those unused slots?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1483
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 4:16:14 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Having established the superiority of the Matrix solution for the bridge-blowing problem about as well the Law of Gravity, I’m sure that if and when this issue is addressed, it will be done with the Matrix.

I now want to move on to the other matrix I mentioned earlier. This would address a more difficult problem mentioned earlier by Colin: A unit can enter a river hex by road, then cross the river without paying the river cost, even if the hex didn’t actually contain a bridge.

For example, look at the targeted hex in the map section shown before: A unit that entered that hex via the road can then move west from it as if it is on the western side of the river, even though there is no bridge in that hex. But, if it had entered via the road, then it was on the eastern side of the river, and, since there is no bridge, it should pay the river cost to move west out of it.

To solve this, another, though more complex, matrix is required. In the first matrix, each matrix element was only a yes/no value (one bit). In the second, each element would hold a code representing which surrounding hexes were on the “road” side of the river. Since there are six surrounding hexes, that code would require six bits. To be practical, that means a full byte has to be used for each element. For example, the top (N) hex would be the 1 bit, the NE hex would be the 2 bit, the SE hex would be the 4 bit, the bottom (S) hex would be the 8 bit, the SW hex would be the 16 bit, and the NW hex would be the 32 bit. But the 64 x 64 map required would be the same as the one required for the previous matrix.

So, for the example hex in the map section, the N, NE, SE, and S hexes are on the road-side. Therefore the code for that hex would be 0F in hexadecimal (15 in decimal).

To use this, each unit would need to add a flag representing whether it entered its current hex via road or not (this could be useful for other issues, too). If it was false, the unit has already paid the river cost. Therefore, it can leave the hex without paying it again in any direction (just like now). But, if it was true, the unit hasn’t paid it yet. It can still leave in any “road-side” direction without paying it, but not in any other direction. Of course, the unit must pay the terrain cost of whatever hex it is entering. This only affects whether it has to pay the river cost (including any ferry requirements) of the hex it is currently in. The matrix shows the program which directions are “road-side”.

Note that this would be applied to the supply trace as well.

Obviously, this is a more complex matrix and will be harder to develop. And the coding task will be more difficult as well. But it is the only solution to this issue.

And, note that it only makes sense if the other, first, Matrix is implemented. Just one more reason to implement that.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1484
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 4:38:09 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1485
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 6:01:18 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1486
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 6:37:13 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.





The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1487
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 7:34:14 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.





The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off.


Seconded. Clear, simple, reasonable. Probably even coding wouldn't have to be done from scratch as part of the code for escarpments could be used.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1488
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/7/2011 11:08:47 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


The irony here is that very often, river valleys are the natural route of travel.





The easiest thing would be to redo the game with rivers following hexsides. Then have a legacy button where the old method is used for old scenarios.

Legacy on. Legacy off. Legacy on. Legacy off. Wax on. Wax off.


The 'rivers' would just be double-sided escarpments with a different tile as far as the program was concerned.

A few adjustments -- but I don't see any insuperable obstacles. In an ideal world, one would want blown bridges to look like they were blown over the river, though. Some discussion there. Also, what about the bonus for artillery firing 'down' the escarpment? Do we want artillery to gain an advantage if it is firing across a river?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/7/2011 11:12:27 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1489
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/8/2011 3:21:03 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1490
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/8/2011 5:32:07 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.


Ah. So those blue lines that parallel the roads must be something else. Another item in sore need of fixing that won't ever happen. Well, doesn't really matter. I don't have the game anymore anyway since I can't download it again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1491
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/8/2011 7:17:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Having established the superiority of the Matrix solution for the bridge-blowing problem about as well the Law of Gravity...


That's good for a chuckle. You've never explained how it would work at all, for the excellent reason that it couldn't work, for the excellent reason that a TOAW map simply doesn't provide the information necessary to determine where the bridge would lie in most cases.

It's like me insisting I've a miracle formula for determining who is a good loan risk by looking at the sum of the digits in their social security number. I then grow increasingly vehement, and when others give up trying to reason with me, announce that I've 'established' the validity of my formula. In fact, all counter-arguments and examples demonstrating that the formula couldn't possibly work have simply been ignored.

Christ. Take up dowsing for a profession. Or buy a Ouija board and become an investment advisor. It'd all make as much sense.

...and the worst of it is that our funds do seem to be in your hands. You've actually got input into how this game is developed. It really is like discovering your investment advisor uses a Ouija board. Apparently, we're to be saddled with some inane routine that will label road/river combinations 'bridges' or 'not bridges' according to what has never been explained but must be a meaningless formula.

It has to be. There's nothing on the TOAW map that dictates where the bridge must be if a road coincides with a river for more than one hex. You can't determine where the bridge is from the information provided. It's like being told Bob and Joe were both in the room. Which one is older? You simply can't know.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/8/2011 8:34:04 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1492
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/8/2011 7:45:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I'll try saying it again.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/california_ref_2001.pdf

See this map? See I-5? See the Sacramento River?

Now, at most TOAW scales, I-5 and the Sacramento River are going to coincide from a few hexes south of Red Bluff to about one hex above Dunsmuir. See that?

Now, where are the bridges? There's none where I-5 and the Sacramento start to coincide south of Red Bluff. None at Red Bluff. There is one a few hexes south of Redding -- not that any possible formula could determine that it was there. You might be able to predict one of the bridges north of Redding where the river splits into the Upper Sacramento and the Pit. Of course, if one assumed the road was simply always on the west bank of the Sacramento, neither would have to be. After all, 'the road' crossed the 'river' down at the Carquinez Straits. From a TOAW map, it could perfectly well be on the west bank up north of Redding.

But it isn't. It's on the east bank by that point, and actually, there are three bridges up there -- all over what could only be described as 'super river.' One where it recrosses the Sacramento immediately before it splits and two others where it crosses and recrosses what is now the Upper Sacramento yet again to once again resume station on the west bank. What's more, these crossings are quite a distance apart -- in two different hexes at most scales. Then there's another crossing up by Dunsmuir -- not, incidentally, in the hex north of there where the river finally disappears. How would you decide that there was one there but not one down south of Red Bluff? How would it be placed in Dunsmuir itself rather than the hex north of town? How are you going to detect that there is not zero, not one, but three major crossings north of Redding? How are you going to detect the crossing south of Redding at all?

Whatever this unspecified 'matrix' of yours consists of, it simply cannot pick out bridges with any useful degree of consistency. It is -- necessarily -- pernicious nonsense. We're better off with what we've got.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/8/2011 8:19:15 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1493
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/8/2011 8:57:17 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.




Please refer to bottom line of sig.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1494
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 3:29:36 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

So then you'll also fix the problem where a unit has to pay river crossing costs even if it doesn't cross the river, yes? Simply moving parllel to a river costs the same as if you crossed it. If you're going to clean it up might as well clean it all up or not at all.


Also, you don't move "parallel" to the river. You move upon the river. So the game can't know if you cross it or not.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1495
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 3:34:18 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You've never explained how it would work at all, ..


I've explained it over and over. I just can't seem to translate it into whatever passes for logic in the loony-toon world you live in - assuming you actually believe the nonsense you're posting and not just hopelessly trying to save face.

The good news is that Ralph is logical. Has to be to program.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1496
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 3:46:02 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In this shot, planes can target that hex plus the ones above and below it, and any other similar hexes on the map. But there are no bridges there. There are bridges at Duren and Julich, but none in between, yet we can blow the road or the rail.







Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!



Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.


This little map is all the argument I need.

It's really this simple: The matrix would limit the bridges to Duren and Julich. Without it, all road/river hexes can be blown.

Colin, bufoonishly, would have us believe that we would be better off with the latter. Whether it's because he's dimwitted or just too stubborn to admit he's wrong, I don't care.

The matrix can be made optional if there are some weird scenarios it would harm, but it addresses the original problem the best. And it's very easy to program. QED.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1497
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 3:54:05 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll try saying it again.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/california_ref_2001.pdf

See this map? See I-5? See the Sacramento River?

Now, at most TOAW scales, I-5 and the Sacramento River are going to coincide from a few hexes south of Red Bluff to about one hex above Dunsmuir. See that?

Now, where are the bridges? There's none where I-5 and the Sacramento start to coincide south of Red Bluff. None at Red Bluff. There is one a few hexes south of Redding -- not that any possible formula could determine that it was there. You might be able to predict one of the bridges north of Redding where the river splits into the Upper Sacramento and the Pit. Of course, if one assumed the road was simply always on the west bank of the Sacramento, neither would have to be. After all, 'the road' crossed the 'river' down at the Carquinez Straits. From a TOAW map, it could perfectly well be on the west bank up north of Redding.

But it isn't. It's on the east bank by that point, and actually, there are three bridges up there -- all over what could only be described as 'super river.' One where it recrosses the Sacramento immediately before it splits and two others where it crosses and recrosses what is now the Upper Sacramento yet again to once again resume station on the west bank. What's more, these crossings are quite a distance apart -- in two different hexes at most scales. Then there's another crossing up by Dunsmuir -- not, incidentally, in the hex north of there where the river finally disappears. How would you decide that there was one there but not one down south of Red Bluff? How would it be placed in Dunsmuir itself rather than the hex north of town? How are you going to detect that there is not zero, not one, but three major crossings north of Redding? How are you going to detect the crossing south of Redding at all?

Whatever this unspecified 'matrix' of yours consists of, it simply cannot pick out bridges with any useful degree of consistency. It is -- necessarily -- pernicious nonsense. We're better off with what we've got.


Again, this assumes the map maker was oblivious to where his road hexes crossed his river hexes. He would not have been. Even in those rare cases where he really was, the matrix could be optional.

Or, if it is a future map, he will be fully empowered to make his roads cross the rivers wherever he needs them to. And that design requirement of enforcing visual confirmation of a bridge will be a good thing for players.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1498
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 3:56:01 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Depends upon how much the river meanders. They don't really move in straight lines right on the hex grid. But, this has been discussed to death. I'm not going to rehash it.




Please refer to bottom line of sig.


I'm just saying that I've said my piece about river hexsides and haven't anything else to add. You guys can knock yourselves out, though.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1499
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/9/2011 4:37:39 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In this shot, planes can target that hex plus the ones above and below it, and any other similar hexes on the map. But there are no bridges there. There are bridges at Duren and Julich, but none in between, yet we can blow the road or the rail.







Whoa! According to Colin, you have "no reason" to assume that!



Point is, you have no reason to assume there isn't.


This little map is all the argument I need.

It's really this simple: The matrix would limit the bridges to Duren and Julich. Without it, all road/river hexes can be blown.


And that wouldn't be necessarily correct. There's no particular reason there couldn't be a bridge in one of the hexes in between. In the examples I've discussed, there are several such bridges. Roads don't obligingly stay on the same side of the river until they swerve completely away. They cross back and forth all the time if the terrain requires it.
quote:



Colin, bufoonishly, would have us believe that we would be better off with the latter. Whether it's because he's dimwitted or just too stubborn to admit he's wrong, I don't care.

The matrix can be made optional if there are some weird scenarios it would harm, but it addresses the original problem the best. And it's very easy to program. QED.


That map is about all you have -- and even it doesn't present an irrefutable argument.

Like, I take it you think there's a bridge in Julich, but not one in the hex immediately to the southeast. Or is it the other way around?

From the map, no way of telling. If that road's on the east bank, it's in Julich. If it's on the west bank, it would be in the square to the southeast.

Indeed, that's a densely populated part of the world. Perhaps roads run down both banks, and there's no bridge at all.

Take the Lower Thames, for example. In 1930 or so, certainly roads running down both banks all the way to Tilbury and Gravesend. Branching off both ways as well.

All bridge hexes? Some of them? No. None of them.

No crossing. Not below London.

An OPART map doesn't tell you which bank a road is on, and so you have no way of knowing where a bridge is or isn't. You don't know. You can't. I think this is obvious to everyone but you. 'QED indeed.' What a laugh. There is a buffoon here alright, but it's not me.

...look, at some point that little light will go off. It has to. When it does, you don't have to apologize. Just quietly drop it.

But I will note one thing. You said I was either dimwitted or stubborn. Given the facts of the situation, what would be appropriate words to describe you at this point?

You think of 'em. Consider me to have posted them in block caps.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/9/2011 4:56:24 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1500
Page:   <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797