RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message

Oberst_Klink -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 12:27:37 PM)

Joao

Only 6, not 8 directions, hence, the hex concept. ;) Get an emulator, play it... trust me, I am old salt ;)

Klink, Oberst



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 1:26:10 PM)

As pointed out in the first post it's how the game ignores logic with in hex rivers. I don't really care where the rivers are. Although making hex side rivers would make it easier to place cities and other terrain that does not span a hex yet keep it where it should logically be. But having to pay to cross a river every time I move into an adjacent river hex makes no sense. I don't want to cross the river. I just want to move down it. There are other cases where in hex river mechanics defy logic. Hex side rivers clean this stuff up. In hex rivers require a large amount of programming to do the same thing. Not saying make the game one way or the other. Just fix it so rivers make more sense. Or sense in the IGOUGO turn based world.

BTW, I do still play the game. Love it despite any faults. [:'(]




Oberst_Klink -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 1:43:48 PM)

So, if you got time Jack... create the Republic of Zangaro map, ja? 2.5km/hex.
Just google it with the reference 'Dogs of War' and Forsyth :D

Klink, Oberst



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 2:47:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

So, if you got time Jack... create the Republic of Zangaro map, ja? 2.5km/hex.
Just google it with the reference 'Dogs of War' and Forsyth :D

Klink, Oberst


[:D]
I still have most of AGS, Befehlsstelle Finland, OKH Reserve, all the Axis Allies, all the German forces NOT on the East Front, the entire RKKA including Far East and everything in between, all of the air forces, all of the naval forces and my Great Aunt Marie's spinning wheel 50km northeast of Odessa in a German settlement . So maybe next lifetime. [;)]

This would make a good spinning wheel icon eh?
[image]local://upfiles/45799/61C887C63B964E8898DB886DE95CABBF.jpg[/image]



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 4:06:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look: it's a river hex. We just know that the river is in there somewhere. We know that rivers meander and wander around. What they don't do is follow a hex grid. If I order my force to carry out an operation up a line of river hexes, is that the same as ordering the same operation up a line of open hexes? No defender would be able to derive any benefit from the river? It would be the same as if the river wasn't there? Remember, we don't carry out operations in single file - we are in battle formation.


Which side of the river is your battle formation? And why am I in battle formation 100 km behind the front lines? Seems to me column would make more sense. [;)]

I was wondering about roads that follow rivers too. If rivers meander and wander around and so we have to cross the river every hex we enter when moving downriver or upriver then roads must bridge the river in every hex also and all that that implies.

It would be nice to get at least some of this cleaned up. But then again will things get so bloody complex that the game becomes less fun? That's one area where hex side rivers clean things up nicely. Not campaigning for one or the other but both with an either or choice would be highest on my list.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 8:41:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

No Bob, I'm afraid that is not how it works. You are the revolutionary thinker here. You are the one that has to convince us that in-hex rivers are the wondrous thing you make them out to be. Leonardo had to convince the world, it was not the world that had to show to Leonardo he was wrong.


Last time I checked, TOAW already has river hexes. It doesn't have river hexsides. Getting them will take lots of code and graphics $$. So, the above is a pretty strange claim.

Nevertheless, I'm happy to tout the virtues of river hexes over river hexsides:

1. Rivers have transverse defensive benefits due to their meandering, wandering, etc. Just like entrenchments have transverse benefits because they are dug in a zig-zag pattern. River hexes have this feature. River hexsides do not. River hexsides are too "neat" compared to the real world.

2. Brand-new bridgeheads over rivers are vulnerable to counterattack. River hexes can model this. River hexsides can't.

3. Coding riverine movement and bridge destruction/repair are straight forward with river hexes (so's the game play). Not so for river hexsides.

The criticism of river hexes is all about where to defend to receive the defensive benefit and pay the movement costs. Well, I think we're going to fix that. But, even without that, just imagine the typical situation where a front line approaches, reaches, and passes a river defense line: The river penalties are paid once in either case (river hexes or river hexsides). There is just a slight difference in the exact location where they are paid. That's what this whole endless nonsense is about: Exactly where a 0.7 penalty is paid.

quote:

We are still awaiting to an answer to the original question on this thread.


