RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

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 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 8:33:05 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... The wadi is a desert feature. That is just the situation it's supposed to be used in.

It's not comparable to a river - it doesn't have any water in it. (See the Rapahannock example above).

Hmmm... No wanting to become involved in the bickering, but it's a bit pointless to be debating what a Wadi is. It's not an abstract feature, it's a real world geological feature, well defined. A wadi is indeed not a river, but that is hardly the gist of the discussion, since that is obvious from the start, a wadi is 'A stream valley in an arid region that is dry except during the rainy season.' As a stream valley they came in many sizes and shapes, and if some are trench size, I would debate that some , like Wadi Rum, could be thought as being a trench. In fact, if we think how we would defend a wadi and how we would defend a significant river valley crossing, we would still defend at the opposite bank. Examples of defending at the banks like in :

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/wadi.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yfpozlstWuIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=defending+in+a+wadi&source=bl&ots=zy6FbxI-Gq&sig=Z7Gnwayc7SszcaYunx7uqzMNq58&hl=en&ei=aFlXS4bFCtW14Qa_1723Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=defending%20in%20a%20wadi&f=false

Now, should a wadi be treated the same as a river? Hardly. Crossing a river poses a series of problems that a wadi does not (water being one of them... some wadis are wide enough for tanks to manoeuvre...) , but if a river is .7 to the attacker, seriously crippling the attacker, short of having 'major and minor wadis', the wadis should still, obviously, add some encumbrance to an attacker. TOAW has:

11.9.3 Additional Land Movement Costs

- Wadi: Mountain units no effect, Motorized and Mixed movement +2, all others +1

13.9.4 Defensive Strengths of Infantry

- Forest, Jungle, Hills, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x2.0

13.9.5 Defensive Strengths of Static Equipment

- Urban, Urban Ruin, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Bocage, or Wadi (any Deployment), or Defending Deployment (any terrain): x1.5

And for the rivers:

11.9.4 River Movement Costs

Rivers and Canals (as opposed to super rivers or Suez Canal) normally add 2 to the cost of entering a location. ...

13.9.6 Unit Strengths in Water Assaults

Land units attacking from River, Super River, Canal, Suez Canal, or Deep Water (Amphibious Assaults) have all Strengths multiplied by 0.7.

So, in resume, Wadis benefit the defender (as we saw before, defender gets benefit from being at a bank, attacker may potentially have plenty of room to maneuvre at the wadi base), whilst a river creates an encumbrance (obvious) on the attacker.

Conclusions? Each to his own. Given that we only have one type of wadi, and no hex-border rivers , I think the engine actually is correct WITHIN it's own assumptions and limitations. Just my 2p.

It is true that Wadis are not the same as rivers. However, the two classes of obstacles pose a similar problem. In both cases, the attacker has to make a difficult crossing while exposed to enemy fire from the higher ground along the far bank.*

What's more, the two types of terrain -- rivers and wadis -- do segue into each other. The Litani in Lebanon presented a formidable obstacle to the advancing Australians in 1941. Technically, it was a river -- there's a flow of water in it year round -- but one can wade it easily enough in June. Really, as a military obstacle, it's more of a wadi. However, this doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be bridged, that the bridge can't be blown up, that troops attempting to attack across it aren't delayed by having to clamber down into the bed and then back out again, that they aren't exposed to fire from the far side while doing so, etc.

As to maneuvering along the bottom of the wadi -- sure, in many cases you can. But then, the starting point of this whole argument was my assertion that generally the river canyon itself offers the best route of travel. One can march along the shore of many rivers. Indeed, armies usually do so. And if there are river canyons that are impassible, there most certainly are wadis where one cannot move easily along the bottom. One look at Google Earth will confirm that.

The presence or absence of water isn't irrelevant -- a river with water is going to be more of an obstacle than a river without it, all things being equal. However, militarily a wadi and a river are similar in nature, and their treatment in OPART should be similar.

* That is, unless General LeMay is in command, in which case the defenders have been ordered to 'shelter in the wadi.' I suppose it would be an improvement over ordering them to 'wade into the river.'

