Any River

Any River (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

GreenDestiny -> Any River (5/11/2006 11:47:32 AM)
From the manual Terrain Effects on Attacking Unit Strengths Land units attacking from a river, super river, canal, Suez Canal, or deep water location (amphibious assaults) have all strengths multiplied by 0.7. Wow… that means that every time you attack from a river… it’s like D-Day. But what if you’re not really attacking from a river, you’re just following it. Example; a river goes North to South and it’s on your right flank. Your attacking North to South with the river on your right flank, your not crossing it, your just following it, why should you be penalize fore it. This rule just sucks. This is way I’m against rivers running through hexes. They should be only on hex-sides. That way you know what side of the river you’re on.[:-]

Catch21 -> RE: Any River (5/11/2006 4:02:38 PM)
It's just one of those things you have to live with- along with 'ant' attacks and other issues. It was mooted as an optional enhancement ages ago (i.e. you could have rivers intra-hex or on hex-sides), though where that now stands I'm not sure.

GreenDestiny -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 11:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Staff It's just one of those things you have to live with Yeah…but it really bugs me. [;)]

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 2:40:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny Wow… that means that every time you attack from a river… it’s like D-Day. But what if you’re not really attacking from a river, you’re just following it. Example; a river goes North to South and it’s on your right flank. Your attacking North to South with the river on your right flank, your not crossing it, your just following it, why should you be penalize fore it. This rule just sucks. If the defender is also on a river hex, they suffer the same penalty, so the net effect is nil. I guess in theory hexside rivers make more sense. But changing TOAW in this way would require a revision of every single existing scenario (well, except one or two that don't have any rivers).

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 2:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Staff It's just one of those things you have to live with- along with 'ant' attacks and other issues. One of those things we HAD to live with. Now we're getting a new version. Said issues are what we should be looking at.

Catch21 -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 3:03:52 PM)
quote: Said issues are what we should be looking at. Indeed. And in the works as we speak so I understand.

*Lava* -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 4:55:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious But changing TOAW in this way would require a revision of every single existing scenario (well, except one or two that don't have any rivers). From the statement it appears this is not a "change" but a new graphic based on the escarpment. It won't effect any scenarios. Ray (alias Lava)

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 5:55:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava From the statement it appears this is not a "change" but a new graphic based on the escarpment. ? You're getting that from the post that started this thread? Anyway, the above is what Jarek already does in his "White Eagle: Red Star" series. It's neat but not ideal since ferry units and bridges don't work exactly how they should.

Nemo69 -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 7:31:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious If the defender is also on a river hex, they suffer the same penalty, so the net effect is nil. Curious. I've always been under the impression that river penalties affected the attacker only and that sitting on a river hex had no detrimental effect for the defence. Might have been wrong though.

*Lava* -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 7:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Lava From the statement it appears this is not a "change" but a new graphic based on the escarpment. ? You're getting that from the post that started this thread? Nope... It was in the Any more previews? thread where ralph, amongst other things said this.. quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick One clever designer (Jaroslaw Flis) modified the graphics of Escarpments to be hex-side rivers using this approach. Ray (alias Lava)

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 8:01:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Nope... It was in the Any more previews? thread where ralph, amongst other things said this.. quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick One clever designer (Jaroslaw Flis) modified the graphics of Escarpments to be hex-side rivers using this approach. Right. That's not what we're talking about here, though.

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/12/2006 8:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo69 Curious. I've always been under the impression that river penalties affected the attacker only and that sitting on a river hex had no detrimental effect for the defence. Might have been wrong though. Well I could be wrong too, but it's been my experience that defending on a river hex is a bad idea. So much so that I've made sure to divert rivers away from key hexes in some of my scenarios.

GreenDestiny -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 3:46:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick One clever designer (Jaroslaw Flis) modified the graphics of Escarpments to be hex-side rivers using this approach. If this shows up in the game, then I’m definitely going to get it. I’ll just pick out my favorite scenarios and move the rivers to the hex-sides. It may take some time but it shouldn’t be too hard to do. And other people who are making new scenarios my want to use this modification.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 5:28:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo69 quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious If the defender is also on a river hex, they suffer the same penalty, so the net effect is nil. Curious. I've always been under the impression that river penalties affected the attacker only and that sitting on a river hex had no detrimental effect for the defence. Might have been wrong though. I made some tests long ago that showed no penalty for defending in a river hex.

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 5:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I made some tests long ago that showed no penalty for defending in a river hex. If you're going to introduce facts into this discussion then we're never going to get anywhere.

roboczar -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 5:45:50 PM)
Yeah, I agree that there is no penalty for defending on a river hex. I believe this is also in the documentation, as well as covered in the help file.

