Curtis Lemay
Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004 From: Houston, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Again, if you want to adapt it for something else, you just have to put a bridge in that hex. * Either (a) there will then have to be a river in the hex, Correct. quote:
Indeed. However, it wouldn't be represented on the TOAW map -- not unless you chose to have the road go 5 km or-whatever-the-scale-is away from the river and then come back again. Which is exactly what you would do. quote:
In many areas, one would then have a 'river' in every hex. The fact of the matter is that there are many, many natural features that may not be militarily important enough to make it advisable to represent them as something that affects combat over the whole hex -- but that would certainly make it easy to thoroughly wreck the road. They are either bridges (as TOAW defines them) or they aren't. If they are, and can be blown/repaired in TOAW terms, then, obviously, a river is appropriate. If you're talking about culverts, that's a different animal, and requires a different treatment. quote:
quote:
quote:
What about the effects of thorough mining? What indeed about felled trees? Different from bridges. That would require a different feature. But you are free to use bridges if you want. See * above. Either (a) you are demanding that a river be put in the hex, or (b) you are conceding the principle while clinging to the name. The latter, you are welcome to do. I'm not demanding that a river be put in the hex unless you want to use bridge blowing to sort of model those effects. I don't recommend doing so, though, because bridge blowing is so different from either of those. They need to be handled via their own feature, separate from bridge blowing. quote:
Here you simply repeat a point that has already been addressed. Addressed wrongly. Certainly engineers could do the tasks, but clearly they are not the only ones that could. That is in contrast to bridge repair. That can only be done by engineers. quote:
Ah. A real point. Hallelujah. Okay, obviously 'ferry' units should only work where the 'destructible' road coincides with an actual river. Come to think of it, they work on river hexes anyway -- whether or not there's a road there. Maybe this isn't a real point after all. Certainly movement is often still slowed -- even if there's a pontoon being towed back and forth across the river. Maybe what change there would be would be for the better. This is exactly why we don't want to amalgamate bridge destruction and repair with road destruction and repair. They are fundamentally different. They need to be handled separately. Once you start making changes like the above, you've made the first step to separating them. That would have to be done, as well as other steps to completely separate them. Let's just list the differences to be clear: 1. Bridges can only be repaired by engineers. Not so for roads. 2. Destroyed bridges can be spanned by ferry units. Not so for mines or trees or rockfalls, etc. 3. Bridge repair is a percentage chance based upon the assumption that it will be used for bridge repair. It certainly would be different for road repair - and probably different for each type of road damage. 3. Bridges can be destroyed by any unit. You have to be equipped with mines to lay them. Not all units would be. 4. Mines aren't limited to roads. Clearly, minefields need their own tile type. It gets worse: suppose we wanted to refine bridge building/blowing like I suggested earlier. It would be harder to blow a bridge over a major river, and harder to repair it once blown. But, if you're just obstructing the road that runs along the river, why should it be harder to obstruct just because it is next to a major river instead of a minor one? So, incorporating road destruction into bridge destruction shortcircuits any further refinement to bridges. quote:
Ah. But such points cannot always be represented. Of course they can. You can put a bridge anywhere you want. quote:
Go ahead and count major bridges down Highway One from Newport, Oregon to San Francisco, California. You'll have to have a 'river' in each hex. Then it sounds appropriate. What's the issue? quote:
Indeed. And for reasons that have been made very clear, it would be a good thing if we changed that. It's very clear it would be a bad idea. But, if you desire bridge blowing in any hex, you can just put a bridge in that hex.
< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 3/27/2011 11:43:34 PM >
|