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  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/28/2011 5:16:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would, however, pick a development choice that would further restrict designers...


What?? Now, today, if you want to use bridge blowing to represent road destruction you must put a river in the hex. This would not change that at all.


You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.

...and you'd do it as a result of some fatally flawed thinking. See above.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1441
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 1:37:17 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1. Bridges can only be repaired by engineers. Not so for roads.


Now (and for example, I simply to don't have the time to deal with each successive claim you make) this statement is simply and completely untrue.


It is completely true.

quote:

You're trying to create a distinction between bridges blown over militarily significant rivers and other forms of obstruction that simply isn't there. If I use a few sticks of dynamite to bring down a landslide on your road winding down an escarpment, you've got an engineering problem fully as formidable as if I've blasted the bridge over the Eel River at Three Forks.


No. It is not even an engineering problem at all, anymore that repairing a rail line is an engineering problem (how does the game handle that? Not with engineers). It could even be solved by manual labor. But any heavy equipment or explosives would be better. Building a bridge is real engineering. Repairing a road is not.

And, back to mines for a sec: They don't actually render the road impassable. Rather, they cause casualties (that's usually how you find out the road is mined). You can still use the road if you are willing to accept the losses.

And, regardless, the effort to build a bridge and the effort to clear a road of obstructions/mines are unrelated. They need separate treatment.

quote:

What's more, I just thought of something. You don't even know where there's a 'bridge.' What if we've got a north-south flowing river? The road comes in from the non-river hex to the southwest, runs north along the river for three hexes, and exits to the northeast.

Where's the bridge? Did the road come in, run along the west bank of the river for the first two hexes, and cross over in the third hex it shared with the river? Maybe it comes in, immediately crosses to the east bank on account of cliffs on the west bank, runs north for a bit, then crosses back over on account of cliffs on the east bank, and finally crosses back to the east bank again to make its exit.

Where's the bridge? In the first hex? The second? All three? You don't know. The 'matrix' is meaningless. The only case you can know with any certainty where the 'bridge' is or isn't is when the road shares the hex with the river for exactly one hex -- and the program already lets you blow it in that case.


The bridge is wherever the road crosses the river. And the TOAW map designer is fully able to make it do so for any of the options you listed.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1442
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 1:40:28 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.


Only if the designer was an idiot. Non-idiot designers would, of course, use a river pattern that would be blowable.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1443
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 1:47:09 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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?


I want to clarify this answer. It would only be appropriate if blowing those major bridges would make the road impassable. If all it would do is keep you from doing 75mph then they wouldn't be modeled. Military columns don't do 75mph. So, if they have to shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through a ditch, that won't be a significant delay.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1444
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 1:52:29 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
And, just to recap: Even if it were true that bridge blowing/repair was identical to road damage/clearing (which it obviously isn't), there are still these two facts:

1. The matrix fix is trivial to program. All other options are non-trivial.
2. The benefits of the matrix fix would be enjoyed by all scenarios. All other options would only affect a small fraction of scenarios.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1445
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:51:03 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
God help us.  He might even promote this 'matrix.' 

He actually thinks it has some connection with reality -- that he can tell from the TOAW map where the bridge is.




_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1446
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:51:30 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, just to recap: Even if it were true that bridge blowing/repair was identical to road damage/clearing (which it obviously isn't), there are still these two facts:

1. The matrix fix is trivial to program. All other options are non-trivial.
2. The benefits of the matrix fix would be enjoyed by all scenarios. All other options would only affect a small fraction of scenarios.


It may well be trivial to program. However (as carefully explained) it offers no benefits whatsoever. It merely (and entirely arbitrarily) labels some road/river hexes 'bridges' and others not.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/29/2011 5:41:44 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1447
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:56:36 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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?


I want to clarify this answer. It would only be appropriate if blowing those major bridges would make the road impassable. If all it would do is keep you from doing 75mph then they wouldn't be modeled. Military columns don't do 75mph. So, if they have to shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through a ditch, that won't be a significant delay.


Thomas Creek, in Oregon, is short. It also, as the name implies, doesn't carry much water. I doubt if one would want to put it on the map -- not unless one wants to make every hex up and down the Oregon coast riverine.

So blowing the bridge over the creek, of course, wouldn't make the road impassable. Fortunately, since in TOAW, except at the smallest scales, one would hardly want to make the entire hex a river.