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 8:38:31 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 601

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 9:09:12 PM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
... However, militarily a wadi and a river are similar in nature, and their treatment in OPART should be similar. ...

Yes, and no. I think you defend them in pretty much the same way, even if different positions (see below). But you attack them in vastly different ways, if there's water.
But there are exceptions obviously, the Germans mined the bottom of a wadi in the desert (can't remember what wadi it was, but it was major). In that context, yes, you have similar problems, but a clear and obstructed major wadi poses no issues to the actual 'crossing', assuming an egress route in the banks, but gives the defenders an advantage point, hence:

(wadi) benefit defender + no issue with attacker = opart present solution

an abstract , non valley river, puts defenders in flat banks, where short of entrenchments they posses no obvious advantage, except for the fact that the attackers are swimming to get there, hence seriously hampered:

(river) no benefit to defender + detriment to attacker = opart present solution

The above is my understanding of the rational behind oparts present abstracted solution, and different representation of both, if we could distinguish each major type of river and wadi, then tailored solutions could ensue.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 602

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 9:28:28 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
... However, militarily a wadi and a river are similar in nature, and their treatment in OPART should be similar. ...

Yes, and no. I think you defend them in pretty much the same way, even if different positions (see below). But you attack them in vastly different ways, if there's water.
But there are exceptions obviously, the Germans mined the bottom of a wadi in the desert (can't remember what wadi it was, but it was major). In that context, yes, you have similar problems, but a clear and obstructed major wadi poses no issues to the actual 'crossing', assuming an egress route in the banks, but gives the defenders an advantage point, hence:

(wadi) benefit defender + no issue with attacker = opart present solution

an abstract , non valley river, puts defenders in flat banks, where short of entrenchments they posses no obvious advantage, except for the fact that the attackers are swimming to get there, hence seriously hampered:

(river) no benefit to defender + detriment to attacker = opart present solution

The above is my understanding of the rational behind oparts present abstracted solution, and different representation of both, if we could distinguish each major type of river and wadi, then tailored solutions could ensue.

The only substantial distinction I see is that one can have a major river flowing through a flat valley that will be an obstacle.

However, in this case there wouldn't be a wadi at all, so the issue is moot. See for example the third of 'Golden Delicious' photos on the previous page.' Nothing significant to represent. Indeed, often a river under these circumstances wouldn't qualify. For example, the North Platte as I've seen it in Nebraska wouldn't be a militarily significant obstacle. It's a bit deeper than Ben's 'Wadi #3' and more nicely landscaped -- but about the same thing, militarily. It wouldn't belong on the map either.

More typically, rivers have cut themselves canyons or found canyons to flow down. In this case, they are sort of 'aggravated wadis.' How aggravated depends on the volume of water. Here, the only difference is that what might qualify as a borderline river wouldn't qualify as a borderline wadi.

So to my way of thinking, the 'wadi' is simply a type of river where the actual volume of water isn't sufficient to add significantly to the military value of the obstacle. If there aren't any steep banks, etc, then I wouldn't put in the feature at all, where I might put it in as a 'river' if there was enough water to make a substantial obstacle.

And after all, when one thinks of the almost infinite possible variations in what 'hills' can be, it's a bit irrational to not merely discriminate between 'wadis' and rivers' but to make them have opposite effects. In TOAW, all hills are the same. You either put them in, or you don't.

Militarily, a 'river' is an obstacle that will significantly slow the attacker while he is exposed to fire. That's what a wadi is. So they are the same class of obstacle, and should be treated the same. Indeed, in reality, the two terms do overlap. The Santa Inez 'river' in Southern California is about like 'Wadi #3.' When I drove over it, the 'Rio Puerco' in Arizona (or maybe it was New Mexico) had no water in it at all. However, I still had to use a bridge to cross it. I still wouldn't want to attack across it -- and if I was defending it, I'd do so just as if it had water in it.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 9:42:59 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 603

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 9:40:04 PM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...
Militarily, a 'river' is an obstacle that will significantly slow the attacker while he is exposed to fire. That's what a wadi is. So they are the same class of obstacle, and should be treated the same.

