Rivers (Full Version)

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



Message

CSO_Talorgan -> Rivers (9/5/2009 9:55:23 AM)

Does anyone else here think that rivers should be on the hexside, not cutting through the middle of the hex?

I find it difficult to track what side of the river a unit is on.

What is the advantage of having them in the middle? Does it make combat calculations easier for the program?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/5/2009 3:49:16 PM)

You might like to check this old discussion:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1558431

Starting with post #13.



Legun -> RE: Rivers (9/5/2009 6:44:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan

Does anyone else here think that rivers should be on the hexside, not cutting through the middle of the hex?


Yes, someone does. Really does. I've found river hexes as completely useless for scenarios with hexes of 15km and bigger. I always use double escarpments to simulate rivers. I hope we get river hexsides one day.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Rivers (9/6/2009 8:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You might like to check this old discussion:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1558431

Starting with post #13.


Looks like the subject has been debated to death. I'll not restart it.



Zaratoughda -> RE: Rivers (9/8/2009 10:10:50 PM)

OK, this topic has been discussed in the referenced thread but..... I was thinking about this myself the other day and so...

I was playing the Battle of Mount Cer scenario... and brought up the Serbia-Galacia scenario as reference (it is 10 KM/hex as opposed to the 5 KM/hex of the first scenario) for the same area (NW Serbia) and, to make a long story short, the second scenario does not do justice to what you see in the Mount Cer scenario.

One of the problems is the city of Sabac is on the Sava River in the first scenario, while it is two hexes inland in the second scenario.

But, if you look closely, the Sava River in the second scenario, is in Austria-Hugarian territory.

So, this points out a problem with rivers going through the middle of hexes... that there are a LOT of borders that are rivers and borders run along hex sides.

There was a good point brought out in the referenced thread... re rivers meandering... and I was thinking because of that it might be better to have them going through hexes but... on further thought... how many times would units be positioned half on one side of a river, half on the other side?? Yeah, probably never.

So, IMO, in general rivers are better off on hex-sides. Might be more aestetically pleasing to have them going through the hexes but, from a functonal perspective, better on hex-sides.

However.... as far as TOAW is concerned.... just another drop in the barrel <g> as far as how things SHOULD be.... and I think you either gotta take TOAW as it is or leave it.

Zaratoughda



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Frozen Steppes 1942-1943 (9/9/2009 10:34:52 AM)

Usually I agree that the Hexside Rivers are fugly, but Legun's mod doesn't look bad at all, especially the non-major rivers. Nice work. I can't remember playing this scenario, so I don't know how the escarpment/rivers affect play. But if I really wanted hexside rivers, I could use this graphic mod, eh?

[image]local://upfiles/24850/2F3CF97DC5BA42BFB3CCF62DE43EE598.jpg[/image]



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Frozen Steppes 1942-1943 (9/9/2009 11:14:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I could use this graphic mod


If this was worked into Damezzi's mod the game would be aesthetically perfect but that would still leave gameplay issues.

Having rivers pass through hexes *and* along hexsides would be complete perfection (so don't bother hoping for it!)



rhinobones -> RE: Rivers (9/10/2009 1:32:42 AM)

As I recall, one of the arguments against hex side rivers was the preceived problems this might cause the movement and placement of ships and bridges. Actually I don’t see any reason why ships and bridges couldn’t be programmed to occupy/operate on hex sides or why units could not be able to attack them on the hex side.

The addition of hex side rivers, and therefore hex side bridges, would also enable designers to build bridges to span mountain valleys along the hex sides separating mountain complexes. Mountain bridges for rail or major roads would need to be defended the same as river bridges . . . I can think of a number of scenarios which would benefit from the addition of mountain bridges. Just a little something we don’t currently have in TOAW.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/10/2009 4:37:02 PM)

In the referenced thread, this was my post #216, reprinted here. Even Iron Duke grudgingly agreed with it. It's now item 2.2 in the wishlist.

"Now that we seem to have averted what would undoubtedly have been the “Great Hexside River Fiasco of 2007” we can now turn our attention to the far more sensible task of improving river hexes.

I think James is on to some part of the issue above, but it’s more complicated than that. Yes, an initial bridgehead over a river can be a vulnerable target, deserving of a defensive penalty. But, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, inside the river hex the river snakes around, and where the units in that hex are deployed relative to that river is unknown. They may be mostly across the river, as above, in which case they’re vulnerable and deserve a defensive penalty. They may be partly across and partly behind, in which case the benefits and penalties more or less cancel, resulting in a wash (that’s how it works now). Or they may be mostly or entirely behind the river, in which case they should be getting a defensive benefit. But how can we tell?