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 5:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: roboczar I believe this is also in the documentation, as well as covered in the help file. Well, these are notoriously unreliable. Of course, I suppose if this has been tested...

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Any River (5/13/2006 6:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I made some tests long ago that showed no penalty for defending in a river hex. If you're going to introduce facts into this discussion then we're never going to get anywhere. Well, my tests don't always rise all the way to the level of facts. Usually, they are sold as is, without warranty.

GreenDestiny -> RE: Any River (5/14/2006 4:41:50 AM)
I have a question, what were they thinking when they decided to put the rivers through the hex instead of the hex sides? What are the benefits of this? Because... I just don’t get it. This game has so much detail in it I find it hard to believe they would add something like this in it without some kind of a benefit. But it seems like now no one knows what going on when it comes to defending on a river hex, let alone attacking from it or around it. Almost every wargame that I have has rivers on the hex-sides, so what’s the deal with this one. [&:]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Any River (5/14/2006 7:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny I have a question, what were they thinking when they decided to put the rivers through the hex instead of the hex sides? What are the benefits of this? Because... I just don’t get it. This game has so much detail in it I find it hard to believe they would add something like this in it without some kind of a benefit. But it seems like now no one knows what going on when it comes to defending on a river hex, let alone attacking from it or around it. Almost every wargame that I have has rivers on the hex-sides, so what’s the deal with this one. [&:] I believe the rationale had to do with riverine units - which must travel on rivers, and bridges - which require blowing, repair, and targeting. It would have been much more complicated to shift those functions from the hex to the hexside. I expect there was also an aesthetic aspect as well. Note that the few hexside features (minor & major escarpments) don't actually fall on the hexside, but are just within the hex. Hexside rivers would require the same - creating the same confusion. Or they would have to look like the featureless "border" to be placed actually on the hexside. Having a river feature that both looked like a winding river and actually fit on the hexside would probably have been too technically complicated - impacting tiles on both sides of the hex. And it's debatable which mode is the more accurate. Rivers certainly do have sides to them, but they are not microscopically thin and perfectly straight. Their widths actually do take up some space, they do wind around, and have local tributaries. The river might be all over that 10km hex, and an attack that looks parallel to the river on the TOAW map may actually afford the defenders the benefit of one of its curves or tributaries.

ralphtricky -> RE: Any River (5/14/2006 7:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny I have a question, what were they thinking when they decided to put the rivers through the hex instead of the hex sides? What are the benefits of this? Because... I just don’t get it. This game has so much detail in it I find it hard to believe they would add something like this in it without some kind of a benefit. But it seems like now no one knows what going on when it comes to defending on a river hex, let alone attacking from it or around it. Almost every wargame that I have has rivers on the hex-sides, so what’s the deal with this one. [&:] I believe the rationale had to do with riverine units - which must travel on rivers, and bridges - which require blowing, repair, and targeting. It would have been much more complicated to shift those functions from the hex to the hexside. I expect there was also an aesthetic aspect as well. Note that the few hexside features (minor & major escarpments) don't actually fall on the hexside, but are just within the hex. Hexside rivers would require the same - creating the same confusion. Or they would have to look like the featureless "border" to be placed actually on the hexside. Having a river feature that both looked like a winding river and actually fit on the hexside would probably have been too technically complicated - impacting tiles on both sides of the hex. And it's debatable which mode is the more accurate. Rivers certainly do have sides to them, but they are not microscopically thin and perfectly straight. Their widths actually do take up some space, they do wind around, and have local tributaries. The river might be all over that 10km hex, and an attack that looks parallel to the river on the TOAW map may actually afford the defenders the benefit of one of its curves or tributaries. Riverine units are the first good reason I've heard against hex-side rivers, thanks. The rest of the items that I've heard about could be dealt with. If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. That feels like a reasonable compromise. The thought of trying to deal with them in a reasonable way gives me a head-ache, I'm not sure how to do it without causing confusion.