Well, again, yes and no. By that definition alone, then we could conclude that, militarily, Dragon's teeth are the same as rivers and wadis since they serve to 'to slow down and channel tanks' and we could just bulk them under the same category, the truth is that, if we are comparing valley rivers with wadis, then yes, I would agree entirely, however, not all rivers are valley rivers. I propose an exercise then, let's separate, as opart does, the attacker and defender benefits, and abstract the notion of river, to encompass both valley rivers , and non-valley rivers, such as rivers than run in plains areas. Do wadis and rivers still fall under the exact same category as rivers, for both attackers and defenders? Does a defender , defending a crossing in a plains river have the same advantage as a defender in a wadi?

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 604

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 9:46:54 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
...
Militarily, a 'river' is an obstacle that will significantly slow the attacker while he is exposed to fire. That's what a wadi is. So they are the same class of obstacle, and should be treated the same.

Well, again, yes and no. By that definition alone, then we could conclude that, militarily, Dragon's teeth are the same as rivers and wadis since they serve to 'to slow down and channel tanks' and we could just bulk them under the same category...

Aesthetic considerations aside, there's no particular reason not to do that. In point of fact, I did decide that the best way of representing 'polder' was to use 'rocky' terrain. Holland looks damned odd that way though -- so I made a modified crop tile and replaced the original tile with that. Now it's all fine -- just so long as you don't read the hex description.

quote:

...the truth is that, if we are comparing valley rivers with wadis, then yes, I would agree entirely, however, not all rivers are valley rivers. I propose an exercise then, let's separate, as opart does, the attacker and defender benefits, and abstract the notion of river, to encompass both valley rivers , and non-valley rivers, such as rivers than run in plains areas. Do wadis and rivers still fall under the exact same category as rivers, for both attackers and defenders? Does a defender , defending a crossing in a plains river have the same advantage as a defender in a wadi?

If the defender doesn't have the same advantage, the river shouldn't be on the map. A river in a plain that lacks steep banks offers no advantage to the defender unless it is large enough that the attacker will be substantially delayed while exposed to fire.

The problem remains substantially the same. The only distinction is the cutoff on what one will represent. A river that might not be on the map at all otherwise would be on the map if it had steep banks. Or, to put it differently, a river that one might otherwise represent would be omitted if it was flowing across a flat plain without cutting a channel.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 10:20:48 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 605

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 10:12:21 PM

ColinWright

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

Let's take a river I am fairly familiar with: the upper Sacramento. It's one of my favorite trout streams (I've seen things in there that look like tuna.)

Now, the name notwithstanding, the upper Sacramento is a fairly modest stream -- at most points, you could find a place to wade across within a couple of hundred yards. What would make it militarily significant is that it's flowing down a steep mountain canyon, and it IS wide enough so that anyone attempting to cross will be exposed to fire from the slopes. What's more, most of your forest service roads and such end at its banks, and there aren't places you could get a vehicle across every hundred yards. We're going to need to do some construction before the division can get its equipment across. We can probably get away with just driving across at some riffle, but it's going to need to be smoothed out, and access roads are going to need to be cut up either bank.

Now, remove the river entirely, and the base of your canyon is wooded, and the attacker isn't as exposed. What's more, the roads don't end. It's just another mountain hex. Make it a 'wadi' and these effects largely return -- except in OPART. At least for combat, the 'wadi' won't do anything the mountain hex isn't already doing.

If we go further downstream to the mainstem, we've got a much larger river. Thinking about the point I camped at, we're going to need the divisional engineers to make a crossing. On the other hand, what elevations there are are largely screened from the river by trees, so we should be able to beat down any opposing fire and work in peace. Of course, the defender knows perfectly well where we are, and can mortar us to his heart's content.

They are, in short, all obstacles of about the same level of difficulty and presenting the same sort of difficulties. Difficulty in crossing and exposure to fire. The lowland river, the mountain stream, and the hypothetical wadi. There's certainly no logic to lumping the mountain stream and the lowland river together whilst treating the wadi as if it were more like a hill. The distinctions are at least as great (if not greater) between different sorts of rivers as they are between rivers in general and wadis in general.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/20/2010 10:26:33 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 606

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/20/2010 10:39:10 PM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
... The distinctions are at least as great (if not greater) between different sorts of rivers as they are between rivers in general and wadis in general.