I now think it’s possible to do so, via the context of how the hex was captured:

Case 1: The river hex begins the friendly player turn friendly controlled. This is the pure defensive context. The units should be assumed to be employing as much defensive use of the river as possible. As such, any friendly units in the hex will enjoy the defensive river benefit (if attacked, those attackers suffer the 0.7 modifier). If the units attack out of the hex, they also suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like what I suggested much further back).

Case 2: The river hex begins the friendly player turn enemy controlled, and is captured by any of the following:
1. Movement.
2. Overrun.
3. An assault against enemy units in the river hex NOT enjoying the defensive river benefit (in other words, a counterattack against enemy units that captured the hex in the last player turn.)
This is the mixed context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be partly exposed and partly protected. There is no defensive penalty or benefit. If the units attack out of the hex, they suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (this case is like the way it works now).

Case 3: The river hex begins the friendly player turn enemy controlled, and is captured by an assault against enemy units in the river hex that ARE enjoying the defensive river benefit (as in case 1 above). This is the major assault context. The units in the hex should be assumed to be fully exposed. They suffer the defensive penalty if attacked in the next enemy player turn (this case is like in James’ post above). BUT, if the units continue their attack out of the hex this player-turn they do NOT suffer the 0.7 attack modifier (they’re already across – we don’t want the penalty to be paid twice).

It’s complicated, but it’s code only – no graphics – and it will affect all existing scenarios. Note that Case 1 simplifies defensive tactics and allows bridges to be defended – just deploy on the river hex."



rhinobones -> RE: Rivers (9/10/2009 8:53:32 PM)

Iron Duke grudgingly agreed . . . wow, I’ really impressed.

Point is, that with hex side rivers you don’t need three cases to explain what is happening and you don’t need to make assumptions or imagination about how the troops are deployed on both sides a the river. Everything is on the game map, clean and simple; defending and attacking units are on one side or the side. None of this rivers snaking around business.

Obviously Norm had his reasons, but it could have been so much simpler that even the GEICO guys would have been able to understand the game.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/10/2009 11:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Iron Duke grudgingly agreed . . . wow, I’ really impressed.


As well you should be. It was like trying to turn the Titanic away from that iceberg.



rhinobones -> RE: Rivers (9/11/2009 2:57:39 AM)

He can be both tenacious and compelling in explaining/defending his point of view. Good person to have on the forum.

Regards, RhinoBones



Zaratoughda -> RE: Rivers (9/11/2009 4:59:11 AM)

There are other cases where hex-sides are more appropriate than hexes. I am thinking some of the area in Holland but I am sure there are natural situations as well. Would be nice if a game allowed both, with separate stacking limitations for the hex-side situations.

As far as the meandering of rivers, can visualize that happenning on either side of the hex-side. In the real world situation, units were virtually never (if there was any chance of combat) half on one side of a river half on the other. IMO, one side of the river or the other.

Of course, we are not talking TOAW here. If hex-side rivers were but in, all the scenarios would have to be changed.... and that ain't gonna happen. So, we are just talking 'in general', IMO, or a different game.

Zaratoughda



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/12/2009 3:23:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

There are other cases where hex-sides are more appropriate than hexes. I am thinking some of the area in Holland but I am sure there are natural situations as well. Would be nice if a game allowed both, with separate stacking limitations for the hex-side situations.


I would think of Holland as a prime case for river hexes (and I’ve got some experience with that subject – see France 1944). What with all the polder, vast numbers of minor canals, and the Rhine delta, rivers hardly function as boundary-only there. The entire area they’re in is impacted. The right situation for river hexsides would be where the river area just had a straight river, and nothing else – no meandering, no ox-bow lakes, not even tributaries. In other words, no transverse features.

It’s kind of like light. What is light? A particle or a wave? Well, it turns out, it’s both! Similarly, what is a river? Is it a boundary or an area? In a much the same fashion, it has features of both. In many cases, river hexsides are just too simplistic – especially at the operational level.

quote:

As far as the meandering of rivers, can visualize that happenning on either side of the hex-side.