Did you see my posts #14 and #33?

quote:

I leave with the words of another member of that cabal of group-thinking, someone that also thinks hex edge rivers are good and an acceptable abstraction, in fact, this chap seems to think they are as acceptable as in-hex rivers, it's just a matter of graphical and personal preference:

quote:

Rivers are not infinitely thin, like some kind of abstract geometric concept. They take up real space. The choice of hex side vs. through-hex is strictly a matter of personal preference, and which set of distortions we wish to live with. There is also the matter of graphic representation. I've yet to see a hex side river graphic that doesn't highlight the hex grid, and there are quite a few gamers out there who really don't want to see "hexes".


It's from a chap called Norm Koger. http://normkoger.com/truth.html


Reading that, I've completely missed the part where he says that the number of games using river hexsides "proves" that's the way to do it. So, I think I'll dismiss Norm from the cabal.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 8:51:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look: it's a river hex. We just know that the river is in there somewhere. We know that rivers meander and wander around. What they don't do is follow a hex grid. If I order my force to carry out an operation up a line of river hexes, is that the same as ordering the same operation up a line of open hexes? No defender would be able to derive any benefit from the river? It would be the same as if the river wasn't there? Remember, we don't carry out operations in single file - we are in battle formation.


Which side of the river is your battle formation? And why am I in battle formation 100 km behind the front lines? Seems to me column would make more sense. [;)]


You either have to be on both sides of the river or be channeled into a killing zone by it. Defensive benefit either way.

If you're 100 km behind the lines you will be moving by road. Combat is what matters in the game. That has to be right.

quote:

I was wondering about roads that follow rivers too. If rivers meander and wander around and so we have to cross the river every hex we enter when moving downriver or upriver then roads must bridge the river in every hex also and all that that implies.


In the combat case, the unit shouldn't benefit from the road. There are plenty of other terrain types that have that issue as well. Maybe that will be addressed one day.



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 10:42:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

I've yet to see a hex side river graphic that doesn't highlight the hex grid, and there are quite a few gamers out there who really don't want to see "hexes".




Reading that, I've completely missed the part where he says that the number of games using river hexsides "proves" that's the way to do it. So, I think I'll dismiss Norm from the cabal.


Now you have to add Norm to the "quite a few gamers who don't want to see hexes" group. [;)]

Notice I didn't say cabal. That is somewhat insulting when people simply disagree.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 11:40:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Notice I didn't say cabal. That is somewhat insulting when people simply disagree.


You're falsely implying that I was the source of that term, when it originated with jmlima. Even he was using it in humor.



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/6/2018 12:31:44 PM)

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have. [sm=scared0018.gif]



DanNeely -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/6/2018 2:05:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have. [sm=scared0018.gif]


How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.

With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.




Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/6/2018 3:02:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have. [sm=scared0018.gif]


How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.


What time period are you talking about? Even on the East Front major ferry support was part of some German divisions, most importantly the mobile ones but also some infantry divisions. One Panzer Division even had armored mobile bridge layers. If a unit doesn't have the ability to cross a river it stays in the river hex. To move across you move a unit with enough support to enable a unit to leave the hex. I don't see a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.


I still don't see a problem. Move the bridging unit into the river hex. Move the non bridging unit across.

Which brings up another issue. Shouldn't a unit with major/minor ferry that helps others across any river have to pay something for the time it takes to bridge the river over and above any crossing cost?



DanNeely -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/6/2018 10:45:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In hex rivers work ok for tactical games. For operational not as much. Too much 'stuff' has to be made up to explain what is happening. Just pay for rivers when you exit them. There's still going to be a little logic lost but not nearly as much and it will be way more simple. Also eliminating movement costs for moving up and down adjacent river hexes until you leave the river would be nice. Attacking up and down river would probably take what you have already posted earlier. That's all I have. [sm=scared0018.gif]


How would pay on exit work with super rivers, particularly at the combined arms scale where the engineering support isn't organic to most combat units? Currently a minimum level of major ferry support is needed for normal units to enter the hex, and AFAIK the amount of support affects how large the penalty is.