Ah. That's where I was coming from. Trouble is, opart does not distinguish between rivers other than major or minor, which does not really tell a lot about a river, but that's a different story. And even if agreeing with you, I think that to cater for all the possible differences , opart makes a reasonable work, putting it onto Avalon Hill odds, a 10:10 attack turns onto a 1:2 in a wadi, or a 1:1.4 (rounded down) in a river, which I feel does allow for the potentially different types of river(unless I'm missing something), still, it is far harder to attack a wadi than it is to attack across a river.

This is where things indeed get fuzy, I can argue that it is correct since the abstract value for rivers must account for the tortuous and the easy rivers to cross, and so, as many things in life, a balance was struck, and the middle path chosen. You can argue that it is incorrect, because an easy river to cross should not be in the map at all, since it's militarily insignificant. This would really be a discussion to no end...

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 607

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/21/2010 12:23:26 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
... The distinctions are at least as great (if not greater) between different sorts of rivers as they are between rivers in general and wadis in general.

Ah. That's where I was coming from. Trouble is, opart does not distinguish between rivers other than major or minor, which does not really tell a lot about a river, but that's a different story. And even if agreeing with you, I think that to cater for all the possible differences , opart makes a reasonable work, putting it onto Avalon Hill odds, a 10:10 attack turns onto a 1:2 in a wadi, or a 1:1.4 (rounded down) in a river, which I feel does allow for the potentially different types of river(unless I'm missing something), still, it is far harder to attack a wadi than it is to attack across a river.

This is where things indeed get fuzy, I can argue that it is correct since the abstract value for rivers must account for the tortuous and the easy rivers to cross, and so, as many things in life, a balance was struck, and the middle path chosen. You can argue that it is incorrect, because an easy river to cross should not be in the map at all, since it's militarily insignificant. This would really be a discussion to no end...

One can hardly include -- or should include -- all bodies of water. I can think of a 'river' within a mile of here. Of course, it's called a creek, and is two feet across when it's been raining heavily, and is only above ground for about two hundred yards anyway -- but it's there.

Anyway, as I said, it's not like the way wadis are treated is necessarily inferior to the way rivers are treated (although as it happens...). It's that it would be more consistent if they were treated the same. As it is, I can be peering at Eastern Anatolia and trying to decide if this particular feature should be treated as a 'wadi' or as a 'river.' It'll completely reverse the significance of that particular hex if I choose one rather than the other -- when in fact it's something like the difference between 'jovial' and 'happy.' Relatively slight shadings on things that are largely the same. After all, the actual feature I'm looking at definitely doesn't change depending on what I call it.

Fortunately,it doesn't actually matter. What I do in my scenarios is substitute the 'canal' tile for wadis. So all my wadis are actually canals. This works fine, since there are few wadis in Holland, and regular rivers are tolerable for what canals there are in Anatolia. I wouldn't mind having a separate canal tile, but it's not like some of the shortcomings in the program.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/21/2010 12:25:12 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 608

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/21/2010 5:24:31 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Hmmm... No wanting to become involved in the bickering, but it's a bit pointless to be debating what a Wadi is. It's not an abstract feature, it's a real world geological feature, well defined. A wadi is indeed not a river, but that is hardly the gist of the discussion, since that is obvious from the start, a wadi is 'A stream valley in an arid region that is dry except during the rainy season.'

Exactly! It is a desert feature. However, it is worth debating just what the "Wadi" tile represents in TOAW. It has to represent a universal feature of real wadis.

quote:

As a stream valley they came in many sizes and shapes, and if some are trench size, I would debate that some , like Wadi Rum, could be thought as being a trench. In fact, if we think how we would defend a wadi and how we would defend a significant river valley crossing, we would still defend at the opposite bank.