But the impact of meandering is to add a transverse defensive benefit. Think of a trench system. If attackers manage to penetrate into the trenches, can they then flank the entire trench? Not if it’s been properly designed. Well-designed trench works are prepared against flanking via cross trenches and zigzags in their layout. These trench lines laid perpendicular to the main line of trenches protect the trench system against transverse (flanking) attacks. (That’s why entrenchments aren’t hexside features in TOAW).

Meanders, etc. can do the same for defenders along the river. The defenders benefit defensively against flanking attacks from using the bend in the river/ox bow lake/tributary/etc. as a barrier. TOAW’s river hexes have that transverse defense factor. River hexsides would not.

quote:

In the real world situation, units were virtually never (if there was any chance of combat) half on one side of a river half on the other. IMO, one side of the river or the other.


You’re thinking of pre-combat conditions. Once the battle begins, the front lines will become mixed. From then, each square inch is contested and no quarter is given. That’s at any scale. Certainly 50km stretches of river aren’t cleared simultaneously. But neither are 2.5km stretches.

The defenders will only be entirely on one side of a whole river line when they throw in the towel and fall back to a new defensive position – provided it’s along a river. And, that’s assuming the defense began along a river line to begin with. It’s rarely the best terrain to form a defense on.

And, of course, TOAW scenarios mostly concern themselves with those sorts of battles. Inactive fronts aren’t usually scenario topics. Nevertheless, Case 1 in my post #9 above, would model just such a front.

Think of Normandy. The front lines were formed to retain as much ground as possible, with no consideration of best terrain. Rivers were as likely to be bisected by them as between them. It stayed that way till the Germans had to give up. Even then, they didn’t fall back to the Rhine. There was far better defensive terrain west of it.

That’s the macro case. But it applies to the micro case too. Think of the penultimate clash in “Saving Private Ryan”. Did they defend behind the river? No. There was a town forward of it (dense urban terrain) that was better. Had they set up behind the river, they would have immediately faced Tigers at point-blank range. The river wasn’t more than 30 feet wide. A Tiger can kill you at 100 times that range. At least in the town they had a chance for an ambush.

quote:

Of course, we are not talking TOAW here. If hex-side rivers were but in, all the scenarios would have to be changed.... and that ain't gonna happen. So, we are just talking 'in general', IMO, or a different game.


It’s a very high cost change that wouldn’t affect a single existing scenario, regardless of what you think of the value of the change.



rhinobones -> RE: Rivers (9/13/2009 10:10:58 PM)

If TOAW had originally been designed with hex-side rivers, I wonder if there would be any proponents of hex-in rivers, or any detailed discussions about why hex-in rivers are so superior to hex-side rivers. Imagine some one writing that hex-side rivers are inferior because they do not account for meandering, similarities to trench warfare, ox-bow lakes, tributaries, simulating a war movie or because they are not analogous to the physics of the photon. After ten years of playing TOAW with hex-side rivers, I bet that such a heretical idea would be thoroughly trashed by the pundits.

Besides, most of the reasons against hex-side rivers (polder, vast numbers of minor canals, tributaries, transverse features (whatever transverse features might mean)) could be handled with added terrain types that simulate geographical features typically found along rivers. This is not any different than use of the current swamp/marsh type.

Also, why would all of the existing scenarios have to be revised? I’ve seen no proposal to revise scenarios . . . revisions would be up to the individual authors or their surrogates. No one would be forced or pressured into revising a scenario . . . not even France 44.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/14/2009 2:40:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If TOAW had originally been designed with hex-side rivers, I wonder if there would be any proponents of hex-in rivers, or any detailed discussions about why hex-in rivers are so superior to hex-side rivers. Imagine some one writing that hex-side rivers are inferior because they do not account for meandering, similarities to trench warfare, ox-bow lakes, tributaries, simulating a war movie or because they are not analogous to the physics of the photon. After ten years of playing TOAW with hex-side rivers, I bet that such a heretical idea would be thoroughly trashed by the pundits.


They don't seem to be able to "thoroughly trash" it yet. That's because the area properties of rivers are real.

quote:

Besides, most of the reasons against hex-side rivers (polder, vast numbers of minor canals, tributaries, transverse features (whatever transverse features might mean)) could be handled with added terrain types that simulate geographical features typically found along rivers. This is not any different than use of the current swamp/marsh type.


There would probably be some bastard way to somewhat model the area features for river hexsides. Just as my post #9 somewhat models the boundary features for river hexes. That's why there's so little point to adding river hexsides.

quote:

Also, why would all of the existing scenarios have to be revised? I’ve seen no proposal to revise scenarios . . . revisions would be up to the individual authors or their surrogates. No one would be forced or pressured into revising a scenario . . . not even France 44.