What time period are you talking about? Even on the East Front major ferry support was part of some German divisions, most importantly the mobile ones but also some infantry divisions. One Panzer Division even had armored mobile bridge layers.


I'm talking about a scale not a specific time period. Combined arms is company, battalion, and maybe regiment sized units where it's neccesary combine (stack) multiple types of specialized units together to accomplish missions that none could effectively do on their own as opposed to brigade/division/corps sized units that have everything including a kitchen sink but excluding fixed wing aircraft jammed into a single unit.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If a unit doesn't have the ability to cross a river it stays in the river hex. To move across you move a unit with enough support to enable a unit to leave the hex. I don't see a problem.


Any mechanism that leaves units trapped indefinitely is IMO a terrible design choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
With pay on enter the bridging/engineering unit moves first, puts the support in the hex and following units are charged based on its strength. If the bridging units are then moved/killed/forced to retreat/etc it doesn't matter because the movement penalty has already been paid.


I still don't see a problem. Move the bridging unit into the river hex. Move the non bridging unit across.


It's not the initial advance that's the problem, it's what happens if the bridging unit is killed/retreated/etc. With pay to enter it's not a problem since the regular unit is free to move out; and is where I see no option that isn't terrible or that wouldn't require a lot of extra book keeping on the game to make work. Being enamored of this change I was hoping you might have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Which brings up another issue. Shouldn't a unit with major/minor ferry that helps others across any river have to pay something for the time it takes to bridge the river over and above any crossing cost?


I wouldn't object to BTS or something similar being added to river crossings; although the combination of units that benefit from bridging support and those that don't would mean the simplest implementations would have problems of their own.



wzfcns -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/8/2018 4:00:25 AM)

In fact，I think it's better to add both hexside river and river hex to toaw,for simulate different style river.




timmyab -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/9/2018 10:42:41 AM)

Terrible design decision. I still can't believe anyone thought in hex rivers was a good idea.
This one thing kills the game stone dead for me. It's a shame because it looks great otherwise.



Fred98 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/9/2018 10:51:00 PM)

I notice on desert maps that escarpments are on hex sides.

.
.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/9/2018 11:39:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98

I notice on desert maps that escarpments are on hex sides.

.
.


No. They're next to the hexsides. Not the same as being ON them.



mccartyg -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 3:28:49 AM)

Using escarpment features as half river hex sides would be possible. Problem is the hardcoded logic on terrain effects. I have no problem with in hex rivers but, I think the coders got it wrong. Sid Meier even used in hex rivers. Realistically at an operational/strategic level formations will straddle rivers with their line forces on the near side facing the enemy while support is guarded on the river's far side. All the programmers assumed that an attack out of a river hex should be penalized and it became a meme. The penalty should be against the force attacking the unit within the river hex. That is where the river is actually positioned. So the convoluted logic behind movement and attack penalties is the cause for my dislike of TOAWs usage of in hex rivers. Which could possibly be fixed by exporting much more of the games logic to a compiler like the scenario editor giving designers greater rights to modifiers and effects.



Fred98 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 6:40:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They're next to the hexsides. Not the same as being ON them.



You are being pedantic. The graphic is next to the hex side. For movement purposes an escarpment is on the hex side.

Any unit is always on one side or the other of an escarpment. I wish it were the case for a river.
.





76mm -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 9:44:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mccartyg
Sid Meier even used in hex rivers.

Has Sid Meier made a wargame since 1997's Gettysburg? Besides the fact it is twenty years old (and no one has cited a more recent operational wargame which uses in-hex rivers), it is tactical wargame for which in-hex rivers are fine.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mccartyg
Realistically at an operational/strategic level formations will straddle rivers with their line forces on the near side facing the enemy while support is guarded on the river's far side.