But all wadis and rivers are not significant river valleys. Most are not. On those cases where they are, then the "valley" part of that has to be represented in TOAW as a combination of features: the wadi/river plus the hills, escarpments, etc. Those cases would provide the justification for defending behind the wadi, not the wadi itself. The wadi itself has no other beneficial feature besides its depression.

quote:

Examples of defending at the banks like in :

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/wadi.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yfpozlstWuIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=defending+in+a+wadi&source=bl&ots=zy6FbxI-Gq&sig=Z7Gnwayc7SszcaYunx7uqzMNq58&hl=en&ei=aFlXS4bFCtW14Qa_1723Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=defending%20in%20a%20wadi&f=false

All due to other associated features, not the wadi itself, of course.

quote:

Conclusions? Each to his own. Given that we only have one type of wadi, and no hex-border rivers , I think the engine actually is correct WITHIN it's own assumptions and limitations. Just my 2p.

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 609

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/21/2010 5:54:19 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.

Okay -- suppose the Rapahannock had been a wadi. How would Lee have defended it?

He would have deployed on the heights.

He would have deployed entirely on the heights. Do I really need to explain the distinction?

quote:

How did he deploy? He deployed on the heights.

Not entirely. He deployed forces right on the bank that were then used to slaughter Burnside's bridging efforts. Had the Rapahannock been dry, that would have been insane. This is the exact point the entire discussion is about: With water, defending on the banks is a good thing. Without it is not. Your own example refutes your claim. To repeat:

quote:

The technical term is "hoist on your own petard".

quote:

You are willfully ignoring the history of the battle. Lee deployed roughly 1% of his men to interfere with the crossing. They successfully delayed the crossing, fell back as planned, and the next day the actual battle took place. It was a preliminary -- and minor -- skirmish.

And you have the gall to describe me as 'ignorant.'

No. You were the one ignoring the history of the battle. The size of the forces on the river is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters was that it was a good thing to do due to the river and would not have been if it had been dry. It was a colossally ignorant statement. Let's post it one more time for fun:

quote:

Substantially, the Rapahannock could have been a wadi. Lee would have defended it exactly the same way.

I especially like the �exactly� part.

quote:

No -- the hill defense bonus, for example, can quickly be gained by entrenching. The riverine attack penalty is unalterable. It's one of the stronger terrain effects in the game.

Even it wasn't, it does penalize the attacker by 30%. And yet you describe this as 'tiny.' And you then are capable of seriously defending this proposition. Let's put it this way: why don't you donate a 'tiny' proportion of your net assets to Haiti relief? Surely that's not too much to ask.

This is pure semantics. The point is that the river effect is smaller than the hill or escarpment bonus. Therefore, it can't contain those effects - they have to be external features. By the way, 3.4 allows terrain and deployment bonuses to be combined somewhat.

quote:

Obstructing all ideas isn't. That -- for all intents and purposes -- appears to be all you do. That is, unless the ideas are your own. What is depressing is reflecting on the understanding of warfare and the general quality of the thought process lying behind such ideas. I have heard you propound so many transparently foolish and even demonstrably false assertions. It would not surprise me at all to hear you insist that two and two make five. You're perfectly capable of it.

You know, it is perfectly possible to disagree about something in a manner that elucidates the matter at hand and helps to refine the understanding of all parties. See, for example, the discussion 'Golden Delicious' and I had about ant units that I linked to yesterday or the day before.

But this never happens with you. You just dogmatically make some utterly asinine assertion and stick to it come hell or high water. It's like trying to reason with a mule.

And the worst of it is, this particular mule appears to lack all understanding of military reality and is gifted with a position of influence in the development of TOAW.

Right. Nothing you post should ever be subject to critical scrutiny. Anyone who questions the historical basis, lack of evidence, or ludicrous consequences of what you want to do is "obstructing all ideas".

Actually, based upon your track record of baseless claims and crackbrained solutions to them, why should anyone ever listen to anything you say?

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 610

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/21/2010 6:02:46 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Think of a desert. It's flat, featureless, open. Mirages are shimmering in the distance. Units are exposed - except those sheltering in the wadi.

