ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright Yeah. I think I'll declare victory and leave. I would too, but I thought of another devastating argument against amalgamating bridge destruction/repair with road obstruction/clearing: Bridge Attacks! Currently, if you've got enough bombers you can blow bridges practically at will. Well, if roads are treated like bridges, then those bombers can do the same to roads as well. Roads will be obliterated from the sky all over the place. And that, of course, is absurd. The amount of bombs necessary to obliterate a 10km section of road is astronomical. hundreds if not thousands of times what it takes to bring down a bridge. This (along with all the other differences pointed out) has to put a stake in the heart of this bad idea. Clearly, these two different things need to be treated separately. Of course, that means that people wanting official road obstruction ability are going to have to wait - just like those waiting for hundreds of other features. They will still have the bridge kluge to use, but clearly that should not be officially amalgamated. So, now that we know that bridges are going to remain bridges and not be expected to pretend to be anything else, the Matrix idea is perfect: First, it fixes existing scenarios in the most rational way (the only alternative is to keep them like they are, with every road-river combo blowable). Second, if designers do edit any of those scenarios, or create new ones, they will be fully empowered to make any river-road hex blowable as they desire, simply by complying with the Matrix rule (road crosses river = blowable). And that is best for players, since it will clearly show them which hexes can be blown. Finally, even if made optional, the Matrix is the simplest programming option. I'll leave aside your attempt to resuscitate 'the Matrix' and deal with the 'devastating argument.' It is a point -- but hardly a devastating one. First, airpower has always made it hard to use roads as well as rails. The concept of a non-river road being 'blown' isn't exactly ideal but pending interdiction being reformed, it wouldn't be the worst outcome in the world. After all, (as pointed out) there are all kinds of vulnerable points on roads even when they aren't crossing a river that is a meaningful defensive obstacle. Bombers go after any old thing on a road -- culverts, tunnels, bridges over otherwise meaningless creeks...in some parts of the world, it would be a rare road that could run for a whole TOAW hex without having at least one point that could be thoroughly wrecked with a thoughtfully placed bomb. Then too, designers who didn't care to see this happen could refrain from making roads/rails that weren't on rivers 'destructible.' Finally, bridge attacks could only be mounted against destructible roads/rails that were on rivers. Like now. And? Is this the best you can do? It's actually telling that the final thought I mentioned there is the fairly obvious, constructive refinement of the concept. But either you didn't mention it, or it genuinely didn't occur to you.
< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/30/2011 7:14:08 PM >
_____________________________
I am not Charlie Hebdo
|