|
Curtis Lemay -> RE: Wish List (7/22/2015 1:09:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
For sure, this will be an expensive change. It requires unique graphics that no other tile has (hexside display). It requires that bridge blowing, bridge attacks, bridge repair, ferry support, and riverine movement will all have to be devised for hexside implementation. Each of those implementations will have to have UI mechanisms devised for them.
OK, if they've lost the patch somehow then it would take some work, but fortifications and escarpments are on hexsides, so the hexside concept is already implemented; sure it would require graphics, but since every other computer game in existence has rivers, I can't see this as being a very serious problem.
The engineer mechanics are already in the game and they would need some adaptation. Riverine movement doesn't work well with hex-side rivers, so anyone wanting to use that could stick with in-hex.
Actually fortifications and escarpments are not on the hexsides. They are within the hex. River hexsides would straddle the hexside. And all of those features I listed would be more complex to implement than for in-hex rivers. The bottom line is that this is going to be an expensive feature.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And what do we get for that? For all existing scenarios, nothing. Even for that small fraction of existing scenarios that can expect future designer revision, the answer is still probably nothing. What designers will rip out the river hexes from their maps to replace them with hexside rivers? Few if any. Only a fraction of brand new scenarios will even employ hexside rivers. What benefits will they enjoy from them? A x0.7 attack multiplier will be applied in a slightly different place. Whether that is an improvement or not is dubious.
No one has suggested that existing scenarios will be redesigned...but the whole point of this revamp, I thought, was to make the game viable for another decade or two, so hopefully we'll see lots of new scenarios. Why you think that only a fraction of new scenarios will use hex-side rivers? Personally I'm hoping that TOAW IV will attract many new players and scenario designers, many of whom will want to use what they are familiar with--ie, hex-side rivers.
For sure I won’t be using it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I doubt it’s going to get 100% of all others. Regardless, it’s of no use to existing scenarios. Think of all the things we need that will affect them.
This is a revamp, but that doesn’t mean we have infinite means. (While we do seem to have almost infinite wishes).
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
What do we lose for switching to hexside rivers? The transverse benefits of rivers. Rivers meander and have oxbow lakes (see attached). That gives them a transverse benefit just like an entrenchment does by zig-zagging. River hexes have those benefits. Hexside rivers don’t. Rivers really can be thought of as occupying an area. An enemy unit can be on the same side of the river as its friendly target and yet still have a wide meander between them.
I've seen plenty of rivers, thanks. And plenty of them don't have oxbow lakes (I won't bother to attach pictures, a simple google search will do), and the ones that do can be generally (but not perfectly) reflected with hex-side rivers. Honestly I don't understand your "traverse benefit" of winding rivers, which (unlike entrenchments) I have always understood to be unfavorable for defenders, because it allows them to be attacked from three sides. Further comments on rivers below...
The meandering and such illustrates the principle. At grander scales the rivers wander around. And the larger the hex scale the harder it is to fit that to hexsides. It then occurs within the hex. Does it allow the defender to be attacked from three sides? Only if the front lines accommodate that. In that case, the defenders would be attacked from three sides on the TOAW map – but would still receive the river benefit. But the case I meant was where the front lines were orthogonal to the river. Then the meander (or wandering, etc.) gives a transverse benefit in the real world – even if the forces are on the same side of the river.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That isn’t a “basic fact” but a basic fallacy. Contested front lines do not, in general, follow river boundaries . Bridgeheads do not start out 2.5 km long, much less 50km. In the real world, operational sized units will be on one side of the river in some places while being on the other side in others.
That's why there are things like ZoC, etc. across rivers, but that doesn't justify the "quantum-positioning" of TOAW units, which are on both sides of the river, and neither.
If the hex has a river wandering around in it, then the units in that hex really can be partially on either side of the river. That’s not quantum mechanics. That’s real world. Now, item 3.2 could clarify that.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Most scenarios expect the player to defend every hex tooth-and-nail. The front line will gradually advance to the river, onto the river, and beyond the river. In that process, the 0.7 multiplier will be received at some point (exactly the same for river hexes as for hexside rivers).
I'm not sure that I've ever played a wargame that expected players to defend every hex... The fact that the river modifier is received "at some point" is not very helpful--the question is whether I can use it when defending a bridge, and the answer in TOAW seems to be NO. Seems very counter-intuitive to me.
I’ve played plenty. Regardless, you can defend the bridge. If your opponent takes it then you get the river benefit in the next hex. Even assuming 3.2 wouldn’t fix that, is that really worth such an expensive change? I just don’t get it.
Look, if TOAW had hexside rivers, I wouldn’t be here demanding in-hex rivers. But it has in-hex rivers and doesn’t have hexside rivers. To justify implementing the latter, there must be a real benefit, commensurate with the cost. It’s just not there.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Nevertheless, if the changes in the Wishlist item 3.2 are made, then defenders could receive the river benefit while ON the river hex, not behind it. That change would impact all existing scenarios, by the way.
I haven't really thought this one through all the way; it would seem to solve some problems but might create others. Also, it seems like a strange approach given your concern about affecting existing scenarios.
My what? Where did that come from? Regardless, if necessary, 3.2 could be made optional.
|
|
|
|