Since you've obviously not been to Google Images like I told you, let's educate a little.

You somehow manged to find lots of examples running through mountainous terrain and not one like the case I described above. That's called "cherry-picking the results".

In the cases you described, TOAW would model them with hills, escarpments, or mountains. The wadi's bonus would be canceled by those features.

The case I described is more typical, and isolates the wadi's effects sans other features.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 611

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/21/2010 11:56:55 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You somehow manged to find lots of examples running through mountainous terrain and not one like the case I described above. That's called "cherry-picking the results".

Go do the search yourself. My four examples were taken from the first eleven hits. Let's review all eleven to make sure.

1. Example 1, Wadi Rumm
2. An advert for a water park. Go figure.
3. A picture of one of the pinnacles in Wadi Rumm
4. A rather interesting picture of houses carved out of a pinnacle
5. Example 2
6. I didn't use this because one can only see one bank. For completeness I've included it below
7. This is similar to number 5, again included below.
8. Excluded because the picture is huge. Link below.
9. Not sure what this is. Some rocks that had been eroded by water?
10. Example 3
11. Example 4.

So which of the top 11 is your "trench" wadi which will be defended from the bottom rather than the far bank? I think what you may find is that wadis don't occur in sandy deserts, where any moisture just sinks into the sand. They occur in rocky deserts where it runs along the surface and cuts a channel.

Number 6:

Number 7:

Number 8:
http://www.darlingtonfamily.co.uk/images/Wadi%20Bani%20Khalid%202.JPG

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 1/21/2010 11:58:41 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 612

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 12:45:31 AM

Panama

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

Couple of days ago I did the same thing you did. Came up with everything from a wadi as shallow as a dinner plate to some very deep valley types. Seems if water runs through it at some time or another it's a wadi no matter what it's shape. Now I'm wondering if the Grand Canyon is just a very big wadi.

j/k

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 613

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 1:24:40 AM

Silvanski

Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Go do the search yourself.

Hmm must be something wrong with my search engine
Meet sexy single wadis in your area

Nah seriously, I always understood a wadi to be a dry river bed... Seems the jury's still out on this one

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 614

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 5:05:35 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Go do the search yourself. My four examples were taken from the first eleven hits. Let's review all eleven to make sure.

No doubt those pictures were selected - by Google - to be scenic, not a scientific sampling of all wadis.

The issue remains what the TOAW wadi tile represents. It can't be a canyon or mountains or escarpments. It doesn't have those properties. It obviously models a universal characteristic of wadis - the fundamental feature all wadis have. And that is merely a dry riverbed.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 615

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 7:38:54 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No doubt those pictures were selected - by Google - to be scenic, not a scientific sampling of all wadis.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 616

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 8:55:49 PM

ColinWright

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

Here's a more typical wadi:

Curtis will discover his units can build their own 'wadis' wherever they wish, while the rest of us can use the tile to represent riverbeds that are normally dry or have an insignificant flow of water.

You know about this feature, Curtis? That units can actually build their own wadis wherever they go?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/22/2010 8:59:13 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 617

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/22/2010 11:44:45 PM

Panama

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

"Wadi (Arabic: وادي‎ wādī; also: Vadi) is the Arabic term traditionally referring to a valley. In some cases, it may refer to a dry riverbed that contains water only during times of heavy rain or simply an intermittent stream."

I think most of us understand that the guy who made the game had a single, individual, narrowly defined terrain type in mind when he used the term 'wadi'. He envisioned the narrow shallow type. However, since there are many kinds perhaps at least two terrain types should be used the same as rivers or escarpments have two types. Or just leave it as it is and people can use the words 'trench' and 'wadi' interchangeably.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 618

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:07:17 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

"Wadi (Arabic: وادي‎ wādī; also: Vadi) is the Arabic term traditionally referring to a valley. In some cases, it may refer to a dry riverbed that contains water only during times of heavy rain or simply an intermittent stream."

I think most of us understand that the guy who made the game had a single, individual, narrowly defined terrain type in mind when he used the term 'wadi'. He envisioned the narrow shallow type. However, since there are many kinds perhaps at least two terrain types should be used the same as rivers or escarpments have two types. Or just leave it as it is and people can use the words 'trench' and 'wadi' interchangeably.