Realistically, except for rather large unit and geographic scales, the bulk of units are on one side of the river or the other, maybe with patrols or other small detachments on the opposite side.



Shadrach -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 12:38:06 PM)

Sorry to butt in here, just wondering about a hex like this below, with both a super river, and road. Does it actually count as a river crossing, even though there are no bridges?
Because I've seen that this hex works for crossing a river where otherwise it would be impossible.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/hRvkpXq.jpg[/image]

Is this a consequence of the in-hex rivers or something else?



goranw -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 1:13:08 PM)

Hi!
This was a suggestion from many years ago when it was discussed.
Goran

[image]local://upfiles/4588/1E5ADDE93A354955B8209E414D19C33F.jpg[/image]



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 1:45:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Sorry to butt in here, just wondering about a hex like this below, with both a super river, and road. Does it actually count as a river crossing, even though there are no bridges?
Because I've seen that this hex works for crossing a river where otherwise it would be impossible.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/hRvkpXq.jpg[/image]

Is this a consequence of the in-hex rivers or something else?



[:D] Another long standing issue with in hex rivers. At least it can no longer be destroyed. Perhaps the same code that prevents destruction of roads like that can be modified to include river crossing costs?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/10/2018 2:23:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They're next to the hexsides. Not the same as being ON them.



You are being pedantic. The graphic is next to the hex side. For movement purposes an escarpment is on the hex side.

Any unit is always on one side or the other of an escarpment. I wish it were the case for a river.
.


Graphical effects have to be coded too. Putting the graphic ON the hexside is a tougher problem than just next to it.



nepos2 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (8/29/2018 11:00:35 AM)

Hello, could it not be possible to have both? Since all the scenarios have in-hex rivers that feature has to remain but hexside rivers could perhaps be implemented as a choice in the editor for new scenarios. Possibly the engine could handle both versions?



biddrafter2 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (9/1/2018 4:35:00 PM)

I wonder if a hybrid approach is the best solution. Why one or the other when there can be both? Why not improve the modeling of rivers?

Offloading the details onto scenario designers provides the most bang for the buck. Of course, this comment does not consider whether or not the ideas are feasible within the current code base, or even whether or not the ideas would make the game less enjoyable to play!

Three main changes would be needed:

1. Allow hex-side rivers to be used alongside existing in-hex rivers. It would be up to the scenario designer to chose which is appropriate. Hex-side could transition into in-hex rivers and vice versa. If a map is stronger with one approach than another it should accommodated. If one region of map is stronger in-hex, and another hex-side, it should be accommodated.

2. One big advantage of in-hex rivers is modeling of meanders and terrain complications along river. For many locations this is most appropriate. The game should allow scenario designers to adjust the attacking penalty from in-hex rivers on a per hex basis. The multiplier range could be extreme.... say from 10% to 90%. This should be communicated to players via the UI.

3. Similar to #2, movement costs and ferry adjustments should also be customizable per hex by a designer. Rivers come with a massive number of classes (rapids, bank steepness, depth, meanders, etc). Modeling these without scenario designer adjustments available may have been a necessary simplification, but it works against the strongest argument for in-hex rivers!



76mm -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (9/1/2018 4:41:41 PM)

Well, I'd be all for allowing scenario designers to choose between in-hex and hexside rivers, but my guess is that mixing and matching them within the same map could be "a bridge too far", as they say.



Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (9/1/2018 5:21:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Well, I'd be all for allowing scenario designers to choose between in-hex and hexside rivers, but my guess is that mixing and matching them within the same map could be "a bridge too far", as they say.


Aye, that would be a nightmare. One or the other fine. But both at once? In fact, one or the other is necessary since all of the current scenarios have in hex rivers. So a designer either/or switch is absolutely needed.

If it ever happens it will be a long way down the road, around the bend, over the river, to the port, board the ship, sail across the sea, get off the boat, down another road, across another bridge, climb the mountain and plant the hex side river flag. [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.3125