No one said they would. In fact, the vast majority of scenarios would never be so modified. And, therefore, would not benefit from it in any way. Not one single existing scenario would have river hexsides until some designer employed them. In contrast, my post #9 above would affect every existing scenario without the need for any designer input. And, it would not require any new graphical components.



rhinobones -> RE: Rivers (9/18/2009 4:50:45 AM)

Think you totally missed the point of my question (not likely) or elected not to respond to the question (more likely).

Simply put, if TOAW had originally been designed as a hex-side game would you today be arguing that TOAW would be better if TOAW converted to hex-in rivers?

A simple “yes” or “no” answer plus some explanation will suffice.

Also, if you really do feel that hex-in rivers make a superior game, please start making postings on the multiple hex-side war game forum pages/sites about how their games would improve if converted to hex-in rivers. I would especially like to see you convince these people that your light photon analogy proves that hex-in rivers is superior to hex-side rives.

Please let the TOAW forum know where the photon theory is posted.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rivers (9/18/2009 4:53:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Think you totally missed the point of my question (not likely) or elected not to respond to the question (more likely).

Simply put, if TOAW had originally been designed as a hex-side game would you today be arguing that TOAW would be better if TOAW converted to hex-in rivers?

A simple “yes” or “no” answer plus some explanation will suffice.


If you put a question in that paragraph I fail to see where it was. Nevertheless, I'll respond now:

Of course not. That would be as moronic as demanding hexside rivers in a system that was already designed with river hexes. [8D]

I would, of course, be expecting those river hexsides to model some of the area properties of rivers, though. As I said in response to your last post, you can sort of get to the same place via either system.

quote:

Also, if you really do feel that hex-in rivers make a superior game, please start making postings on the multiple hex-side war game forum pages/sites about how their games would improve if converted to hex-in rivers.


I've never said it was superior, just that neither way covered all aspects of rivers. And I only care about TOAW, even if there are games out there that cover its same subject matter (which I doubt). Tactical-scale or grand-strategic subjects would require different considerations.

Besides, this stupid issue has already received an obscene level of verbage. It wasn't worth two sentences.

quote:

I would especially like to see you convince these people that your light photon analogy proves that hex-in rivers is superior to hex-side rives.

Please let the TOAW forum know where the photon theory is posted.


This is amazing. You start the post by accusing me of missing your point, then end with a ridiculous misunderstanding of mine.

I'll try again (why I'm doing so I really don't know, since you're not making any effort to comprehend anything):

There are some subjects that can't be neatly categorized into simplistic characterizations. Light is an example of this. It's neither particle nor wave, but both. Rivers are similar in that they have both boundary and area properties. Modeling only one of those properties is inadequate.



vahauser -> RE: Rivers (9/19/2009 3:07:07 AM)

Many years ago (late '80s - early '90s), I worked as developer on the staff of GR/D which published the Europa series of boardgames. These boardgames were 25km/hex, divisional/regimental, and 2-week turns. In other words, very similar in scale and concept to TOAW. Europa uses hexside rivers exclusively. It works extremely well. I have more problems with TOAW's in-hex rivers than with Europa's hexside rivers. But I still play TOAW despite this.



BillLottJr -> RE: Rivers (9/20/2009 2:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Many years ago (late '80s - early '90s), I worked as developer on the staff of GR/D which published the Europa series of boardgames. These boardgames were 25km/hex, divisional/regimental, and 2-week turns. In other words, very similar in scale and concept to TOAW. Europa uses hexside rivers exclusively. It works extremely well. I have more problems with TOAW's in-hex rivers than with Europa's hexside rivers. But I still play TOAW despite this.


Which games did you help develop?



vahauser -> RE: Rivers (9/20/2009 6:33:51 PM)

Scorched Earth, First to Fight, Second Front, etc. The second-generation stuff (late '80s - early '90s). The air system I developed for Second Front is still the Europa standard, I think, although Arthur and Jason have taken it much further than I did. It's been many years since I've done anything Europa-related, though (I left GR/D while Winston was still alive back in the early '90s). I'm completely out of the loop now.

Anyway, the current topic is rivers, and the hexside rivers in Europa work extremely well (and the maps that Arthur have created are unsurpassed in any boardgame(s) that I've ever seen, he is truly a master).



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.125