I'd say a 'narrow shallow' wadi shouldn't be on the map at all. If one includes terrain of that order of magnitude, 90% of all maps would have wadis in every hex. If they didn't have 'wadi,' they'd have woods, or hills, or swamp... Every map would become a kind of jungle of all types of terrain, and ordinary, open ground would be rare.

As a random thought experiment, I can think of at least two 'wadis' that are ten feet deep and indubitably narrow within 5 kilometers of here. And I haven't looked. And really, these are just odd bits that haven't been paved over. Prior to urbanization, this area must have had about ten 'wadis' in every hex.

As another random thought experiment, and not that I'm laying this down as some kind of rule, let me think about what I normally want to make something a 'wadi' (although I use canal, for reasons already outlined) in the 10 km/hex scenario I'm working on.

Oh...it's gotta be about thirty feet deep, and with steep sides, and it'll need to be more than that unless it's the dominant terrain feature.

Anything less, and three hexes out of four would have to have 'wadi' in them.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 619

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:19:59 AM

ColinWright

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

This brings up a related thought.

I'd take 5 km/hex as about the minimum scale we want to ensure we accommodate -- the extremes pretty much just have to take the distortion as it comes.

In almost all areas measuring 5 km square, there is some terrain feature of defensive value. If not a minor creekbed, then some copses of trees, and if not that, then some gently rolling hills. Indeed, usually there are several such features.

I see this sort of thing as just implicit in 'open' terrain. 90% of the dry land on the earth is at least this endowed with defensive features. Even a supposedly 'flat and open' state like Nebraska would have terrain of this type over 90% of it. West Texas has a lot of areas carpeted with ten-foot high brush. Etc. The raw combat values in TOAW implicitly assume it.

However, a few areas really are open. The steppe east of the Don. Perhaps some of the Western Desert in Egypt. Maybe there's some really colossal beet field in Northern France, spreading over 10,000 acres, uninterrupted by anything...

In these areas, unentrenched infantry is truly exposed -- and combat is affected accordingly. If you march your average infantry battalion out into such terrain and run head on into a tank company the 'battle' is going to be short and unpleasant. This sort of consideration dominated tactics and combat outcomes in North Africa, for example. Hence the epic maulings of whole infantry divisions and the wired-in 'brigade boxes.'

In worrying about what is a 'wadi,' we've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. What we need is a 'Steppe' or 'plain' terrain type. Unentrenched, non-armored weapons types should have their defensive value severely penalized.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/23/2010 12:31:34 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 620

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:49:11 AM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I see this sort of thing as just implicit in 'open' terrain. 90% of the dry land on the earth is at least this endowed with defensive features. Even a supposedly 'flat and open' state like Nebraska would have terrain of this type over 90% of it.

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska. Within the borders of Nebraska lies the Sand Hills. 20,000 square kilometers of sand dunes, some hundreds of feet high. And don't forget the Pine Ridge in the Northwest. Looks like the Black Hills what with the rock faces and Ponderosa Pine. Very little of the state is as flat as the Platte River valley I can always tell if someone has never been here or simply zoomed through on I-80. It's the ones who talk about how boring and flat it is.

But yes, I know what you mean about how there is very little terrain with absolutely no cover. However, I think that's more of a tactical matter isn't it? For operational purposes a 'flat' state like Nebraska or Iowa could be considered to be either 'open' or hilly and for the most part with no woods. There are lots and lots of creeks in both states with deep, steep sides. Wonder how that would be modeled. Certainly not crossable without engineering or bridges.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 621

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:59:39 AM

Panama

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

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 622

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 3:17:22 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I see this sort of thing as just implicit in 'open' terrain. 90% of the dry land on the earth is at least this endowed with defensive features. Even a supposedly 'flat and open' state like Nebraska would have terrain of this type over 90% of it.