But that's okay, because, since there's no river to represent, there's no bridge.

Gentlemen, I give you the highest highway bridge in America.



Go ahead. Shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through that ditch.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/29/2011 5:11:20 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1448
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 5:14:55 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You would make it so that even if there was a river in the hex, the bridge wouldn't necessarily be destructible. That is a further restriction. No doubt.


Only if the designer was an idiot. Non-idiot designers would, of course, use a river pattern that would be blowable.


Of course, there are those poor idiots who already wrote their scenarios without realizing you were going to create this 'matrix' in the future.

This matrix, that through some mysterious power I'd love to hear you explain, can determine where along a stretch of road running along a river the bridge(s) lie.

Maybe it works something like a dowsing rod. That it, Curtis?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/29/2011 5:15:37 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1449
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 5:27:00 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1. Bridges can only be repaired by engineers. Not so for roads.


Now (and for example, I simply to don't have the time to deal with each successive claim you make) this statement is simply and completely untrue.


It is completely true.

quote:

You're trying to create a distinction between bridges blown over militarily significant rivers and other forms of obstruction that simply isn't there. If I use a few sticks of dynamite to bring down a landslide on your road winding down an escarpment, you've got an engineering problem fully as formidable as if I've blasted the bridge over the Eel River at Three Forks.


No. It is not even an engineering problem at all, anymore that repairing a rail line is an engineering problem (how does the game handle that? Not with engineers). It could even be solved by manual labor. But any heavy equipment or explosives would be better. Building a bridge is real engineering. Repairing a road is not.


You do realize you're simply ignoring reality, don't you?

Actually, that's a tad unfair. However, you are distorting reality so that you can 'win' the argument. Since you've adopted an otherwise indefensible position, a whole lot of distortion's going to be needed.

Read any detailed campaign history. It is indeed the engineers who clear obstructions -- of any kind. Bridges that have been blown over rivers that are otherwise significant military obstacles. Bridges over rivers that aren't. Bridges that cross after the road has already been running along the bank for twenty kilometers. Mined roads. Roads that have had the cliff side under them blown out. Roads that have been artificially flooded.

Whatever. Whatever you may claim.

If a road winds its way down a cliff side, and I blow a chunk out of it, you're going to need an engineer. No foolin'.

But these points have already been made. You simply trample them underfoot so that you can 'win' the argument.

...and 'win' on behalf of this 'matrix' -- which you refuse to recognize does nothing more than just arbitrarily name some hexes 'bridges' and others not.

You might as well ordain that only roads on rivers in even-numbered hexes can be blown. That would be just as reasonable -- and a hell of a lot easier on the designer.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/29/2011 5:56:15 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1450
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 5:59:11 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
No 'bridge' -- but if I blow a piece out of this, you're going to need the engineers.





_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1451
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 1:48:16 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


What's more, I just thought of something. You don't even know where there's a 'bridge.' What if we've got a north-south flowing river? The road comes in from the non-river hex to the southwest, runs north along the river for three hexes, and exits to the northeast.

Where's the bridge? Did the road come in, run along the west bank of the river for the first two hexes, and cross over in the third hex it shared with the river? Maybe it comes in, immediately crosses to the east bank on account of cliffs on the west bank, runs north for a bit, then crosses back over on account of cliffs on the east bank, and finally crosses back to the east bank again to make its exit.

Where's the bridge? In the first hex? The second? All three? You don't know. The 'matrix' is meaningless. The only case you can know with any certainty where the 'bridge' is or isn't is when the road shares the hex with the river for exactly one hex -- and the program already lets you blow it in that case.

Take I-70 running down the Colorado. All kinds of opportunities for demolition that have nothing to do with crossing the river, but never mind that. The river comes in from the north, so at some point, you are on the south bank. Then you're running down the north bank, so you must have crossed at least once. Then a while later you're on the south bank again. Finally, you come turn away from the river at Grand Junction -- but you've been on the north bank for some time again by that point. Certainly no crossing -- on the interstate -- at Grand Junction itself.

Where are the crossings? There are at least three of them -- but where? A TOAW map wouldn't tell you -- and your 'matrix' won't detect them either. It would put at least one where it's not -- at Grand Junction -- and miss at least two of the others.


I find this the most convincing argument against Bob's proposed Matrix.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1452
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 2:58:14 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.

As far as blowing up roads, military traffic on a road will do as much damage as blowing up the road except in very rough terrain. Armies have road units to fix stuff up.

BTW. That highway on the cliff. You wouldn't want to blow the stuff up above it. Could just scrape it off. Blow up the stuff below it. Take forever to fix that.

< Message edited by Panama -- 3/29/2011 3:00:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1453
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:20:45 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It may well be trivial to program. However (as carefully explained) it offers no benefits whatsoever. It merely (and entirely arbitrarily) labels some road/river hexes 'bridges' and others not.


No, it is not arbitrary at all. It puts the bridge right where the map designer made the road cross the river. It simply assumes that his choice for that was intentional. And, that's exactly what any rational map designer would do. You want the map to look correct. If the road doesn't cross the river where it should then it will look wrong to players. So, map designers want to make their maps look right, and that means that they will be (and will have been) compelled to make the road cross the river at the right places.

Your artificially-fabricated complaints are sure to be very rare if any exist at all.

I'll repeat here what I said in post 1436:

Any feature can be made optional. But, it comes with an expense in coding time, making the code unmanageble, and making players confused with all the rules options. So, cost/benefit desisions have to be made. Common sense should tell us that very few if any scenarios want roads running parallel to rivers to be blown. So, while the matrix idea could be made optional, I would advise against it. If some designer comes squawking afterwards about it, perhaps it could be made optional later.

Clearly, we can't make every feature of TOAW optional. And, just as clearly, we can't let minute risks of affecting previous scenarios shortcircuit every improvement. Now, if there were a known suite of scenarios that would be adversely affected, that's another thing. But this isn't one of those situations.


If the matrix were an optional rule, then all your complaints would be wiped out. And it would still help virtually every scenario ever designed, if not all of them. In all probability, if it is implemented it will be as an optional rule. That will make it a little more of a coding task, but not much.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1454
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:23:09 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Thomas Creek, in Oregon, is short. It also, as the name implies, doesn't carry much water. I doubt if one would want to put it on the map -- not unless one wants to make every hex up and down the Oregon coast riverine.

So blowing the bridge over the creek, of course, wouldn't make the road impassable. Fortunately, since in TOAW, except at the smallest scales, one would hardly want to make the entire hex a river.

But that's okay, because, since there's no river to represent, there's no bridge.

Gentlemen, I give you the highest highway bridge in America.



Go ahead. Shift to the grass for a bit and wallow through that ditch.


I don't see the issue here. What's wrong with putting a minor river in the hex? Add a couple of major escarpments on both sides and you're set.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1455
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:41:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Read any detailed campaign history. It is indeed the engineers who clear obstructions -- of any kind.


Obstructions like trees or rocks can be cleared by any warm bodies. That's just a fact. Furthermore, they are only obstructions to vehicles. Foot units wouldn't be impeded.

quote:

Bridges that have been blown over rivers that are otherwise significant military obstacles.


Of course. TOAW handles that now. Although it would be nice if there were some consideration of the differences between major and minor river bridges. But we can't further refine bridges if we amalgamate them with roads.

quote:

Bridges over rivers that aren't.


Then why depict it?

quote:

Bridges that cross after the road has already been running along the bank for twenty kilometers.


So what? It's a bridge.

quote:

Mined roads.


Engineers may be better at it, but other, non-engineer units can and do remove mines. And the differences between mines and blown bridges are huge.

quote:

Roads that have had the cliff side under them blown out. Roads that have been artificially flooded.

If a road winds its way down a cliff side, and I blow a chunk out of it, you're going to need an engineer. No foolin'.


Good candidates for putting a river in their hexes. What would be the issue with that solution?


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1456
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 4:46:44 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.


Just what the matrix would fix.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1457
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 6:17:57 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
This argument is fascinating, mostly because of it's length. Cannot scenario designers decide what can get blown or not by choosing to place bridges or not? Is that what the argument is about? Not enough detail on something as already detailed as this is? But the focus expended is really incredible! I'm laughing until I cry.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1458
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 6:22:32 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: macgregor

This argument is fascinating, mostly because of it's length. Cannot scenario designers decide what can get blown or not by choosing to place bridges or not? Is that what the argument is about? Not enough detail on something as already detailed as this is? But the focus expended is really incredible! I'm laughing until I cry.


Yeah. I think I'll declare victory and leave.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 1459
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/29/2011 9:24:50 PM   
Panama


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Going from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Joseph, Missouri on I-29 you parallel the Missouri River for 228 miles. All on the east bank. The highway never crosses the river. If this were portrayed on a TOAW map every hex along the entire 228 miles could be blown up. Why? There are some small bridges over creeks and small rivers but all 50 yards or less. Not an engineering problem. All can be bridged in an hour easily. This is one of the problems with the way TOAW portrays rivers and bridge blowing.


Just what the matrix would fix.


I don't know about the matrix. I saw the movie.

Why not just code the game so if a road or rail did not have a bridge it can't be blown up? Or if you want road destruction have a road block feature much as a blown bridge. Both can be repaired by engineers.

I really can't imagine regular units blowing up roads. Engineers yes, line units, no. But supply trucks and tracked vehicles do a wonderful job of destroying roads.

Not really sure if you guys discussed these. Too much reading for my blood.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1460
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/30/2011 3:57:54 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

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.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1461
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/30/2011 4:09:00 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about the matrix.


See my post #1394.

quote:

Why not just code the game so if a road or rail did not have a bridge it can't be blown up?


Exactly what the Matrix would do.

quote:

But supply trucks and tracked vehicles do a wonderful job of destroying roads.


I said as much in post #1418.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1462
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/30/2011 4:33:32 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I've not been following this conversation too closely, but if the issue is negating road movement in difficult terrain like mountains and forrests I could see perhaps engineers being able to destroy roads. Perhaps they should be allowed to place/clear mines as well. There was one scenario that used the radio-active symbol to represent this. Maybe change the symbol and allow engineers to place/remove it?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1463
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/30/2011 6:25:40 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about the matrix.


See my post #1394.

quote:

Why not just code the game so if a road or rail did not have a bridge it can't be blown up?


Exactly what the Matrix would do.

quote:

But supply trucks and tracked vehicles do a wonderful job of destroying roads.


I said as much in post #1418.


Why screw with a matrix? Just code the game and be done with it! (brilliant ) Then old scenarios would be covered too. Everything would be in sync and realistic. If a road has no bridge but is next to a river it can't be blown up in old scenarios or new scenarios. I keep seeing objections to things that would mess up old scenarios. Here's something that wouldn't. Might even make them work better.

Note: See what happens when your inbox fills up with sub notifications and you don't bother to see what it's about until the zillionth one.

< Message edited by Panama -- 3/30/2011 6:26:40 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1464
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/30/2011 7:10:33 PM   
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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1465
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/1/2011 3:20:56 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Why screw with a matrix? Just code the game and be done with it! (brilliant )


Because you have to have a matrix to do that. The program has no way to know whether or not the road crosses the river for a given road/river combo without it. The matrix will contain that information.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1466
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/1/2011 3:30:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll leave aside your attempt to resuscitate 'the Matrix' and deal with the 'devastating argument.'


Considering that it's absolutely perfect, it hardly needs resuscitation.

quote:

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.


Pure desperation.

quote:

Finally, bridge attacks could only be mounted against destructible roads/rails that were on rivers. Like now.


Here's a much better idea: Keep bridge blowing/repair separate from all other forms of road damage/obstruction/mining etc. So many differences have been identified that attaching them together makes a much sense as trying to amalgamate guerrillas and submarines. (Hey! They're both hidden units).

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1467
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/1/2011 6:10:51 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


So many differences have been identified that attaching them together makes a much sense as trying to amalgamate guerrillas and submarines.


What differences have you identified?

You have -- quite without foundation -- asserted that obstacles are not cleared by engineers. That was it.

You've also -- incidentally -- completely failed to answer the point that there's no reason to think the hexes 'the matrix' will select in fact contain bridges.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1468
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 5:00:18 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
I still don't understand why you need to do anything other than what the game already does. There is a routine in place that can tell whether or not a road crosses a river. How do you think the game knows whether or not an air unit is bombing a bridge? Use the same routine to see if the road crosses the river for bridge demolition. Why invent the wheel when it's alread bolted to your car?

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1469
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/2/2011 5:43:57 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

There is a routine in place that can tell whether or not a road crosses a river.


No it doesn't. If there was this discussion wouldn't be taking place. In this shot, planes can target that hex plus the ones above and below it, and any other similar hexes on the map. But there are no bridges there. There are bridges at Duren and Julich, but none in between, yet we can blow the road or the rail.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1470
Page:   <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
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  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.000