JAMiAM -> RE: Any River (5/14/2006 8:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny I have a question, what were they thinking when they decided to put the rivers through the hex instead of the hex sides? What are the benefits of this? Because... I just don’t get it. This game has so much detail in it I find it hard to believe they would add something like this in it without some kind of a benefit. But it seems like now no one knows what going on when it comes to defending on a river hex, let alone attacking from it or around it. Almost every wargame that I have has rivers on the hex-sides, so what’s the deal with this one. [&:] I believe the rationale had to do with riverine units - which must travel on rivers, and bridges - which require blowing, repair, and targeting. It would have been much more complicated to shift those functions from the hex to the hexside. I expect there was also an aesthetic aspect as well. Note that the few hexside features (minor & major escarpments) don't actually fall on the hexside, but are just within the hex. Hexside rivers would require the same - creating the same confusion. Or they would have to look like the featureless "border" to be placed actually on the hexside. Having a river feature that both looked like a winding river and actually fit on the hexside would probably have been too technically complicated - impacting tiles on both sides of the hex. And it's debatable which mode is the more accurate. Rivers certainly do have sides to them, but they are not microscopically thin and perfectly straight. Their widths actually do take up some space, they do wind around, and have local tributaries. The river might be all over that 10km hex, and an attack that looks parallel to the river on the TOAW map may actually afford the defenders the benefit of one of its curves or tributaries. Riverine units are the first good reason I've heard against hex-side rivers, thanks. The rest of the items that I've heard about could be dealt with. If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. That feels like a reasonable compromise. The thought of trying to deal with them in a reasonable way gives me a head-ache, I'm not sure how to do it without causing confusion. There are a lot of reasons why hex-side rivers are a bad idea. They are ugly. They create a problem in the interface for trying to designate a bombing attack against them. They create a problem in the interface for trying to effect a bridge repair against a hexside. They present a calculation problem for determining ferry capacity. Do you sum all engineering assets in the moving unit's hex, the target hex, both? The aforementioned Riverine movement issue.

GreenDestiny -> RE: Any River (5/14/2006 10:19:55 PM)
Thanks for the replies. The ones that took me by surprise are the riverine units, tributaries, and the engineering assets of the unit’s hex & target hex. I knew there had to be some kind of a reason for the rivers running through the hexes instead of having them on the hex-sides. But I just couldn’t see it. This will help out in my enjoyment of the games that I’m having right now in WGotY and TOAW II and it will help out also when TOAW III comes out, so keep them coming. I’m still looking forward to some kind of modification that would put rivers on the hex-sides. They may be ugly… but then again… I like ugly.[;)]

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 2:01:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. Riverine units work so badly in TOAW as it stands that this is hardly a sacrifice.

golden delicious -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 2:03:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM They are ugly. This argument is not at all convincing. The others are fine- but even if aesthetics was a major consideration, I doubt that hexside rivers are genuinely any uglier than rivers within hexes.

Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 2:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. Riverine units work so badly in TOAW as it stands that this is hardly a sacrifice. With hexsides one could portray riverine units as units forced to stay on hexes adiacent their "original" river (so no "river jumping" if an hex is bordered by two rivers). They could freely move from the "left" to the "right" bank hexes of the river, however, to simulate the flexibility to cover mainly one side intead of another (and with the opportunity to break up if you wish to cover both banks). And maybe with a ZOC partly extending across the river hexside.

ralphtricky -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 5:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. Riverine units work so badly in TOAW as it stands that this is hardly a sacrifice. With hexsides one could portray riverine units as units forced to stay on hexes adiacent their "original" river (so no "river jumping" if an hex is bordered by two rivers). They could freely move from the "left" to the "right" bank hexes of the river, however, to simulate the flexibility to cover mainly one side intead of another (and with the opportunity to break up if you wish to cover both banks). And maybe with a ZOC partly extending across the river hexside. To me, it just feels too complicated. It's also going to affect combat, you're going to have to worry about retreats, and whether retreat from a riverine unit is different from a retreate from a non-riverine unit. (non-riverine could just retreat across the river) I'm not convinved that the added complexity to the gameplay is worth adding in riverine units.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 6:50:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick If I do hex-side rivers, I'm probably going to have to not allow riverine units in those scenarios. Riverine units work so badly in TOAW as it stands that this is hardly a sacrifice. With hexsides one could portray riverine units as units forced to stay on hexes adiacent their "original" river (so no "river jumping" if an hex is bordered by two rivers). They could freely move from the "left" to the "right" bank hexes of the river, however, to simulate the flexibility to cover mainly one side intead of another (and with the opportunity to break up if you wish to cover both banks). And maybe with a ZOC partly extending across the river hexside. How do you know which hexside the unit is in? There would have to be an arrow (on the unit, since there could be multiple units in multiple hexsides) showing which hexside the unit was in.

Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Any River (5/15/2006 9:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay How do you know which hexside the unit is in? There would have to be an arrow (on the unit, since there could be multiple units in multiple hexsides) showing which hexside the unit was in. Yeah. Or the opportunity of "rotating" the counter to show on which river hexside it is positioned. I gess that some rules are more easily implemented in tabletop wargames [:)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Any River (5/16/2006 12:48:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay How do you know which hexside the unit is in? There would have to be an arrow (on the unit, since there could be multiple units in multiple hexsides) showing which hexside the unit was in. Yeah. Or the opportunity of "rotating" the counter to show on which river hexside it is positioned. I gess that some rules are more easily implemented in tabletop wargames [:)] In fact, I left out some complexity. How would you move from hexside to hexside? The old hex-to-hex movement algorithms wouldn't work. And then there is the problem of targeting a unit that is actually existing in a hexside rather than a hex.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.015625