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska. Within the borders of Nebraska lies the Sand Hills. 20,000 square kilometers of sand dunes, some hundreds of feet high. And don't forget the Pine Ridge in the Northwest. Looks like the Black Hills what with the rock faces and Ponderosa Pine. Very little of the state is as flat as the Platte River valley I can always tell if someone has never been here or simply zoomed through on I-80. It's the ones who talk about how boring and flat it is.

But yes, I know what you mean about how there is very little terrain with absolutely no cover. However, I think that's more of a tactical matter isn't it? For operational purposes a 'flat' state like Nebraska or Iowa could be considered to be either 'open' or hilly and for the most part with no woods. There are lots and lots of creeks in both states with deep, steep sides. Wonder how that would be modeled. Certainly not crossable without engineering or bridges.

Funnily, most of my views of Nebraska have been from I-80. Even that's got terrain, though. Genuinely open, flat country is very rare. That's my point.

Nebraska is indeed relatively open. However, such 'open' terrain is more or less built into the system -- that is the lesser wadis, and scattered patches of trees, and rise in the ground commanded by a farmhouse and associated outbuildings. These are 'represented' simply by ordinary open terrain. Almost invariably, there's something to hang a defensive position off of -- some kind of cover, and some points offering good fields of fire.

What I'm pointing out is that rather than getting one's knickers in a twist about what to do about the lesser wadis and bunches of trees and those marshy twenty acres along the creek, think about what happens when none of those things are there.

Bad things happen, if you're unentrenched infantry. Hence the need for a separate 'very open' terrain type, that can represent such areas, which do occur here and there.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 623

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 5:45:39 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.
...When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count....

Is it really? I hadn't noticed that. I just assumed that the unit count was decreased by one when a unit was withdrawn. Have you seen an instance of this happening?

EDIT: And yes, we're hijacking your stupid thread.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 624

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 7:38:48 AM

ColinWright

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

quote:

EDIT: And yes, we're hijacking your stupid thread.

I suspect recovery can be left to the trusted hands of Curtis.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 625

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:41:25 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 1/23/2010 12:43:22 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 626

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 12:42:53 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yes, that flat state of Nebraska.

Nebraska: first state where it was unbearably hot and humid all day long.

I was on I-80 too (with Colin) but not in a position to appreciate the scenery.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 627

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 4:13:08 PM

Panama

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

Had you in the trunk did he?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 628

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 6:37:08 PM

Panama

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

I've made some assumptions about the unit still being available. I'm assuming the program is using sort of an internal database pulled from the scenario. That the database is of a program defined size not to be exceeded by what that defined size is (x number of units/formations). So if the unit is part of the scenario then the scenario, saved or new, will always have a particular unit as part of the scenario's database whether that unit is withdrawn or not and therefore, when the program pulls the database from the scenario or saved game it will have access to all of the units in their present state.

I imagine if a unit is withdrawn it is given a flag indicating this unit is no longer available to the scenario. It is 'withdrawn' from the scenario. But it's still there, just flagged.

All of this brings up another thing rattling around in my head. Why not make the unit/formation database dynamic instead of defined? Let the scenario determine the size, not the program. Same for the map since it's simply another database.

But then I could be wrong about all of this since I really don't know much about the program or how it works. Just making some guesses.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 629

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/23/2010 8:21:45 PM

ColinWright

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Here's something I've wondered. I think I posted it somepl;ace else too.

When a unit is withdrawn it's still part of the unit count. Why can't the unit be used again? There are alot of instances where a unit has moved to another location, out of the scenario, and returns later. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use the same unit again? Especially with a large scenario like Fire in the East where all of the unit slots need to be used and there still aren't enough.

I think the technical problems of "re-using" a unit slot would be far more serious than those entailed in just increasing the maximum number of units, which would achieve the desired goal and more besides. After all, that was just an arbitrary figure picked by Norm twelve years ago.

..but first let's increase the number of place names. Any 300x300 map is going to run out of place names. Hell, a lot of smaller ones do.

I feel kind of the opposite. I suppose it would be easy enough to do, so I don't really object -- but I can get along perfectly well without more place names.

On the other hand, a larger map or any of the various other possible improvements would materially improve the game.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 630

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist